SUD HUJJATLARI IJROSI BOSQICHIDA MEDIATSIYA: XORIJIY DAVLATLARNING HUQUQIY MEXANIZMLARI
Ключевые слова:
mediatsiya, mediativ kelishuv, ijro bosqichi, protsessual ahamiyat, kelishuv bitimi, muhlat berish, “court-annexed mediation”, BMT Savdo huquqi bo‘yicha komissiya, Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO, Code de Procédure Civile, Wet bevordering van mediationАннотация
Ushbu maqola Xorijiy davlatlarning ijro bosqichida mediativ kelishuvning huquqiy mexanizmlarini ochib berishga bag‘ishlangan. Ushbu maqolada xorijiy davlatlar qaysi huquqiy mexanizmlar orqali mediatsiyani ijro bosqichiga integratsiyalagan? Bu mexanizmlar majburiy yoki ixtiyoriy tabiatdami? Xorijiy tajribadagi qanday me’yoriy-huquqiy modellar O‘zbekiston uchun tatbiq qilish nuqtai nazaridan qiziqish uyg‘otadi? Ushbu savollarga izchil javob berish uchun Yevropa Ittifoqi, alohida davlatlar (Germaniya, Fransiya, Niderlandiya, Buyuk Britaniya) va Osiyo-Tinch okeani mintaqasidagi tajriba qiyosiy-huquqiy metodologiya asosida tahlil qilinadi. Maqola oxirida ijro bosqichida mediatsiya qo‘llash bu faqat nazariy konstruksiya emas, balki amaliyotda sinovdan o‘tgan va ijobiy natijalarga olib keladigan samarali tavsiyalar ilgari suriladi.
Библиографические ссылки
1) Council of Europe, CEPEJ Report on the Efficiency of Justice Systems, 2022
2) UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, UN Doc. A/73/17, 2018
3) United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Singapore Convention), 2019, UN Treaty Collection
4) Schnabel, T. “The Singapore Convention on Mediation: A Framework for the Cross Border Recognition and Enforcement of Mediated Settlements.” Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 19, 2019, pp. 1–60
5) Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on Certain Aspects of Mediation in Civil and Commercial Matters, OJ L 136/3
6) De Palo, G. & Trevor, M.B. (eds.) EU Mediation Law and Practice. Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 14–22
7) Mediationsgesetz vom 21. Juli 2012, BGBl. I S. 1577
8) Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO) in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 5. Dezember 2005, BGBl. I S. 3202, §794
9) Greger, R. & Unberath, H. MediationsG: Kommentar. C.H. Beck Verlag, München, 2012, §1 Rn. 45–60
10) Hopt, K.J. & Steffek, F. (eds.) Mediation: Principles and Regulation in Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 205–260
11) Code de Procédure Civile, Articles 131-1 à 131-15, modifié par Décret n°2022-245 du 25 février 2022
12) Loi n° 2016-1547 du 18 novembre 2016 de modernisation de la justice du XXIe siècle, JORF n°0269 du 19 novembre 2016
13) Wet bevordering van mediation, Staatsblad 2021, Nr. 215, Koninkrijk der Nederlanden
14) Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, HR 20 januari 2006, NJ 2006, 75; HR 10 juni 2011, NJ 2011, 273
15) Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 36: Offers to Settle, as amended by Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 8) Rules 2014, SI 2014/3299
16) Churchill v. Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416, Court of Appeal, England and Wales
17) Mackie, K., Miles, D., Marsh, W. & Allen, T. The ADR Practice Guide: Commercial Dispute Resolution. Bloomsbury Professional, 3rd ed., 2007, pp. 112–130
18) Uniform Mediation Act, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 2001, amended 2003
19) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 16: Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management, as amended December 1, 2015
20) Fu, H. & Cullen, R. “Climbing the Weeds on the Fence: Mediation in China’s Courts.” In: Steffek, F. et al. (eds.) Regulating Dispute Resolution: ADR and Access to Justice at the Crossroads. Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2013, pp. 361–398
21) Alexander, N. (ed.) Global Trends in Mediation. 2nd ed. Kluwer Law International, 2006, pp. 1–28
22) Riskin, L.L. “Understanding Mediators’ Orientations, Strategies, and Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed.” Harvard Negotiation Law Review, Vol. 1, 1996, pp. 7–51
23) Vekeman, M. & Fikkers, M. “Mediation in Enforcement Proceedings: Structural Challenges and Best Practices.” Netherlands International Private Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2021, pp. 44–68
