Mandatory mediation: is it an effective measure to “reset” the eu mediation directive?

Mandatory Mediation: Is It an Effective Measure to “Reset” the EU Mediation Directive? In Lithuania, as well as in other countries, the legal and social peace restoration acquires major importance due to the growing number of conflicts. Therefore, the advantages and possibilities of mediation are presented more often. Taken that into account, in Lithuania as well as on the EU level, the regulation of mediation is constantly being improved. The initiatives and projects are being suggested, which helps to encourage the dispute parties to use the mediation procedure. On the 21st of May, 2008 Mediation Directive was accepted, where it was anticipated that mediation is a voluntary procedure and the Directive can be applied in civil and commercial matters in case of international disputes. Despite the fact that the Member States of the EU implemented the discussed Directive, according to EU institutions, the goals of the Directive were not achieved. Taking into account the previous information, the mandatory mediation institute was considered as a means to achieve mediation development and promotion. On the viewpoint of some law science representatives, mediation is an oxymoron, according to the others – it is a suitable, cheap and effective means to promote this institute. One of the most important mandatory aspects of mediation that causes a disagreement between doctrine representatives is an attribute of voluntarism. Although appearance of the institute is associated with the USA, the Member States of the EU more carefully consider the mandatory mediation anchoring in their national law. Moreover, it is positively evaluated by the law-making, as well as by other not related measures accepting the level on the EU. Based on disposed foreign countries experience, mandatory mediation exponents and their opponent argument analysis, in accordance with the author’s specified factual circumstances and legal arguments, the drawn conclusion was that most probably the institutions of EU will not initiate the Directive consolidation of mandatory mediation. Furthermore, the mandatory mediation consolidation initiative in Lithuania was critically evaluated. Critical evaluation, among other things, was caused by the fact that Lithuania is not adequately prepared for the introduction of this institute. Also, the mediation itself in Lithuania still remains terra incognita. Respectively, there was reached a conclusion that effectiveness is questionable even if the mandatory mediation would be consolidated in the discussed Directive. It is likely that the EU institutions will focus on the less radical measures that could promote mediation development