Advanced

Alternativa tvistlösningsmetoder - med fokus på medling

Isaxon, Therese LU (2012) JURM02 20121
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Sammanfattning

Alternativa tvistlösningsmetoder eller Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) är på frammarsch såväl globalt som nationellt. Efter att under en termin vid Köpenhamns universitet kommit i kontakt med medling som tvistlösningsmetod, väcktes ett än större intresse för dessa alternativa sätt att lösa konflikter på. Jag ställde mig även då frågande till vad framgången för ADR kunde komma att medföra för civilprocessen i stort och i vilket avseende kan det tänkas komma att påverka de funktioner som civilprocessen anses ha?

ADR kan inte anses uppfylla samtliga av de funktioner som är tillskrivna civilprocessen – konfliktlösning, handlingsdirigering, prejudikatsbildning och rättskydd – vilket ADR ej heller gör anspråk på. Frågan... (More)
Sammanfattning

Alternativa tvistlösningsmetoder eller Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) är på frammarsch såväl globalt som nationellt. Efter att under en termin vid Köpenhamns universitet kommit i kontakt med medling som tvistlösningsmetod, väcktes ett än större intresse för dessa alternativa sätt att lösa konflikter på. Jag ställde mig även då frågande till vad framgången för ADR kunde komma att medföra för civilprocessen i stort och i vilket avseende kan det tänkas komma att påverka de funktioner som civilprocessen anses ha?

ADR kan inte anses uppfylla samtliga av de funktioner som är tillskrivna civilprocessen – konfliktlösning, handlingsdirigering, prejudikatsbildning och rättskydd – vilket ADR ej heller gör anspråk på. Frågan man kan ställa sig är dock vad dessa funktioner har för egentlig praktisk relevans, för den enskilde medborgaren som står inför att välja konfliktlösningsmetod för en uppkommen tvist. Är det den enskilde parten som ska bekosta lagstiftarens och statens behov av att skapa handlingsdirigering och prejudikatsbildning? Det ställer jag mig frågande till. Möjligen kan det anses att ADR har egna, självständiga funktioner som kan hjälpa den ordinära civilprocessen att bli mer effektiv. Jag vill mena att ADR:s egna, självständiga funktioner kan bidra även till att civilprocessen förbättras. ADR:s framgång behöver inte medföra motgång för den ordinära civilprocessen, båda kan ses som vinnare, om vi tillåter oss själva att tänka om vad gäller konfliktlösning.

För svenskt vidkommande tillkom under 2011 en ny lag, lag (2011:860) om medling i vissa privaträttsliga tvister. Genom den nya lagen implementerades det direktiv som låg till grund för lagstiftningsarbetet, Direktiv 2008/52/EG om vissa aspekter på medling på privaträttens område. Medling får anses tillhöra en av de tvistlösningsmetoder som är starkast på frammarsch, och är en prioriterad fråga inom EU. Detta till trots har medling än så länge inte fått något starkt fotfäste i Sverige, och jag ställer mig frågande till huruvida det kommer att förändras med anledning av den nytillkomna lagen. Danmark har som enda medlemsstat valt att inte implementera direktivet, vilket de har möjlighet att göra genom ett av deras undantag, men har det till trots en tämligen väl etablerad rättsordning vad avser retsmægling. Jag ansåg det därav vara relevant att jämföra dessa två rättsordningar, för att se i vad mån de uppvisade likheter och skillnader.

