2022 N3 (3)
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE SELF-DETERMINATION OF PARTIES AS A BASIS FOR THE ETHICAL INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS OF MEDIATION
PDF
76-83
ABSTRACT

Establishing mediation as a means of alternative dispute resolution in Georgia is supported by state policy which, inter alia, has been expressed by adopting the Law of Georgia on Mediation. Therefore, its smooth functioning within the unified system of the chain of administration of justice should be evaluated as a demonstration of public interest. In this respect, achieving public recognition of mediation, and increasing the trust of the public in mediation as to the fair process, a process based on ethical principles, is deemed important. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to study the ethical grounds of mediationrelated processes. In particular, emphasis shall be placed on the fundamental principle of self-determination and its proper implementation in practice, which will promote both the implementation of the most general purpose of fairness and the formation of unanimous approaches toward the institution of mediation in public.

Keywords: Negotiation, agreement, value
REFERENCES
  1. Ugrekhelidze M., Journal Law and World No 7, Tbilisi, 2017
  2. Elnegahy Sh., Can Mediation DeliverJustice, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2017.
  3. Zampano R., Settlement Strategies for Trial Judges, Litigation 22 Litig Journal, 1995.
  4. Gorghiu A., Judicial and Extrajudicial Mediation, Logos Universality Mentality EducationNovelty Section: Law, 2009.
  5. Chitashvili N., Fair Settlement as Basis for Ethical Integrity of Mediation, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, National Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2016.
  6. Steffek F., Unberath H. (eds.), Genn H., Greger R., Menkel-Meadow C., Regulating DisputeResolution ADR and Access to Justice at the Crossroads, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland Oregon, 2013.
  7. Hopt K. J., Steffek F., Mediation: Principles and Regulation in Comparative Perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013.
  8. Shapira O., Conceptions and Perceptions of Fairness in Mediation, 54 South Tex. L. Rev.,2012.
  9. Welsh N., Do You Believe in Magic: Self-Determination and Procedural Justice Meet Inequality in Court-Connected Mediation, SMU Law Review, 2017.
  10. Menkel-Meadow J., Remembrance of Things Past – The Relationship of Past to Future inPursuing Justice in Mediation , Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2004.
  11. Douglas S., Neutrality, Self-Determination, Fairness and Differing Models of Mediation,James Cook University Law Review, 2012.
  12. Press Sh., Lurie, P., Protecting Self-Determination in Mediation, Best of ABA Selections:Dispute Resolution Journal, 2014.
  13. Welsh, N., Do You Believe in Magic: Self-Determination and Procedural Justice Meet Inequality in Court-Connected Mediation, SMU Law Review, 2017.
  14. Ury W., Getting to Yes with Yourself: and Other Worthy Opponents, Harper Collins, NewYork, 2014.
  15. Alfini J., Mediation as a Calling: Addressing the Disconnect between Mediation Ethics andthe Practices of Lawyer Mediators, South Texas Law Review 2008.
  16. Nolan-Haley J., Self-Determination in International Mediation: Some Preliminary Reflections, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2006.
  17. Field R., Crowe J., The Central Role of Party Self-determination in Mediation Ethics, thePost is a Version of a Paper Delivered at the 6th ADR Research Network Roundtable, 4 -5December 2017.
  18. Hedeen T., Coercion and Self-Determination in Court-Connected Mediation: All Mediations Are Voluntary, but Some Are More Voluntary than Others, Special Issue: MakingDispute Resolution Work, 2005.
  19. Douglas S., Neutrality, Self-Determination, Fairness and Differing Models of Mediation,James Cook University Law Review, 2012.
  20. Bush R.,; Folger J., Reclaiming Mediation’s Future: Re-Focusing on Party Self-Determination, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2015.
  21. Nolan-Haley J., Informed Consent in Mediation: A Guiding