INKOVEMA Podcast „Well through time“
#214 GddZ
Vision of a standardised national justice portal
An overall concept for modern, society-wide dispute and conflict resolution?
In conversation with the President of the OLG Celle Stefanie Otte
Stefanie Otte has been President of the Higher Regional Court of Celle since July 2018. From 2013 to 2015, she worked in the Lower Saxony Ministry of Justice as Head of the Human Resources Department and Deputy Head of the Central Department. In 2015, she was appointed State Secretary and chaired the E-Justice Council until 2017. She recently chaired the nationwide working group on the use of artificial intelligence and algorithmic systems in the judiciary.
Well through time.
The podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting.
Contents
Chapter:
0:07 – Welcome to the podcast Well through time
1:05 – Online justice portal in focus
6:35 – Mediation and court in dialogue
9:57 – Digital transformation of the justice system
20:10 – Federal Justice Portal: A joint project
26:23 – Opening up to other professions
33:39 – The role of mediators in law
39:14 – Discussing the future of the justice portal
Summary of content
In the current episode of the podcast „Gut durch die Zeit“ I have a conversation with Mrs Stefanie Otte, President of the Higher Regional Court of Celle, about the current developments in justice policy and the Challenges of dispute resolution in and out of court. This time we didn't meet in the studio, but in the impressive building of the Higher Regional Court of Celle, which gave our dialogue a special touch.
Mrs Otte presents an innovative Proposal for a standardised nationwide online justice portal. We discuss how this portal can not only serve as a digital point of contact for citizens, but also help to strengthen trust in the justice system as a whole. At a time when digital presence is becoming increasingly important, it emphasises the importance of the judiciary being present in a modern, digitalised society. This includes considerations on modernising the justice system and improving the provision of information on rights and obligations.
One of Mrs Otte's main concerns is to strengthen the public's trust in the courts. She also addresses the problem of the declining number of lawsuits; a lower volume of lawsuits could indicate more profound problems in the perception of the judiciary. She argues that not every conflict needs to be resolved in court, but that the judiciary plays a fundamental role in the rule of law. The planned online portal should help to show citizens their options for action at an early stage before going to court becomes unavoidable.
We go on to discuss how the planned portal will integrate different stages of conflict resolution - from information gathering to concrete recommendations for alternative dispute resolution procedures. Ms Otte emphasises the importance of viewing mediation and court proceedings not as competing but as complementary systems. She is convinced that a dialogue-based exchange between the disciplines leads to better solutions.
Another aspect we are addressing is the role of mediators and the possibility of improving access to justice in the digital space. Mrs Otte's vision is to create a comprehensive network that not only gives citizens access to judicial solutions, but also shows them alternative ways of resolving conflicts - whether through mediation, arbitration or other procedures.
Finally, we emphasise that such a comprehensive initiative requires a broad dialogue between all stakeholders. This includes feedback from former members of the judiciary, mediators and citizens in order to design a portal that meets the real needs of society. Mrs Otte encourages all interested parties to actively participate in this discussion and contribute their perspectives. This is the only way we can work together to develop a comprehensive understanding of justice and conflict resolution that will benefit everyone involved.
Complete transcription
[0:00]If there were such a platform, what would be important for the experts to know?
[0:07]
Welcome to the podcast Well through time
[0:05] Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit, the podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting, a podcast by INKOVEMA. I'm Sascha Weigel and I'd like to welcome you to a new episode. Today's topic is judicial policy and dispute resolution in and out of court. I'm not welcoming you to my podcast studio, but to the halls of the Higher Regional Court of Celle, where I'm a guest today, Ms Stefanie Otte, President of the Higher Regional Court.
[0:43]Hello Mrs Otte. Good afternoon, Professor Weigel. Nice to see you here in Celle. Yes, I'm delighted too, and I was really pleased to be able to come to Celle and see the building and find out a bit about how things work here. I'm also very impressed by the size, the sheer size of the Higher Regional Court.
[1:05]
Online justice portal in focus
[1:01]and then wanted to set up the technology here and did so. But now we have resorted to an emergency solution and we just hope that it works well. Mrs Otte, I want to talk to you about the online justice portal. A proposal that you have formulated in a specialist article, but which you have certainly also presented at many conferences and meetings, in which out-of-court dispute resolution methods also play a role. And that makes the whole thing very special because it no longer focuses solely or exclusively on the judiciary in the traditional sense. Before we come to that, let's first talk about you and what makes a President of the Higher Regional Court so special that she has to deal with such a justice portal.
