Difference between revisions of "Mediation"
(Created page with 'File:lighterstill.jpgright|frame ==Origin== Medieval Latin mediatus, past participle of mediare, from Late Latin, to be in the middle, from Latin ...') |
m (Text replacement - "http://" to "https://") |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Origin== | ==Origin== | ||
Medieval Latin mediatus, past participle of mediare, from Late Latin, to be in the middle, from [[Latin]] medius middle | Medieval Latin mediatus, past participle of mediare, from Late Latin, to be in the middle, from [[Latin]] medius middle | ||
| − | *[ | + | *[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century 16th Century] |
==Definitions== | ==Definitions== | ||
:transitive verb | :transitive verb | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
*History of mediation | *History of mediation | ||
| − | The activity of '''mediation''' in itself appeared in very ancient times. Historians presume early cases in [ | + | The activity of '''mediation''' in itself appeared in very ancient times. Historians presume early cases in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia Phoenician] [[commerce]] (but suppose its use in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon Babylon], too). The [[practice]] developed in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece Ancient Greece] (which knew the non-marital mediator as a proxenetas), then in [[Roman]] [[civilization]], (Roman law, starting from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justinian_I Justinian's] Digest of 530 - 533 CE) recognized mediation. The Romans called mediators by a variety of [[names]], including internuncius, [[medium]], intercessor, philantropus, interpolator, conciliator, interlocutor, interpres, and finally mediator. |
| − | Some [[cultures]] regarded the mediator as a [[sacred]] figure, [[worthy]] of particular [[respect]]; and the role partly overlapped with that of [[traditional]] [[wise]] men or [ | + | Some [[cultures]] regarded the mediator as a [[sacred]] figure, [[worthy]] of particular [[respect]]; and the role partly overlapped with that of [[traditional]] [[wise]] men or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_chief tribal chief]. |
*Mediation and conciliation | *Mediation and conciliation | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
"Conciliation" sometimes serves as an umbrella-term that covers all mediation and [[facilitative]] and advisory dispute-resolution processes. Neither [[process]] determines an outcome, and both [[share]] many similarities. For example, both processes involve a neutral third-party who has no enforcing [[powers]]. | "Conciliation" sometimes serves as an umbrella-term that covers all mediation and [[facilitative]] and advisory dispute-resolution processes. Neither [[process]] determines an outcome, and both [[share]] many similarities. For example, both processes involve a neutral third-party who has no enforcing [[powers]]. | ||
| − | One significant [[difference]] between conciliation and mediation lies in the fact that conciliators possess expert [[knowledge]] of the [[domain]] in which they conciliate. The conciliator can make suggestions for settlement terms and can give advice on the subject-matter. Conciliators may also use their role to actively [[encourage]] the parties to come to a resolution. In certain [[types]] of dispute the conciliator has a [[duty]] to provide legal [[information]]. This helps any [[agreement]] reached to comply with any relevant [ | + | One significant [[difference]] between conciliation and mediation lies in the fact that conciliators possess expert [[knowledge]] of the [[domain]] in which they conciliate. The conciliator can make suggestions for settlement terms and can give advice on the subject-matter. Conciliators may also use their role to actively [[encourage]] the parties to come to a resolution. In certain [[types]] of dispute the conciliator has a [[duty]] to provide legal [[information]]. This helps any [[agreement]] reached to comply with any relevant [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory statutory] framework pertaining to the dispute. Therefore conciliation may include an advisory aspect. |
Mediation works [[purely]] facilitatively: the practitioner has no advisory role. Instead, a mediator seeks to help parties to [[develop]] a [[shared]] [[understanding]] of the [[conflict]] and to [[work]] toward building a [[practical]] and lasting resolution. | Mediation works [[purely]] facilitatively: the practitioner has no advisory role. Instead, a mediator seeks to help parties to [[develop]] a [[shared]] [[understanding]] of the [[conflict]] and to [[work]] toward building a [[practical]] and lasting resolution. | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
