THE VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLE OF IMPARTIALITY IN MEDIATION AND ITS EVALUATION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ETHICAL RULES

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 262 - 276, 30.06.2019

Seda Özmumcu

https://doi.org/10.21492/inuhfd.556712

Öz

The principle of impartiality in mediation is one of the most
important fundamental elements of mediation. Without this principle it is not
possible to conduct the mediation process in a just and fair way and obtain a
just result which will be reached by the mutual agreement of parties that meet
on a common ground. Hence, the principle of impartiality is an inseparable part
of mediation. Together with this, since this principle is evaluated as a higher
abstract concept in western legal systems, the elements that should be included
in its scope has become a subject of discussion for many years. In fact, the
principle of neutrality, as a higher concept, also includes other sub-concepts
such as non-discrimination, equal treatment, fairness and not engaging in
conflict of interests during the mediation negotiations. Therefore, this upper
concept has an integrity with the other elements under it.The principle of
impartiality is among the codes of conduct which should be followed by
mediators from countries that have accepted 
the mediation in their legal system including our country. This article
aims to only touch a small part of this principle and actually bring the
attention to the importance of this issue in terms of practice.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mediation, impartiality, codes of conduct, fairness, treaty equally

ARABULUCULUKTA TARAFSIZLIK İLKESİNİN GÖRÜNÜMÜ VE ETİK KURALLAR ÇERÇEVESİNDE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

Arabuluculukta tarafsızlık ilkesi,
arabuluculuk yönteminin en önemli esaslı unsurlarından biridir. Çünkü bu ilke
olmadan, arabuluculuk sürecinin adil ve hakkaniyete uygun bir şekilde
yürütülmesi ve bu süreç sonunda taraflarca ortak bir payda etrafında anlaşmaya
varılıp, adil bir sonucun elde edilmesi mümkün değildir. Dolayısıyla
tarafsızlık ilkesi, arabuluculuğun ayrılmaz bir parçasıdır. Bununla birlikte
Batı hukuk sistemlerinde bu ilke, aynı zamanda soyut bir üst kavram olarak
değerlendirildiği için, kapsamı içinde yer alması gereken unsurlar uzun yıllar
tartışmaya konu olmuştur. Aslında tarafsızlık ilkesi, bir üst kavram olarak,
arabuluculuk müzakereleri sırasında taraflar arasında ayırım gözetmeme, eşit davranma,
adil olma ve menfaat çatışmasına girmeme gibi diğer alt kavramları da
kapsamaktadır. Dolayısıyla bu üst kavram, altında yer alan diğer unsurlar ile
birlikte bir bütünlük taşımaktadır. Tarafsızlık ilkesi, hukuk sistemleri içinde
arabuluculuk usulünü kabul eden bütün ülkelerde ve ülkemizde arabulucuların
uyması gereken etik kurallar içinde de yer almaktadır. Makalemizin konusu, bu
ilkenin sadece çok küçük bir bölümüne temas ederek, meselenin uygulama
açısından taşıdığı öneme dikkat çekmeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Arabuluculuk, tarafsızlık, etik kurallar, hakkaniyet, eşit şekilde davranmak

Kaynakça

• ASTOR, Hilary, “Mediator Neutrality Making Sense of Theory and Practice”, Social & Legal Studies, 2007, Vol.16, No.2, (s.221-239).
• ASTOR, Hilary/ CHINKIN, M. Christine, Dispute Resolution in Australia, Sydney, 1992.
• BALC, Allison, “Making It Work: Mediation’s Impact on Employee/Employer Relationships and Mediator Neutrality”, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 2002, Vol.2, (s.241-262).
• BOGDANOSKI, Tony, “The ‘Neutral’ Mediator’s Perennial Dilemma: to Intervene or not to Intervene?” OUTLJJ, 2009, Vol.9, N.1, (s.26-43).
• BOSKEY, B. James, “The Proper Role of the Mediator : Rational Assessment, Not Pressure” Negotiation Journal, 1994, N.10, (s.367-372).
• BOULLE Laurence, Mediation: Principles, Process, Practice, Sydney, 1996.
• BUSH BARUCH, Robert A., “The Dilemnas of Mediation Practice : A Study of Ethical Dilemmas and Policy Implications”, Journal of Dispute Resolution, 1994, N.1, (s.1-56).
• COBB, Sara/RIFKIN, Janet, Practice and Paradox: Deconstructing Neutrality in Mediation, Law & Social Inquiry, 1991, Vol.16, N.1 (s.35-62).
• COBEN, James R., “Gollum, Meet Sméagol: A Schizophrenic Rumination on Mediator Values Beyond Self-Determination and Neutrality”, Cardozo Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2004, Vol.65, (s.65-86).
• COHEN, Orna/DATTNER, Naomi/LUXENBURG, Ahron, “The Limits of the Mediator’s Neutrality”, Mediation Quarterly, 1999, Vol.16, N.4 (s.341-348),
• COLATRELLA, Jr, T. Michael, “Informed Consent in Mediation Promoting Pro Se Parties’s Informed Settlement Choice While Honoring the Mediator’s Ethical Duties”, Cardozo J. Conflict Resolution, 2014, Vo.15, (s.705-775).
• COOKS, Leda M./HALE, Claudia, “The Construction of Ethics in Mediation”, Mediation Quarterly, 1994, Vol.1, N.1.(s.55-76).
• COYLE, Michael, “Defending the Weak and Fighting Unfairness: Can Mediators Respond to the Challenge?”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 1998, Vol.36, (s.6226-666).
• DAVIS, M. Albie/SALEM, A. Richard, “Dealing with Power Imbalance in the Mediation of Interpersonal Disputes”, Mediation Quarterly, 1984, N.6, (s.17-26).
• DOUGLAS, Susan, “Neutrality in Mediation : A Study of Mediator Perceptions”, OUTLJJ, 2008, Vol.8, N.1, (s.139-157).
• DOUGLAS, Susan, Mediator Neutrality: A Model for Understanding Practice, 2009. (Mediator Neutrality).
• DÜR, Orhan, Arabuluculuk Faaliyeti ve Arabulucuların Hak ve Yükümlülükleri, Ankara, 2017.
• DWORKIN, Joan/LONDON, William, What Is a Fair Agreement, Mediation Quarterly, 1989, Vol.7, (s.3-13).
• FIELD, Rachael, Ethics for a Mediation ‘profession’ : an answer to the neutrality dilemma? ADR Bulletin, 2007, Vol.10, N.2, (s.223-25).
• FOLBERG, Jay /TAYLOR, Alison, A Comprehensive Guide to Resolving Conflicts Without Litigation, San Francisco, 1984.
• GIBSON, Kevin/THOMPSON, Leigh/ BAZERMAN, H. Max, “Shortcomings of Neutrality in Mediation” Negotiation Journal, 1996, Vol 12, Issue 1, (s.69-80).
• GRILLO, Trina, “The Mediation Alternative : Process Dangers for Women”, Yale Law Journal, 1991,Vol.100, (s.1545-1610).
• HEISTERKAMP, L.Brian, “Taking the Footing of a Neutral Mediator”, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 2006, Vol.23, No.3, (s.301-315).
• HENIKOFF, Jamie/MOFFITT, Michael, “Remodeling the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators”, Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 1997, Vol.2, (s.87-113).
• HONEYMOON, Christopher, “Patterns of Bias in Mediation”, Journal of Dispute Resolution, 1985, Article 9, (s.141-149).
• HUNG, Hin, “Neutrality and Impartiality Mediation”, ADR Bulletin, 2005,Vol. 5, N.5, (s.1-4).
• IZUMI, Carol, “Implicit Bias and the Illusion of Mediator Neutrality” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 2010, Vol.34, (s.71-155).
• KOVACH, K. Kimberlee, “Musings on Idea(l)s in the Ethical Regulation of Mediators: Honesty, Enforcement, and Education” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 2005, Vol.21, (s.123-164).
• LOVE, Lela/WALDMAN, Ellen, “The Hopes and Fears of All the Years: 30 Years Behind and the Road Ahead for the Widespread Use of Mediation” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 2016, Vol.31, (s.13-150).
• MARSHALL, Tony F., “The Power of Mediation”, Mediation Quarterly, 1990, Vol.8, N.2, (s.115-124).
• MOFFIT, L. Michael, “The Wrong Model, Again: Why the Devil is not in the details of the New Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators” Dispute Resolution Magazine, 2006, Vol.12, (s.31-33).
• MOORE, Christopher W, The Mediation Process, Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, Third Edition, San Francisco 2003.
• NAUSS EXON, Susan, “How Can A Mediator Be Both Impartial and Fair?: Why Ethical Standards of Conduct Create Chaos for Mediators”, Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2006, (s.387-434). (Impartial).
• NAUSS EXON, Susan, “The Effects that Mediator Styles Impose on Neutrality and Impartiality Requirements of Mediation” University of San Francisco Law Review, 2008, Vol.42, (s.577-62). (Mediator Styles).
• NEUMANN, Diane, “How Mediation Can Effectively Address the Male-Female Power Imbalance in Divorce”, Mediation Quarterly, 1992, Vol. 9, (s.227-239).
• OBERMAN, Susan, “Mediation Theory vs. Practice : What are We Really Doing? Re-Solving a Professional Conundrum” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 2005, Vol.20, (s.775-819).
• ÖZMUMCU, Seda, Uzak Doğu’da Arabuluculuk Anlayışı ile Türk Hukuk Sisteminde Arabuluculuk Kurumuna Genel Bir Bakış, İstanbul, 2013.
• RIFKIN, Janet/MILLEN, Jonathan/COBB, Sara, “Toward a New Discourse for Mediation : A Critique of Neutrality”, Mediation Quarterly, 1991, Vol.9, N.2, (s.151-164). ROCK, Evan M., “Mindfulness Mediation the Cultivation of Awareness, Mediator Neutrality and the Possibility of Justice”, Cardozo Journal of Conlict Resolution, 2005, Vol.6, (s.347-365).
• ROSENBERG, JoshuaA D., “In Defence of Mediation”, Arizona Law Review, 1991, Vol.33, (s.467-507).
• SHAPIRA, Omer, “A Critical Assessment of the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators (2005): Call for Reform”, Marquette Law Review, 2016, Vol.100, (s.81-136).
• SHAPIRA, Omer, “Conceptions and Perceptions of Fairness in Mediation”, South Texas Law, 2012, Vol.54, (s.282-341). (Fairness of Mediation).
• SHAPIRA, Omer, “A Theory of Sharing Decision-Making in Mediation”, McGeorge Law Review, 2013, Vol.44, (s.923-960).
• SMITH, James D.D., “Mediator Impartiality : Banishing the Chimera”, Journal of Peace Research, 1994, Vol.31, No.4, (s.445-450).
• SPRINGER, Paul, “Avoiding the Full Court Press: Amending the ABA Model Standards of Conduct to Better Regulate Mediator Advertising”, The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 2014, Vol.27, (s.901-916).
• TAŞPOLAT TUĞSAVUL, Melis, Türk Hukukunda Arabuluculuk (6325 sayılı Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu Çerçevesinde), Ankara, 2012.
• TAYLOR, Alison, “Concepts of Neutrality in Mediation : Contexts, Ethics, Influence and Transformative Process”, Mediation Quarterly, 1997, Vol.14, (s.215-236).
• YANG, C. Andrea, “Ethics Codes for Mediator Conduct : Necessary but Still Insufficient”, The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 2009,Vol.22, (s.1229-1247).
• YOUNG, M.Paula, “Rejoice! Rejoice! Rejoice, Give Thanks, And Sing : ABA, ACR, And AAA Adopt Revised Model Standards of Conduct For Mediators” Appalachian Journal of Law, 2006, Vol.5, (s.195-239).
• WALDMAN, Ellen, Mediation Ethics : Cases and Commentaries, San Francisco, 2011.
• WEIDNER, E. Laura, “Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators”, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 2006, Vol.21, (s.547-568).