Conciliation institutions reduce caseload. Some states also see them as a way to ensure public access to justice and strengthen social peace. This article introduces a systematic approach to conciliation procedures, or pre-court mediation. It describes such concepts as social management system, legal regulation, judicial activity, justice, judicial enforcement, alternative methods of dispute resolution, and conciliation procedures. The research relied on the methods of formal logic, legal system analysis, formal legal method, and functional methods. The author identified a system of social regulation that combines reconciliation and legal procedures, as well as classified domestic conciliation institutions as private, private-public, and public. Institutions of public conciliation appear when private reconciliation integrates with jurisdictional activities. Public principles enter conciliation procedures if the state body, e.g., court, has the right to regulate, organize, or conduct reconciliation, as well as approve its results. Pre-court reconciliation has some advantage for the parties. First, it is effective if both parties sought reconciliation: even if the decision is not ideal, they may still find it satisfactory. Second, mediators are free to employ a wider range of regulators, both legal and non-legal, e.g., morality, religion, traditions, corporate norms, etc. Third, conciliation procedure is much less complex than a trial. Pre-court mediation is beneficial for the society in general and needs to be popularized as an effective de-litigating tool that is profitable for both parties. However, the scope of alternative forms of dispute settlement could be expanded only if the parties understand the personal benefits they get from pre-court mediation.
Irina Motorina (Thu,) studied this question.