INKOVEMA Podcast „Well through time“
#16 – Pandemic-proof mediation training and other questions about mediation policy. In conversation with Peter Röthemeyer
Well through time. The podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting.
Peter Röthemeyer, Head of Division at the Lower Saxony Ministry of Justice, talks to podcast host Sascha Weigel about the latest developments in mediation law: why the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection took action and amended the legal ordinance – and not a subordinate executive „certification body“, as is the case elsewhere. However, other issues relating to mediation policy are also discussed critically and controversially.
Contents:
- Pandemic-proof regulation for the training and further education of certified mediators
- Introduction § 8 ZMediatAusbVO: „If a person was prevented through no fault of his own from complying with a deadline specified in this Ordinance, the running of this deadline shall be suspended for the duration of the impediment, but for no more than half of the deadline to be complied with in each case “
- Paradoxical development: Amendment of the regulation itself, precisely because there are no „implementing administrative bodies“ in the form of certification bodies (authorities, chambers or similar).
- Construction of the self-certification of mediators
- Basic ideas (activating administrative state)
- Practice of quality assurance through competition law
- However, there is a lack of information among the players
- Pull effect due to state non-regulation only insufficiently effective
- Changed litigation behaviour and developments in the Code of Civil Procedure
- Legislative background for the current ADR regulations
- Competitive thinking between state mediation services in courts and the private mediation market
- User perspective instead of mediator perspective in the regulation of mediation
- Where is the user perspective in the mediation discussion...?
- User perspective could make mediation services more attractive
- Different context in court (objective proceedings in the name of the people) and in mediation (subjective proceedings in the name of the mediator alone)
literature discussed:
- Röthemeyer, Peter: ZMediatAusbV is now pandemic-proof – the web error of the certification concept remains, ZKM 2020, 193.
- Steinbrecher, AlexanderWhy business mediation does not take place in Germany and how this could change, ZKM 2020, 107 ff.
Left:
- Peter Röthemeyer: Xing profile
- Introduction § 8 ZMediatAusbVO: „If a person was prevented through no fault of his own from complying with a deadline specified in this Ordinance, the running of this deadline shall be suspended for the duration of the impediment, but for no more than half of the deadline to be complied with in each case “
- Paradoxical development: Amendment of the regulation itself, precisely because there are no „implementing administrative bodies“ in the form of certification bodies (authorities, chambers or similar).
- Basic ideas (activating administrative state)
- Practice of quality assurance through competition law
- However, there is a lack of information among the players
- Pull effect due to state non-regulation only insufficiently effective
- Legislative background for the current ADR regulations
- Competitive thinking between state mediation services in courts and the private mediation market
- Where is the user perspective in the mediation discussion...?
- User perspective could make mediation services more attractive
- Different context in court (objective proceedings in the name of the people) and in mediation (subjective proceedings in the name of the mediator alone)
Leave A Comment