Mediation Effectiveness in Sharia Economic Dispute Settlement: Phenomenology in Bukittinggi Religious Court

<p dir="ltr"><span>The main problem in this paper is how the effectiveness of mediation in sharia economic dispute resolution based on PERMA No. 1 of 2016 at the Bukittinggi Religious Court, and what are the inhibiting factors success of mediation. To answer this question, the author uses an inductive and deductive analysis framework regarding the law effectiveness theory of Lawrence M. Friedman. This paper finds that mediation in sharia economic dispute resolution at the Bukittinggi Religious Court from 2016 to 2019 has not been effective. The ineffectiveness is caused by several factors that influence it: First, in terms of legal substance, PERMA No.1 of 2016 concerning Mediation Procedures in Courts still lacks in addressing the problems of the growing community. Second, in terms of legal structure, there are no judges who have mediator certificates. Third, the legal facilities and infrastructure at the Bukittinggi Religious Court have supported mediation. Fourth, in terms of legal culture, there are still many people who are not aware of the law and do not understand mediation well, so they consider mediation to be unimportant.</span> </p><p><em>Tulisan ini mengkaji tentang bagaimana efektivitas mediasi dalam penyelesaian sengketa ekonomi syariah berdasarkan PERMA Nomor 1 Tahun 2016 di Pengadilan Agama Bukittinggi dan apa saja yang menjadi faktor penghambat keberhasilan mediasi. Untuk menjawab pertanyaan tersebut, penulis menggunakan kerangka analisa induktif dan deduktif dengan mengacu pada teori efektivitas hukum Lawrence M. Friedman. </em><em>Tulisan ini menemukan bahwa m</em><em>ediasi dalam p</em><em>enyelesaian sengketa ekonomi syariah di Pengadilan Agama Bukittinggi </em><em>dari tahun 2016 sampai 2019 </em><em>belum efektif</em><em>. Hal ini karena dipengaruhi oleh beberapa faktor. </em><em> </em><em>Pertama, dari segi substansi hukum, yaitu PERMA No. 1 Tahun 2016 tentang Prosedur Mediasi di Pengadilan masih memiliki kekurangan dalam menjawab persoalan masyarakat yang terus berkembang. Kedua, dari segi struktur hukum, belum adanya hakim yang memiliki sertifikat mediator. Ketiga, sarana dan prasarana hukum di Pengadilan Agama Bukittinggi sudah mendukung mediasi. Keempat, dari segi budaya hukum, masih banyaknya masyarakat yang tidak sadar hukum dan tidak mengerti persoalan mediasi dengan baik, sehingga menganggap mediasi tidak penting.</em><em></em></p>

PERSPECTIVE OF MEDIATION EFFECTIVENESS THEORY AS MAIN OPTIONS IN ORDER TO LOWER DIVORCE RATE

The purpose of this paper is to examine mediation as a way effective to reduce the divorce rate and the obstacles and challenges that create mediation as the means chosen to reduce the divorce rate in Indonesia. The increase and decrease in claimable divorce rates can basically be monitored , if supported by various parties, including through the implementation of effective mediation and efficient. In general, the biggest cause of divorce in Indonesia is dispute continuous and economic problems. Socialization and counseling about coaching the sakinah family has been awarded by the authorities. There is an obligation to conduct mediation before entering the court's domain as regulated in Supreme Court Regulation No.1 of 2016 is still being carried out half-heartedly tends to be mere formality. This is one of the obstacles in the difficulty there is an agreement in the mediation process. The divorce rate can be reduced significantly significant, if the parties involved in household cases have been pushed to take advantage of mediation institutions from an early age. The five elements according to effectiveness theory related to mediation as the main choice in suppressing the divorce rate well done.