I den komparativa del där jag alltså jämförde det danska rättsystemet med det svenska, avseende medling som tvistlösningsmetod, har det visat sig att det finns en del – enligt min mening – stora skillnader mellan de båda systemen. Det kan finnas skäl för staten att samordna utbildningen av domar- och advokatmedlare för att säkerställa en enhetlig tillämpning av medling som tvistlösningsmetod. Enligt mitt tycke, finns det en spretighet i tillämpningen, vilket jag tror kan förklaras med att det inte finns en enhetlig uppfattning från regeringens håll vilka utbildningsåtgärder som ska vidtas eller vilken syn som finns på medling som metod. Jag tror att genom att införa en certifiering av medlare, som borde samordnas statligt, enligt samma eller liknande utbildningsunderlag skapas ett förtroende för medling såsom ett attraktivt alternativ till domstolsförfarandet. Det var också vad som var syftet med medlingsdirektivet, att öka och förbättra användandet av medling. Det tror jag inte görs genom att regeringen särskiljer de båda medlingsförfarandena åt – särskild medling och utomprocessuell medling – i den utsträckning regeringen gör. Uppdelningen skapar en osäkerhet hos parterna, som borde kunna förvänta sig en liknande behandling av medlaren, oavsett om det är frågan om särskild medling eller utomprocessuell medling. Jag vill mena att användandet av medling bör öka, och att så bäst sker genom utbildning, informationsspridning och enhetlig tillämpning. (Less)
Abstract
Summary

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is progressing both globally as well as nationally. After my semester at the University of Copenhagen my interest in ADR in general and in mediation in particular, was awakened and strengthen. I wondered, what impact the increasing use of ADR might have on the Civil Procedure in general and in what regard it might affect the functions of the Civil Procedure?

ADR will not and cannot fulfil all the functions attributed the Civil Procedure – conflict resolution, action direction, precedent effect and legal protection – which ADR nor claim to do. The core question one should ask is the relevancy of these functions, generally assigned the Civil Procedure, for the person choosing a dispute... (More)
Summary

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is progressing both globally as well as nationally. After my semester at the University of Copenhagen my interest in ADR in general and in mediation in particular, was awakened and strengthen. I wondered, what impact the increasing use of ADR might have on the Civil Procedure in general and in what regard it might affect the functions of the Civil Procedure?

ADR will not and cannot fulfil all the functions attributed the Civil Procedure – conflict resolution, action direction, precedent effect and legal protection – which ADR nor claim to do. The core question one should ask is the relevancy of these functions, generally assigned the Civil Procedure, for the person choosing a dispute resolution for an emerging dispute. I remain wondering, should it be the task of the individual party to finance the legislator’s and the state’s need to create action direction and precedent effect? ADR may have its own autonomous functions, which could support the Civil Procedure to become more efficient. My conclusion is that ADR should be regarded as a contribution to the Civil Procedure and should not be regarded as a threat. The success of ADR should not be regarded as a setback for the ordinary Civil Procedure, both can be regarded as winners, given that we allow ourselves to rethink the concept of dispute resolution.

During 2011, a new Swedish legislation was founded, (2011:860) about mediation in certain civil and commercial disputes. It was the result of the implementation of the European Union Directive 2008/52/EG on certain aspects on mediation on civil and commercial matters. Mediation is one of the methods of alternative dispute resolution and is a priority within the European Union. Since 2002 the EU has worked upon possible measures to promote the use of meditation. However, mediation has not found a strong establishment in Sweden and I doubt that it will increase due to the new legislation.

Denmark has as the only Member State, not implemented the Directive and does not take part in the adoption of the Directive. This is in accordance with Article 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union. However, Denmark has a rather well established legislation regarding mediation (retsmægling). Subsequently, I regard Danish legislation on meditation to be relevant and interesting to compare with the Swedish, to see in what regard they might correspond or differ.