Furthermore, the definitions of mediation used by the [[different]] styles of mediation differ in that evaluative mediation has the main drive and goal of settlement, while transformative mediation, in [[contrast]], looks at conflict as a [[crisis]] in [[communication]] and seeks to help resolve the [[conflict]], thereby allowing people to feel empowered in themselves and better about each other. The agreement that arises from this type of mediation occurs as a natural outcome of the [[resolution]] of [[conflict]]. | Furthermore, the definitions of mediation used by the [[different]] styles of mediation differ in that evaluative mediation has the main drive and goal of settlement, while transformative mediation, in [[contrast]], looks at conflict as a [[crisis]] in [[communication]] and seeks to help resolve the [[conflict]], thereby allowing people to feel empowered in themselves and better about each other. The agreement that arises from this type of mediation occurs as a natural outcome of the [[resolution]] of [[conflict]]. | ||
| − | Both mediation and conciliation serve to identify the disputed issues and to generate [[options]] that help disputants reach a mutually-satisfactory resolution. They both offer [[relatively]] flexible [[processes]]; and any settlement reached should have the [[agreement]] of all parties. This [[contrasts]] with [ | + | Both mediation and conciliation serve to identify the disputed issues and to generate [[options]] that help disputants reach a mutually-satisfactory resolution. They both offer [[relatively]] flexible [[processes]]; and any settlement reached should have the [[agreement]] of all parties. This [[contrasts]] with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigation litigation], which normally settles the dispute in favour of the party with the strongest legal [[argument]]. In-between the two operates [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_law collaborative law], which uses a facilitative [[process]] where each party has [[counsel]]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation] |
[[Category: Law]] | [[Category: Law]] | ||
Latest revision as of 01:28, 13 December 2020
Origin
Medieval Latin mediatus, past participle of mediare, from Late Latin, to be in the middle, from Latin medius middle
Definitions
- transitive verb
- b : to effect by action as an intermediary
- 2a : to act as intermediary agent in bringing, effecting, or communicating : convey
- 1: to interpose between parties in order to reconcile them
- 2: to reconcile differences
Description
- History of mediation
The activity of mediation in itself appeared in very ancient times. Historians presume early cases in Phoenician commerce (but suppose its use in Babylon, too). The practice developed in Ancient Greece (which knew the non-marital mediator as a proxenetas), then in Roman civilization, (Roman law, starting from Justinian's Digest of 530 - 533 CE) recognized mediation. The Romans called mediators by a variety of names, including internuncius, medium, intercessor, philantropus, interpolator, conciliator, interlocutor, interpres, and finally mediator.
Some cultures regarded the mediator as a sacred figure, worthy of particular respect; and the role partly overlapped with that of traditional wise men or tribal chief.
- Mediation and conciliation
"Conciliation" sometimes serves as an umbrella-term that covers all mediation and facilitative and advisory dispute-resolution processes. Neither process determines an outcome, and both share many similarities. For example, both processes involve a neutral third-party who has no enforcing powers.
One significant difference between conciliation and mediation lies in the fact that conciliators possess expert knowledge of the domain in which they conciliate. The conciliator can make suggestions for settlement terms and can give advice on the subject-matter. Conciliators may also use their role to actively encourage the parties to come to a resolution. In certain types of dispute the conciliator has a duty to provide legal information. This helps any agreement reached to comply with any relevant statutory framework pertaining to the dispute. Therefore conciliation may include an advisory aspect.
Mediation works purely facilitatively: the practitioner has no advisory role. Instead, a mediator seeks to help parties to develop a shared understanding of the conflict and to work toward building a practical and lasting resolution.
Several different styles of mediation exist: evaluative, facilitative, and transformative. Evaluative mediation has somewhat of an advisory role in that its practitioners evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each side's argument should they go to court; whereas facilitative mediators and transformative mediators do not do this.
Furthermore, the definitions of mediation used by the different styles of mediation differ in that evaluative mediation has the main drive and goal of settlement, while transformative mediation, in contrast, looks at conflict as a crisis in communication and seeks to help resolve the conflict, thereby allowing people to feel empowered in themselves and better about each other. The agreement that arises from this type of mediation occurs as a natural outcome of the resolution of conflict.
Both mediation and conciliation serve to identify the disputed issues and to generate options that help disputants reach a mutually-satisfactory resolution. They both offer relatively flexible processes; and any settlement reached should have the agreement of all parties. This contrasts with litigation, which normally settles the dispute in favour of the party with the strongest legal argument. In-between the two operates collaborative law, which uses a facilitative process where each party has counsel. [1]
