Justice and human rights in the context of mandatory mediation

Abstract

Since its inception, mandatory mediation has always been a cause for controversy. The imposition of formalities to a voluntary process has spurred debate on the subversion of the inherent principles constituting this mechanism. It has also been criticised for withholding justice from those who would want to resort to court. Mediation has long been a worldwide accessory to civil justice systems as a cost-effective and expeditious alternative to litigation, however notwithstanding its unambiguous benefits, it commonly remained to be under-utilised. Not being the traditional vehicle for dispute resolution it needed to be advanced as a component to the current judicial systems. Yet, despite the consistent promotion, its universal application has not been systematic. Every jurisdiction has adapted different schemes of mediation to its own cultures and practices. Sustained with national legal frameworks, it has confirmed an improved access to justice; but what still needs to be understood is the fact that a mandatory scheme of mediation is a regulated process which cannot wholly accommodate the intrinsic standards of the voluntary model. At present, extensive measures are being taken to expand the outreach of this alternative which has been predominantly used in the family law field. Given however that imperfections are indispensible at this initial phase, other developments and improvements are necessitated to recede any shortcomings and secure a reliable device.