In the comparative analysis I compared Danish legislation with Swedish in regard to meditation and my finding was that the two legal systems – in my opinion – showed significant differences. I consider it to be necessary for the Swedish Government to coordinate education for judges and attorneys to become mediators, in order to ensure a uniform implementation of mediation as a dispute resolution. In my opinion, there is a disjointed implementation, which might be the cause of the lack of uniform education measures from the Government and the lack of standardized approach to mediation as a dispute resolution method. An introduction of certification for mediators, arranged by the state, with the same educational grounds – both for attorneys and judges – may be the solution. In my opinion, it should create a greater reliance of mediation and thereby make it an attractive alternative to the traditional court proceedings as well as other forms of ADR. That was the objective of the Mediation Directive, to increase and improve the use of mediation. I consider the separation the Government makes in regard to extrajudicial mediation and judicial mediation neither to be necessary, nor effective. The separation creates an uncertainty for the parties, who should be able to expect the same conduct by the mediator, no matter if the mediation is extrajudicial or judicial. I believe the use of mediation should increase and improve by taking the measures in regard to the following; education, dissemination of information and uniform implementation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Isaxon, Therese LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Alternative Dispute Resolution - focus on Mediation
course
JURM02 20121
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Processrätt, civilrätt, komparativrätt, alternativa tvistlösningsmetoder
language
Swedish
id
2542786
date added to LUP
2012-10-15 13:24:00
date last changed
2012-10-15 13:24:00
@misc{2542786,
  abstract     = {Summary

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is progressing both globally as well as nationally. After my semester at the University of Copenhagen my interest in ADR in general and in mediation in particular, was awakened and strengthen. I wondered, what impact the increasing use of ADR might have on the Civil Procedure in general and in what regard it might affect the functions of the Civil Procedure?

ADR will not and cannot fulfil all the functions attributed the Civil Procedure – conflict resolution, action direction, precedent effect and legal protection – which ADR nor claim to do. The core question one should ask is the relevancy of these functions, generally assigned the Civil Procedure, for the person choosing a dispute resolution for an emerging dispute. I remain wondering, should it be the task of the individual party to finance the legislator’s and the state’s need to create action direction and precedent effect? ADR may have its own autonomous functions, which could support the Civil Procedure to become more efficient. My conclusion is that ADR should be regarded as a contribution to the Civil Procedure and should not be regarded as a threat. The success of ADR should not be regarded as a setback for the ordinary Civil Procedure, both can be regarded as winners, given that we allow ourselves to rethink the concept of dispute resolution.

During 2011, a new Swedish legislation was founded, (2011:860) about mediation in certain civil and commercial disputes. It was the result of the implementation of the European Union Directive 2008/52/EG on certain aspects on mediation on civil and commercial matters. Mediation is one of the methods of alternative dispute resolution and is a priority within the European Union. Since 2002 the EU has worked upon possible measures to promote the use of meditation. However, mediation has not found a strong establishment in Sweden and I doubt that it will increase due to the new legislation.

Denmark has as the only Member State, not implemented the Directive and does not take part in the adoption of the Directive. This is in accordance with Article 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union. However, Denmark has a rather well established legislation regarding mediation (retsmægling). Subsequently, I regard Danish legislation on meditation to be relevant and interesting to compare with the Swedish, to see in what regard they might correspond or differ.

In the comparative analysis I compared Danish legislation with Swedish in regard to meditation and my finding was that the two legal systems – in my opinion – showed significant differences. I consider it to be necessary for the Swedish Government to coordinate education for judges and attorneys to become mediators, in order to ensure a uniform implementation of mediation as a dispute resolution. In my opinion, there is a disjointed implementation, which might be the cause of the lack of uniform education measures from the Government and the lack of standardized approach to mediation as a dispute resolution method. An introduction of certification for mediators, arranged by the state, with the same educational grounds – both for attorneys and judges – may be the solution. In my opinion, it should create a greater reliance of mediation and thereby make it an attractive alternative to the traditional court proceedings as well as other forms of ADR. That was the objective of the Mediation Directive, to increase and improve the use of mediation. I consider the separation the Government makes in regard to extrajudicial mediation and judicial mediation neither to be necessary, nor effective. The separation creates an uncertainty for the parties, who should be able to expect the same conduct by the mediator, no matter if the mediation is extrajudicial or judicial. I believe the use of mediation should increase and improve by taking the measures in regard to the following; education, dissemination of information and uniform implementation.},
  author       = {Isaxon, Therese},
  keyword      = {Processrätt,civilrätt,komparativrätt,alternativa tvistlösningsmetoder},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Alternativa tvistlösningsmetoder - med fokus på medling},
  year         = {2012},
}