[1:50]As President of the Higher Regional Court, what are the current issues and problems facing the judiciary that you would like to address with this portal? I would very much like to deal with the justice portal because the question of modernity, of justice, of acceptance of the courts in a constitutional state is a daily issue for me. Fortunately, we live in a constitutional state, in a democracy. For me, the rule of law is essential for the functioning of democracy. And an accepted judiciary can only function if we are also digitally visible and accepted in a digitalised society. And this raises many questions about the modernisation of the justice system.
[2:50]A favourite topic of mine. Yes, these are precisely the latest problems or challenges of acceptance of the justice system. So now also from politics. In Germany, we are perhaps not yet that far in this respect. But acceptance of the courts, acceptance of the judiciary in terms of the question of when and under what circumstances they are utilised, we have had our very own challenges in recent decades. So the decline in the number of lawsuits filed was something that also concerned the judiciary. Why? And it wasn't just jubilation about fewer complaints, but also concern. Why is there less recourse to the judiciary, although of course the people themselves are still working at the limit?
[3:39]Yes, I am one of those who believe that justice and the courts are indispensable. I have just explained that. But I don't believe that every conflict is in good hands in court or that we have to fight over every conflict. We need a sufficient number of court proceedings in order to uphold the rule of law, to find legal solutions that go beyond individual cases, to be transparent in certain constellations and to anchor a minimum level of jurisprudence in society. But that doesn't mean that it's all about numbers or that every court case that is resolved in another way is a loss for the justice system. Yes, exactly.
[4:31]If we look at the proposal for the online justice portal, I have at least understood it to mean that it is no longer a last resort solution, when do I go to court if I have no other way out, but that it should be the first port of call. As soon as I realise that I can't make any progress in a conversation on my own or I ask myself at night where I stand with my rights and obligations, this online portal, which also deals with information in the first stage and in the second stage with pre- and out-of-court measures and takes up what has been developed in out-of-court dispute resolution methods in recent decades, is to be understood in this way. Yes, I would like to call for a holistic approach to conflict resolution, incorporating all dispute resolution options, including judicial dispute resolution. And based on the fact that in today's digitalised society, the first access, at least for the younger generation, was via the smartphone, the internet, and information about rights.
[5:50]I propose that we provide legal services on a comprehensive portal. However, we should not only offer legal services, but also prioritise information for citizens, which is already available on the Internet. I believe that a legal conflict often begins with a self-initiated search for solutions, so that we start with comprehensive and perhaps even better information than we have today and that many different paths then branch out, that there are many different ways to find a good solution.
[6:35]
Mediation and court in dialogue
[6:31]And a justice portal could demonstrate these possibilities in a modern way. You are also a mediator and clarification assistant and have also worked intensively with support processes in difficult discussions, conflict proceedings and conflict resolution procedures. How did you perceive this interplay or even this game of repulsion between mediation and the court, which has always been strongly profiled in the sense of.
[7:02]We've always done that. Or they do it completely differently. In their proposal, it seems to me that there is really good cooperation and that there is a real interlocking rather than an emphasis on it. They do it very differently. A judge acts very differently to a mediator and vice versa. Perhaps I am the best example of this and one of many that you can be both a judge with heart and soul and a committed mediator at the same time. There is absolutely no reason to marginalise each other or cut off opportunities. Quite the opposite. Conflicts are as diverse as society is, as diverse and different as people are.
[7:44]And to be able to appreciate from the full and to fertilise each other and see which path could be the right one is wonderful. That's why there's no reason to go into competition. Just as you can't force people into mediation, because the prerequisite is that they are prepared to reflect on themselves and deal with a conflict. Just as the court should not be the only way to obtain justice. So both have their advantages and disadvantages. And perhaps they are not the only ways to resolve conflicts. The internet and digitalisation now offer us the opportunity to take a fresh look and open our eyes. I am looking to see how you perceive the discussion, or whether it is still a discussion at all, about the relationship between mediation and law, including at work.
[8:40]Mediators tend to experience the law as an obstacle, so to speak, because when we talk about the law, we are somehow at an end in mediation or don't get any further and, conversely, when you are in court, in a judicial procedure, that mediative elements can then also be included. It seems to me that this is a good interplay for them and that mediation is embedded in the legal system, so to speak.
