Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Iuris Dictio

Miscelánea

Núm. 20 (2017)

Mediators orientations: An analysis of mediation in Quito

  • Ximena Bustamante
  • María Bernarda Carpio Frixone
  • Isabela Moreno Burns
  • María Gracia Naranjo Ponce
DOI
https://doi.org/10.18272/iu.v20i20.1009
Submitted
December 4, 2017
Published
2017-12-18

Abstract

This paper exposes the characteristics of the facilitative and evaluative mediation styles; and the vision that the mediator can adopt on the problem submitted to mediation: broad and narrow. This, it examines the four possible orientations that the mediator can follow: facilitative with a narrow vision of the problem; facilitative with a broad vision of the problem; evaluative with a narrow vision of the problem; and evaluative with a broad vision of the problem. Later, this research identifies the style of mediation and the definition of the problem with greater use in the city of Quito, as well as the ones preferred by the lawyers who attend mediations. To this end, surveys were carried out to both mediators and lawyers from the city of Quito in order to determine the style and vision of the problem to which they are oriented and to identify the current situation of mediation in Quito.

viewed = 1548 times

References

  1. Alexander, N. (2006). Global Trends in Mediation. The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
  2. Brown, C. (2002). Facilitative Mediation: The Classic Approach Retains its Appeal. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 4 (2), 279-395.
  3. Davis, J., and Lynne Omlie. (1985). Mini-Trials: The Courtroom in the Boardroom. Willamette Law Review, 21, 521-532.
  4. DeVries, D. (2013). Mediation: Understanding Facilitative, Evaluative and Directive Approaches.
  5. Fisher, R. y Keashly, L. (1991). The potential complementarity of mediation and consultation within a contingency model of third party intervention. Journal of Peace Research 28, 29-42.
  6. Folberg, J. (2015). Development of Mediation Practice in the United States. Revista Iuris Dictio, 14, 35-39.
  7. Golann, D., and Corman, M. (2010). Using evaluations in mediation, en AAA Handbook on Mediation, American Arbitration Association, 247, 327-341.
  8. Gonzalo, M. et al. (2011). Métodos alternos de solución de conflictos: herramientas de paz y modernización de la justicia. Madrid: Ed. Dykinson, S.L.
  9. Gozaíni, O. (1995). Formas Alternativas para la Resolución de Conflictos. Buenos Aires: Ed. Depalma.
  10. "” (2001). La mediación y el arbitraje en Argentina: situación actual. THEMIS Revista de Derecho, 43, 93-104.
  11. "” (2009). La mediación: una nueva metodología para la resolución de controversias. Ponencia presentada en el Congreso Internacional de Derecho Procesal, La Habana.
  12. Hill, C. (2012). Achieving the Promise of Mediation. Mediate, September 2012.
  13. Izuzquiza, M. (2008). El conflicto: diversos sistemas de resolución. Cartapacio de Derecho, (15), 1-13.
  14. Kovach, K. K., y Love, L. P. (1996). "Evaluative" mediation is an oxymoron. Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, 14 (3), 31-32.
  15. Krivis, J. (1999) The Five Stages of Mediation. Mediate. December 1999.
  16. Krivis, J., y McAdoo, B. (2000). A Style Index for Mediators. Mediate, August 2000.
  17. Legal Information Institute (2007). Alternative Dispute Resolution. Legal Information Institute.
  18. McGuinness, C. et al. (2010). Alternative dispute resolution: Mediation and Conciliation. Dublin: Law Reform Commission.
  19. Moore, C. (1988). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  20. Nauss Exon, S. (2007). Effects That Mediator Styles Impose on Neutrality and Impartiality Requirements of Mediation. University of San Francisco Law Review, 42, 577-620.
  21. Poveda, G. (2006). Medios Alternativos de Solución de Conflictos en Ecuador: La Mediación (Tesis de Grado). Quito: Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar.
  22. Riskin, L. (1996). Understanding mediators"™ orientations, strategies, and techniques: A grid for the perplexed. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 1, 7-51.
  23. "” (1994). Mediator Orientations, Strategies and Techniques. Alternatives, 12, 111-114.
  24. Roberts, K. (2007). Mediating the Evaluative-Facilitative Debate: Why Both Parties Are Wrong and a Proposal for Settlement. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 39, 187-213.
  25. Roberts, M. (2002). Choosing The Right Mediator: A Guide to Effective Mediation Style, Mediate. March 2002.
  26. Sher, M. (2012). The High Cost of Failing to Prepare for Mediation, June 2012.
  27. Skjelsbaek, K. (1991). The UN Secretary-General and the mediation of international disputes. Journal of Peace Research, 28 (1), 99-115.
  28. Smith, J.D. (1994). Mediator impartiality: banishing the Chimera. Journal of Peace Research, 31 (4), 445-450.
  29. Vado, L. (2003). Medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos, CEJA Américas, 369-389.
  30. Wyckoff, A. P. (2000). An Investigation into the "facilitative-evaluative" debate regarding mediator styles. Scholar Works at University of Montana, 1-61.
  31. Zumeta, Z. (2016). Styles of Mediation: Facilitative, Evaluative, and Transformative Mediation, Mediate, July 2016.
  32. Legislation:
  33. Asamblea Nacional de la RepuÌblica de Ecuador (2009). CoÌdigo Orgánico de la Función Judicial (COFJ). 9 de marzo de 2009.
  34. Asamblea Nacional de la República del Ecuador (1998). Constitución Política de la República del Ecuador. Artículo 90. Registro Oficial No. 1 del 11 de agosto de 1998.
  35. Asamblea Nacional de la RepuÌblica de Ecuador (2008). Constitución de la República del Ecuador. Artículo 190. Registro Oficial N. 449 del 20 de octubre de 2008.
  37. Consejo de la Judicatura. (2013). Plan Estratégico de la Función Judicial.