Mediation: A Desirable Case Management Tool for the Courts?

  • Rob JagtenbergEmail author
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 31)


Building on empirical data from various countries relating to court-referred mediation, and based on Dutch comparative research, this chapter invites a wider perspective for reflecting critically on what procedural law experts know – and do not know – about the popular ‘demand’ for public and private justice. Across jurisdictions, authorities appear increasingly inclined to prescribe mediation mandatorily, but all the more striking is the lack of any evidence-based framework for fundamentally assessing different conflict resolution strategies. Ingredients and pitfalls to reckon with in such a framework are discussed, including implications for judicial policy-making.


Legal Capital Legal Dispute Unequal Power Relation Repeat Player Conflict Strategy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Blank J, Van der Ende M, Van Hulst B, Jagtenberg R (2004) Bench marking in an international perspective – an international comparison of the mechanisms and performance of the judiciary system. ECORYS Research, Rotterdam, No. 3Google Scholar
  2. De Roo AJ, Jagtenberg RW (1994) Settling labour disputes in Europe. Kluwer Law & Taxation, Deventer/BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. De Roo AJ, Jagtenberg RW (2005) ADR in the European Union: provisional assessment of comparative research in progress. In: Cadiet L, Clay T, Jeuland E (eds) Médiation et arbitrage – alternative à la justice ou justice alternative? Litec, Paris, pp 179–189Google Scholar
  4. De Roo AJ, Jagtenberg RW (2011) Professional(s as) mediators: emerging markets and the quality of legal protection. In: Uzelac A, Van Rhee CH (eds) The landscape of the legal professions in Europe and the USA: continuity and change. Intersentia, Cambridge/Antwerp, pp 235–254Google Scholar
  5. Eisenhardt K (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad Manag Rev 14:57–74Google Scholar
  6. Fiss OM (1984) Against settlement. Yale Law J 93:1073–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Galanter M (2004) The vanishing trial: an examination of trials and related matters in federal and state courts. J Empir Leg Stud 1(3):459–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Genn H (1999) Paths to justice – what people do and think about going to law. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Hodges C, Benohr I, Creutzfeldt-Banda N (2012) Consumer ADR in Europe. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Jagtenberg RW, De Roo AJ (2009) Arbeid en Integrated Conflict Management Systems: Opbrengsten, Weerstanden en Intenties. TMD 13(3):43–66Google Scholar
  11. Jagtenberg RW, De Roo AJ (2012) Quo Vadis Mediation? In: Meijer GJ, Storm P, Timmerman V (eds) Piet Sanders, een Honderdjarige Vernieuwer. Boom Juridische uitgevers, Den Haag, pp 313–318Google Scholar
  12. Jagtenberg RW, De Roo AJ, Pel M, Combrink-Kuiters LC (2011) Customized conflict resolution – Court-connected mediation in the Netherlands, 1999–2009. The judiciary quarterly, special issue, SDU publishers, The Hague (The Netherlands) pp 7–65Google Scholar
  13. Landsman S (2005) ADR and the cost of compulsion. Stanf Law Rev 57:1573–1630Google Scholar
  14. Makinwa A (2012) Private remedies for corruption – towards an international framework. Eleven Publishers, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  15. Manning B (1977) Hyperlexis, our national disease. Northwest Univ Law Rev 71(6):767–782Google Scholar
  16. Pruitt DG (1983) Strategic choice in negotiation. Am Behav Sci 27:167–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Silvestri E, Jagtenberg RW (2013) Juggling a red hot potato: Italy, the EU, and mandatory mediation. Nederlands-Vlaams Tijdschrift voor Mediation en Conflictmanagement TMD 17(1):29–45Google Scholar
  18. Van der Linden J (2008) Zitten, luisteren en schikken, Research memorandum no. 5. Raad voor de Rechtspraak, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  19. Van Velthoven BCJ, Ter Voert M (2004) Geschilbeslechtingsdelta 2003. Boom Juridische uitgevers, Den HaagGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Erasmus UniversityRotterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations