Arabuluculuk Gizliliğinin Sınırlarına İlişkin Amerikan Deneyimine Dair Yeni Bir Öneri

Arabuluculuk bir şekilde davaya önemli bir alternatif olarak ortaya çıktıkça, arabuluculuk katılımcıları için gizlilik kurallarının korunmasının sınırlarının belirlenmesi, küresel ölçekte önemli hale gelmiştir. Gizlilik olmaksızın tek başına arabulucuğun, ihtilafların mahkeme salonu dışında çözülmesini kolaylaştırmak için yeterli olmadığını geçtiğimiz birkaç on yıl göstermiştir. Bununla birlikte, arabuluculukta gizliliğin hayati önemi, arabulucuk korumalarını teşvik etmekle tüm ilgili kanıtların sunulması arasında kaçınılmaz bir çatışmayı ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Bu sebepten ötürü, arabuluculuk sürecinin etkinliğini arttırmanın en önemli yöntemlerinden biri, bir yasal düzenleme ile arabulucuğun gizlilik gibi önemli unsurlarını açık seçik bir şekilde ortaya koymaktır.

A NEW SUGGESTION ON THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE OF THE LIMITS OF MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY

As mediation has somehow come to be a significant alternative to litigation, determination of boundaries of the protection of confidentiality rules for participants of mediation has become crucial on a global scale. The past few decades has shown that mediation is not, by itself, sufficient to facilitate the growth of solving disputes outside of the courtroom without confidentiality. However, vital importance of confidentiality in mediation inevitably reveals a conflict between encouraging mediation protections and discovering all relevant evidence. Due to this reason, since mediation process require an order, one of the foremost methods to amplify its effectiveness is lucidly putting in order its significant elements such as confidentiality by a statute. Throughout this study, the vital importance of confidentiality in mediation will be stressed. The study argues that while strong protection of confidentiality encourages mediation, it introduces possible injustice by suppressing all communications from later judicial proceedings. Hence, possibility of a legislative protection of communications in mediation with enumerated confidentiality will be critically assessed in this study. The study, in essence, contents that the enumerated confidentiality will be a best solution to protect for mediation communications’ confidentiality and significant means of justice as well.

PDF

___

Books: CHARLTON R., Dispute Resolution Guidebook (2000, Law Book Company Information Service) 15.
FREEDMAN L, Confidentiality: A Closer Look, In Confidentiality In Mediation: A Practitioner’s Guide 47, 19 (Anne Clare Ed., 1985).
MOORE C, The mediation process : practical strategies for resolving conflict, (4th edn, 2014) 13-19
MURRAY J, RAİL A and SHERMAN S, Processes of Dispute Resolution: The Role of Lawyers (2nd edn, Foundation Press 1996), 379-418
MCCORKLE S and REESE M, Mediation Theory & Practice (2nd edn, Sage Publishing 2005) 33
FOLBERG J and TAYLOR A, Mediation a Comprehensive Guide to Resolving Conflicts Without Litigation (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984) 264
COLE S, MCEWAN C and ROGERS N, Mediation:Law, Policy& Practice ( 3rd edn, Thomson Reuters 2011) 214-221
Cases: Bernard v. Galen Group, Inc 901 F. Supp. 778 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). Cassel v Superior Court.244 P 3d 1080 (Cal 2011). Cutts v Head [1984] Ch. 290, CA.
Dandong v. Pinnacle Performance 2012 WL 4793870 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2012)
Foxgate Homeowners Ass'n v. Bramalea Cal. Inc., 92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 916, 928 (Ct. App. 2000)
In re Anonymous, 283 F.3d 627 (4th Cir. 2002)
Marchal v. Craig, 681 N.E.2d 1160, 1163 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)
McKinlay v. McKinlay, 648 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
NLRB v. Macaluso, 618 F.2d 51, 54 (9th Cir. 1980)
Olam v. Cong. Mortgage Co., 68 F. Supp.2d 1110, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 1999).
Paranzino v. Barnett Bank 690 So. 2d 725 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
Rinaker v. Superior Court, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 464 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)
Rojas v. Superior Court, 93 P.3d 260, 262 (Cal. 2004).
Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] A.C. 1280, HL.
Simmons v. Ghanderi, 187 P.3d 934, 936 (Cal. 2008)
Wimsatt v Superior Court. 152 Cal App 4th 137 (Cal Ct App 2007).
Online Publications:
MOREK Rafal, Nihil silentio utilius: confidentiality in mediationand its legal safeguards in the EU Member States, ERA Forum (2013) 14: 421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-013-0317-9 , accessed 19 August 2017
Articles:
BARKER J, International Mediation—A Better Alternative for the Resolution of Commercial Disputes: Guidelines for a U.S. Negotiator Involved in an International Commercial Mediation with Mexicans, (1996) 19 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 309
COLE S, 'Protecting Confidentiality in Mediation: A Promise Unfulfilled' (2006) 54 U Kan L Rev 1419
CORNES D, Mediation Privilege and the EU Mediation Directive: An Opportunity? (2008), 74, Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, Issue 4,395
DEASON E, 'Enforcing Mediated Settlement Agreements: Contract Law Collides with Confidentiality' (2001) 35 UC Davis L Rev 33, 39-40
DEASON E, 'Predictable Mediation Condifentiality in the U.S. Federal System' (2002) 17 Ohio St J Disp Resol 239
DEASON E, Secrecy and Transparency in Dispute Resolution: The Need for Trust as a Justification for Confidentiality in Mediation: A Cross- Disciplinary Approach, (2006), 54 Kan. L. Rev. 1387
DEASON E, 'The Quest for Uniformity in Mediation Confidentiality: Foolish Consistency or Crucial Predictability' (2001) 85 Marq L Rev 79 DILLARD G, 'The Future of Meditation Confidentiality in Texas: Shedding Light on a Murky Situation' (2002) 21 Rev Litig 137
DUDLEY E, 'Federalism and Federal Rule of Evidence 501: Privilege and Vertical Choice of Law' (1994) 82 Geo LJ 1781
FEINBERG K, 'Mediation - A Preferred Method of Dispute Resolution' (1989) 16 Pepp L Rev 5
FREEDMAN L, Confidentiality: A Closer Look, In Confidentiality In Mediation: A Practitioner’s Guide(1985) 47 NJC 19
FREEDMAN L and PRIGROFF M, 'Confidentiality in Mediation: The Need for Protection' (1986) 2 Ohio St J on Disp Resol 37
FRIEDMAN E, 'Protection of Confidentiality in the Mediation of Minor Disputes' (1982) 11 Cap U L Rev 181
GRAY O, 'Protecting the Confidentiality of Communications in Mediation' (1998) 36 Osgoode Hall L J 667
GREEN E, 'A Heretical View of the Mediation Privilage' (1986) 2 Ohio St J on Disp Resol 1
HAY L, CARNEVALE C and SINICROPI A, 'Professionalization: Selected Ethical Issues in Dispute Resolution' (1984) 9 Just Sys J 228
KIRTLEY A, Mediation Privilege's Transition from Theory to Implementation: Designing a Mediation Privilege Standard to Protect Mediation Participants, the Process and the Public Interest, The, (1995 (1) J. Disp. Resol. 8
KUESTER E, 'Confidentiality in Mediation: A Trail of Broken Promises' (1995) 16 Hamline J Pub L & Pol'y 573
LODGE A, Comment, Legislation Protecting Confidentiality in Mediation: Armor of Steel or Eggshells?, (2001) 41 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1093
MACTURK C, 'Confidentiality in Mediation: The Best Protection Has Exceptions' (1995) 19 Am J Trial Advoc 411.
MCCRORY J, 'Environmental Mediation - Another Piece for the Puzzle' (1981) 6 Vt L Rev 49
MOSS S, ‘Confidentiality in Mediation’ (2010) 43 Maryland Bar Journal 55. PRIGROFF M, 'Toward Candor or Chaos: The Case of Confidentiality in Mediation' (1988) 12 Seton Hall Legis J 1
REICHERT K, Confidentiality in International Mediation, (2004) 59, 4, Dispute Resolution Journal, 60
RUFENACHT M, 'The Concern over Confidentiality in Mediation - An in- Depth Look at the Protection Provided by the Proposed Uniform Mediation Act' (2000) 2000 J Disp Resol 113
WESTON M, 'Confidentiality's Constitutionality: The Incursion on Judicial Powers to Regulate Party Conduct in Court-Connected Mediation' (2003) 8 Harv Negot L Rev 29
WYKOFF A, 'Mediation & confidentiality ' (2016), 4,1 Bond University Student Law Review 3