Challenges in Legal Policy-Making for Innovating the Institution of Administrative Mediation

Mediation, a flexible method of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is increasingly being recognized as an essential means in resolving various disputes. This is due to the fact that arbitration, which is thought to be the leading form of ADR has lost much of its initial advantages in time and cost, since it’s procedure has become rather complex, something more akin to litigation. First, legislative measures for the domestic implementation of the Singapore Mediation Convention include amending existing laws and enacting new laws. Synchronizing the enforcement date of the new law with the timing of ratifying the Singapore Mediation Convention is not enough to prevent a gap in regulation from arising. In this regard, it is preferable to enact new laws rather than amending existing laws. Moreover, it would be a more rational approach to enact a framework act on mediation or an act specifically designed to facilitate civil mediation, as opposed to limiting ourselves only to regulating international commercial mediation with the implementation of the Singapore Mediation Convention. As for administrative mediation, currently there are about 70 Dispute Mediation Committees in various government and administrative agencies based on individual laws. Although there are Dispute Mediation Committees that do not have a secretariat, many have secretariats that conduct factual investigations, after which the agenda is presented to the Mediation Committee or a Mediation Division. The legal effect of administrative mediation is also problematic. Some mediation agreements have the same legal effect as settlement in court, while others are similar to civil settlement. At some Dispute Mediation Committees the parties are obliged to participate in mediation and fines are imposed in case of violation, while at other Committees, no such obligation is recognized. Uniformity or consistency are also lacking in respect of grounds for disqualification, and rules on exclusion, challenge, and avoidance. A framework act on administrative mediation should be enacted so as to uniformly regulate the basic elements of the mediation procedure. Arbitration and mediation are the two main forms of ADR. And for both, private autonomy is the essential foundation. A Task of innovating mediation is pursuing the effective resolution of disputes by way of combining arbitration and mediation. Although the two forms can be practiced separately, there are hybrid forms that combine the two, and here private autonomy remains critical. Our mediation system should allow for connecting mediation and arbitration and create a hybrid form. In civil law countries such as Germany, given the consent of the parties, there is no problem, from the standpoint of private autonomy, in recognizing the same person as a mediator and an arbitrator. Mediation and arbitration do not have to be kept separate. Not only is a hybrid form possible, it is desirable, and should be actively pursued. Ratifying the Singapore Convention on Mediation and introducing legislation on its domestic implementation should, in the advent of the Era of Mediation, serve as an opportunity for fundamentally reforming and innovating mediation by proactively preparing the legal framework for training and educating mediators, and enhancing their competencies.