[9:08]Yes, I wouldn't want to have a dogmatic discussion about whether mediation can only work without the law or whether the law can only work without conflict resolution that goes beyond the law. I experience legal disputes in daily practice that, if you look at the legal dispute itself, clearly have this accompanying element of personal interaction. And I also experience legal disputes that benefit from the fact that an independent court reaches a decision solely on the basis of substantive and procedural law.
[9:57]
Digital transformation of the justice system
[9:50]The diversity is what makes both combinations so beneficial. I myself, and I believe many judges feel the same way, we don't have the conflict of saying what do we unpack now, the law or do we unpack the conciliation tools of mediation. Let's take a look at the planned or envisaged online portal. This is a federal justice portal and we can simply go into the future and say that it is there. So what will be different, so to speak? What does it make possible? You have divided it into three stages or three areas. What would…
[10:35]To the citizen, so to speak, what would be different if this existed and it worked well? I imagine that people would have easy digital access to an appealing.
[10:48]According to the principles of legal design, i.e. a simple and yet attractively designed page that allows you to search for information on the legal situation, on the position, on the conflict you are currently facing. In other words, starting with the responsible citizen, you have more information than you do today. The world has become very complicated, even in legal matters. First and foremost is the opportunity to find out about your own position, about the conflict, about comparable situations. Perhaps by means of digitalised information sheets, which is perhaps the first stage, but perhaps also through the use of artificial intelligence via chatbots, about comparable situations, also using language models.
[11:34]In other words, someone with relatively little legal knowledge still has the opportunity to assess their position. So starting from legal situations. So let's assume we were still googling. I don't just get results from a lawyer who has briefly explained their specialism in a blog post or on a forum and then said that if you have problems in this area, give me a call. I would then also go to the federal justice portal and find neutral, sober information there, but in such a way that I can find myself in it. Precisely and so simply prepared that the layman, the legal layman, is at least able to get an idea.
[12:20]Perhaps also that it is complicated, but perhaps also that it is not so complicated, but that he or she has the rights or the possibilities or that there are different ways to proceed at this point. I think lawyers are indispensable in our computational state, but knowledge should not always be available in a derivative way. We have more opportunities to make knowledge available simply and transparently via the digital world. That is a major positive aspect of digitality. We should utilise it.
[12:54]I would now go out, so to speak, as a citizen seeking legal advice at the first stage of this portal, well informed about my situation, not yet legally advised, but I would rather know whether I need legal advice now and consider it useful or whether I can go other ways. And then the portal is not over yet. I can then go further. Exactly, starting from a conflict
[13:24]Conflict situation, broadly defined, similar to a physical complaint. You also start to search the internet to find out what I have. Perhaps a little more seriously than is possible these days with physical complaints. But based on a conflict situation, the site could then show me various options that I have. You wouldn't have to painstakingly collect them one by one or rely on a tip from a friend that you could go to a mediator. Instead, it would not only be information about the legal options according to my vision, but also about the actual steps that I can take. And again in the sense of an extension. And there are so many ways to find solutions. This is not limited to the question of going to court or going to a mediator. There are arbitration centres, there are arbitrators, there is consumer arbitration, there are many things that already exist today.
[14:30]But who among us has the overview and where are there people who act as navigators, as guides? And for me, the platform would be this pilot, for me the entry point would be to show me the way, regardless of whether I know someone who can give me this information today. Yes, pilots and navigation, I think those are the keywords, where there have already been some initial attempts. such a pilot function, sometimes in the area of conflict management procedures from the Brown Table for Conflict Management or also, Professor Kreger from Erlangen also had such a site, quite a dispute.
[15:12]So that would be where I could use the federal justice portal first, so to speak, and then in the second stage I would also be able to find out about procedural ideas or suggestions or possibilities. This would mean that the understanding of justice would be very far upstream, so you could no longer come to me in court at the last minute, but I would pick you up at the very beginning of the conflict resolution process.
[15:43]So the portals open up at the beginning of the journey, so to speak. Exactly, but not with the idea of customer acquisition. You might think that I'm building a portal like this to get more people into the courts. I don't have that basic understanding, quite the opposite. As I tried to say at the beginning, in a constitutional state we also need the opportunity to go to independent courts. If there is no demand for this at all and no more cases end up in our courts at all, you can imagine that the courts will peter out and then at some point they will no longer be able to be revitalised and the rule of law will be destroyed. Then we would no longer have any leading decisions. We would have no case law to guide us. We wouldn't have any objective, independent decisions, including via consumer portals, and perhaps we'd have more interest-driven solutions, at least in some areas. So we urgently need judicial decisions, but perhaps we don't need them to the extent that we used to think they were necessary for a constitutional state. There are forks in the road and these should be utilised and publicised as a first step.