How mediator leadership transitions influence mediation effectiveness

Little is known about how transitions in the government of mediators affect conflict dynamics and resolution. To address this shortcoming, we study executive turnovers of mediators during ongoing interventions in civil war. Mediation effectiveness is largely driven by (trustworthy) information provision and sharing. Changes in mediators’ leaderships have the potential to undermine this, lowering mediation performance. Using data on civil conflicts in 1946–2017, we find robust support for this argument. This research sheds light on a previously neglected factor in conflict resolution that is of particular interest to practitioners and policymakers.

Perceptions of EU mediation and mediation effectiveness: Comparing perspectives from Ukraine and the EU

A small but growing literature has started to analyse the European Union (EU) ‘as an effective peacemaker’. We make a contribution to this field by investigating EU mediation effectiveness in the Russia–Ukraine conflict. The focus is on perceptions of effectiveness. Based on information from semi-structured interviews, we compare EU self-images with Ukrainian evaluations of EU mediation efforts. How effective is the EU, including its Member States, deemed to be? What factors are believed to lie behind perceived (in)effectiveness? We concentrate on four such factors, derived from the mediator literature: perceived (im)partiality, coherence and credibility and, finally, evaluations of the EU’s mediation strategies. Both internal and external views singled out EU member states as the most effective actors in current mediation. The role of EU was seen in ambivalent terms by both sides. All the four determinants of mediation effectiveness are discussed in our material, but differ considerably in the degree of attention given to each of them. While (im)partiality is not a factor that is linked to effectiveness in any straightforward way, EU incoherence is associated with inconsistent and weak policies, notably in the Ukraine material.

Introduction: The EU as International Mediator – Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives

In this introductory article of the special issue, we examine European Union (EU) mediation practice and identify different conceptual and empirical perspectives from which it can be analyzed. We present different understandings of mediation in research and practice a definition and conceptual clarification ofEUmediation practice, and offer a definition that covers mediation efforts and mediation support activities. Then, the institutional architecture forEUmediation activities is presented. Next, the focus of this special issue is examined and research questions that have not yet been sufficiently addressed in existing research ofEUforeign policy and mediation are discussed. Based on these questions, we offer several fruitful avenues for studyingEUmediation: examining the drivers ofEUmediation,EUmediation roles and strategies, andEUmediation effectiveness. Finally, we provide an overview of the contributions to this special issue is presented.

Motives, Roles, Effectiveness and the Future of the EU as an International Mediator

This article concludes this special issue on the European Union as international mediator that set out to advance our theoretical and empirical knowledge aboutEUmediation. Providing a comprehensive reflection ofEUmediation activities and the diverse settings where they take place, this concluding article identifies some connection points between the articles and discusses their findings on the motives/drivers, roles/strategies, effectiveness and institutional capacities ofEUmediation. It discusses the implications of these findings for policymaking, focusing on the conditions forEUmediation effectiveness, the advantages of the multi-layered nature ofEUmediation and the need for flexible adaptation of mediation strategies. Finally, the article sets the scene for future research endeavors onEUmediation by identifying three future research avenues that focus on the politics, domestic effects and comparative advantage of theEUas international mediator.

Same Table, Different Menus? A Comparison of UN and EU Mediation Practice in the Kosovo-Serbia Conflict

This article comparesUNandEUmediation practice in the Kosovo-Serbia conflict. It proposes a conceptual framework to analyze mediation effectiveness and its conditions and applies it to theUN-led Kosovo Status Talks in Vienna (2006–2007) and the ongoingEU-facilitated dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina (since 2011). TheEU’s relatively high degree of effectiveness compared to theUNeffort can be partly explained by the application of a strategy of manipulation, drawing on theEU’s strong leverage vis-à-vis both sides; partly by pointing to the conflict context which has been more favorable to mediation since 2011. At the same time, the analysis reveals thatEUmediation has not led to any changes concerning Serbia’s stance toward the recognition of Kosovo’s independence. The continuing non-resolution of the conflict demonstrates the limits of theEU’s manipulative mediation approach and points to a substantial dilemma ofEUmediation.