The article examines the theoretical boundaries of party procedural autonomy in mediation within the framework of the inherent tension between the principle of dispositivity and public policy requirements. The author analyses dispositivity in its two dimensions – substantive and procedural – as the fundamental legal basis legitimising mediation as an institution of alternative dispute resolution. A distinction is drawn between court-annexed and pre-trial mediation according to the degree of public law oversight, and the relationship between mediation agreements and court-approved settlement agreements is explored. Particular attention is given to the permissibility of mediation in public law disputes, corporate conflicts, and insolvency proceedings, where party autonomy comes into conflict with the rights of third parties and mandatory rules of law. On the basis of the analysis conducted, the author proposes a five-criteria framework for delineating the proper scope of procedural autonomy in mediation: the nature of the legal relationship, the absence of an express statutory prohibition, the protection of third-party rights, compliance with public policy, and the guarantee of procedural fairness.
Alexander Krouglov (Tue,) studied this question.