[17:01]Yes, I am very much aware that the court system also informs the public about what is actually in dispute in society.
[17:13]It only became clear to me with the final report on the number of lawsuits…
[17:20]In internal conflict management procedures, i.e. Paypal, Ebay, about which we no longer have any figures, about which we don't even know how many conflicts are handled there, then you could say that it's good if they don't perceive the surface, so to speak, but we have no knowledge at all about justice and about the question of where the shoe pinches. Exactly, and the arbitration procedures run by commercial enterprises, i.e. these quick solutions.
[17:51]They are, of course, customer-orientated and their purpose is never to guarantee the rule of law, but they always have a market economy aspect. That may be good for the customer in the individual case. If you look at the big picture, then we need at least the rule of law and independent courts. For decades, we have not really realised that independent judges are of great value to our society, and in this respect, all judges are also dependent on mediators, for example. In other words, on a mutual understanding of each other's value and function. I believe that many judges have already realised that it can make a lot of sense to look at a legal dispute not only in terms of what is in the files and what is made visible there, but that there is often a much larger complex of the dispute behind it. And I would also advocate that mediators also have the confidence that judges recognise and are very supportive of the fact that there is holistic conflict resolution outside the courts through this platform and through visibility. So on the one hand, the idea of the digital portal is justice.
[19:15]Experience, at an earlier stage and then on an access route that is stronger today than in the past, namely the digital route. In your view, what other problems could be tackled with the federal justice portal, at least as a solution approach, to emphasise this independence once again, so that there is once again an anchoring and interlocking of, let's say, conflict management, of a social nature?
[19:44]Hey, you who listen to this podcast, don't forget to rate it and give feedback. Thank you very much and now let’s move on. So if you're looking at this purely from a judicial, from a justice perspective, then we definitely need a portal as well, whether it's open or not.
[20:10]
Federal Justice Portal: A joint project
[20:11]Oh, that's a shortcoming as such. I would say that we don't really have a future with analogue courts only, i.e. only visible in analogue form. Young people at least are looking for solutions on the internet first, on their mobile phones, on their smartphones.
[20:28]Nowadays, nobody goes to court, knocks on the door and asks the legal applications office what they can do. That's why we have our security. That used to be good practice. Exactly, well, I don't know, but at least the move to mobile phones wasn't as pronounced, of course. And for young people, analogue buildings and entering a world that is very foreign to them are already obstacles. If we want to continue to have a demand, not in the sense of a market economy demand, but a demand for the rule of law, which we urgently need for democracy, then we must also be visible in the digital space. That's why, even if all the mediators told me that we don't want to be visible there and please let's keep it separate, I would still build it. I would still build the justice portal so that we have a digital court service.
[21:24]So that complaints can be submitted digitally, so that we can work together, so that different parties no longer have to send written submissions back and forth by email, so that we can work together on things. So we need the justice portal anyway. And the idea and the vision, which is perhaps still a little difficult in the judicial area sometimes, because from a judicial point of view you could also limit yourself to this smaller justice portal. The idea is to open it up and then look at problems holistically and have the information upstream. So it actually grows with the opening up to other professions. Yes, so it becomes clear to me above all that this is not simply the digitalisation of analogue court advice.
[22:13]Procedures and processes or even court buildings, i.e. every court now has its own website and then you can see who goes to the website, but that it really is a digitalised process, i.e. how citizens obtain their rights, even in conciliation or mediation proceedings.
[22:34]I can well imagine that you will have to do a lot of advertising for this idea to make it conceivable. I believe that young people are in favour of this idea. The next generation will take it for granted that it will be possible to access court services digitally. That will be a development. It's also central in that respect. Of course. And that's also true for us, even if it's still difficult for us to imagine, then the development won't be stopped. And perhaps we are not yet thinking modern enough. Who knows in which direction we should actually be thinking. Maybe in a few years there will be a dish in the metaverse. Maybe people will soon no longer go to court at all, but instead create their own avatar and present their case to a digital judge. I want to have my say and help build it so that we can also show the limits so that we don't lose the rule of law, even in the digital world. Because if we are serious about the fact that it is enshrined in our Basic Law that the judge is a human being, i.e. that we have a human decision, we need to be aware of the possibilities and I believe we should be.
[23:55]Have an appeal in the digital world without betraying our principles. The path is narrow, but it will have to be travelled. Preserving a human judge, an independent judiciary, will only succeed if we do not cling to analogue and the way we have been socialised. We are facing one of the greatest upheavals and thinking and co-development must become part of our DNA, including the DNA of the judiciary and judges who preserve it.
[24:28]On the one hand, you formulated the proposal in the specialist article in the ZKM, I'm going to say in a mediator magazine, but strongly characterised by legal scholars and lawyers. I would be interested to hear feedback on this proposal from mediators. But you probably also have the proposal among colleagues and in the Judicial Commission.
[24:53]How will this be received? When I imagine that many people say that the lower courts are a matter for the federal states and now there is to be a standardised justice portal, I can imagine that there will often be questions about who runs it. A very large reform commission met last year to deal with the changes to civil procedure. Perhaps not surprisingly. I was going to say surprisingly, but perhaps it's not so surprising. There was a great deal of agreement with the idea of building a justice portal and the Federal Ministry of Justice is already involved in many ways. Many steps have already been taken. So we are not far away from the idea of creating a common platform for digital access to judicial services. What is still new is the opening up to other professions, including extraordinary dispute resolution. A portal will only be possible on a nationwide basis.
[25:51]There is a consensus that the federal states want to shoulder large digital projects together in future. So there is a lot of openness. And the path will not be ready the day after tomorrow, but there are many real-world labs and many small sub-projects that will make this possible. But the federal states want to be involved, so to speak. It's not as if they're saying that the federal government should do the digital things
[26:23]
Opening up to other professions
[26:17]We want to keep our competences in the federal states, but they want to be involved. The pull and dynamism of the digital world is actually also a centralisation. And the question of who runs it is also answered by who doesn't run it. Yes, building the technical prerequisites and the technology will be a matter for the federal government with very strong involvement of the federal states or at least a coordinated approach, however this is agreed upon in politics. It will require a major effort to build a system. The operation itself, filling it with content, will continue to be a matter for the federal states. There will of course be agreement on general information on inheritance law, care law and land register law.
[27:10]That you have texts that are also read beyond the country's borders and that you proceed in a division of labour. I think that is feasible. But the courts themselves, the decisions, the routes into local conflicts, that will remain a matter for the individual states.
[27:28]And that's a good thing, it's enshrined in our constitution. Then we come back to this opening up to other professions. Has there been any feedback on the article that was published in the ZKM, where mediators may have commented or given feedback?
[27:46]Interesting. That's for sure. The article is intended as an impetus to start a dialogue. I believe that we need an even more comprehensive study on what the needs in society actually are. We do not have a legal needs study in the classic sense, in the comprehensive sense, in Germany. The study on the decline in civil proceedings has already produced good results. But the survey of the younger generation in particular, where are things heading? How do they envisage access to the courts or to conflict resolution in general? I think that we would then need even more data. That's one point we need to be able to discuss conclusively. And, of course, we also need a process involving all stakeholders that is based on the principle of legal design, the objective of finding simple but customised solutions.
[28:47]A lot of work is therefore required to complete and round off such a model.
[28:54]I invite everyone to join in the discussion. That would be a great benefit and would probably also make us even stronger in our cooperation. Yes, I think that's absolutely necessary. This debate is not just about the profession, but also about how we deal with conflicts together. And that's what I find so coherent about this example and this idea, that mediation, out-of-court and other conflict management procedures, which are not initially associated with the justice system, but which are conflict management within companies, within organisations, where you don't think, if this isn't resolved here, I'll go to court, but then sometimes a conflict is simply forgotten and causes trouble elsewhere in the form of stressed people and a lack of satisfaction or illness. And this embedding, the interplay, which I would also see as a citizen in the portal, that belongs together, I think that's worthwhile. Yes, it is an invitation to deal with conflicts, to normalise conflicts and to deal with them, to recognise them as part of our society.
[30:17]What challenges or difficulties do you expect in the dialogue between the professions? I've just used the discussions in the context of the new regulation for mediators and the changes that were also organised by the Federal Ministry of Justice on an interprofessional basis in the online area as a reference example. And where a wide variety of professions sat there, were able to discuss, make their contributions, you could already see at one point or another that, yes, there are different perspectives. For sure. There definitely needs to be room for discussion. My suggestion would be to start with the justice portal in the traditional sense. In other words, the digitalisation of court services, digital access including information.
[31:12]I mentioned that we are working on it. So there are many different projects. If the justice portal then becomes halfway visible, if something rises out of the fog, then it would be a great idea to invite the actors who are also involved in conflicts, the diverse actors, and to say, if you see this portal, where would your place be? Where would you position yourselves? What information about you would it need? Which organisation? The courts have no interest in making a selection. Who is allowed to be deposited there or to whom do we branch out? That would be too much for us. That is a management task that lies outside our core area. As I see it, we want to issue the invitation.
[32:06]… and to take forks in the road. And of course we also need associations to discuss which branches, which paths we have. The fact that it is something additional, in addition to the other possibilities to be visible and to undertake additional applications, to maintain additional networks.
[32:30]I don't think it's a competitive situation in the classic sense. But I would organise it in such a way that I give people the opportunity to participate and that would then also be openly possible.
[32:43]If all mediators were to say that we don't want to be visible on this platform, that it's too close to us or the colour is stupid, I don't know for what reasons, then we would still benefit as courts. So because we would then be digitally visible and because we have our offers. So I would see it as an opportunity, as an invitation to be able to make offers. And I could also imagine that this would also give mediation greater visibility and greater demand. Yes, from my understanding and from my experience, I am more of the opinion that mediation actually works on the basis of a good legal system, a functioning legal system and only takes place in the context of law,
[33:39]
The role of mediators in law
[33:33]that differentiation from the court has not helped mediation. It has helped mediators to understand their work in comparison to courts, but has not really helped mediation to be adequately understood by the general public. I therefore welcome this and would ask again, so to speak, for the conclusion, as the portal is still in the fog, in the digital fog. And perhaps one or two listeners are now saying, yes, where should the invitation go now? What can I do now? Or where can I get information or make a statement?
[34:11]What do you have in mind? What would be feasible now for someone who has never thought of themselves in this context before, but has heard the invitation to come and be part of it?
[34:26]Exactly. How about we use the time until you can join in live to intensify and improve the relationship between judges and mediators. In other words, to break down barriers and develop an understanding that the rule of law is so infinitely important and that there is no one good or better way to resolve a conflict. So one method is not better than the other, we need both. We need diversity in conflict resolution. And entering into dialogue would be the first step for me. I believe that there are still too many hurdles, especially among judges and mediators who have not had much to do with each other so far. And I would campaign for support, or I would hope that there is also a great deal of support in the world of mediation for the rule of law and for legal solutions. Broadening the view that a purely legal solution can also have advantages is something new or something that we have not attached so much importance to so far. It makes a lot of sense for mediators to explain why their work is of benefit to those above the jurisdiction, the pure jurisdiction, because the conflict is resolved holistically.
[35:51]But without the law, things wouldn't work in our democracy either.
[35:56]This understanding for each other is perhaps a very banal and analogue step. And then to consider and work on what such a platform could look like? What are our interests? If there were such a platform, what would be important from our point of view? This requires a great deal of expert knowledge on the part of the mediators. And these are good preparatory measures for raising a finger and demanding to be involved. It is not a necessity for the judiciary to open up a platform, at least not a business necessity. This will also make it necessary for mediators and mediators to become visible. Yes, I think it's totally appropriate that mediators not only develop an understanding of the court system and judges' activities, but also advertise them in the best sense of the word.
[36:53]Indeed, because it mine Thesis in addition also really Prerequisites is. So Mediation is not one Alternative to the Right, but actually believe me, that more Mediation in the Society possible is, when clear is, that one also to Court of law Go can and there Law get would. It is, I wants it not exaggerate, so not absolutely Luxury mediation, but in one Society, where none qualitative high quality Court system there is, is also none Mediation possible. Since can one Barter trade and there can one Bazaar play, but not really Mediation, like we us Mediation introduce. Exactly and we should us on Times set. So we have in Germany Yes always still the Happiness, that Nobody the Independence the Justice in question provides. But when we even only short or also something more about Boundaries look out, then place we fixed, that this Basic understanding not everywhere reigns. The Justice, the Rule of law needs Support. He needs these Basic assumption in the Society, like You them straight outlined have, that it in any case without the Courts also not goes. Courts are not the Needle the World, but without them missing something whole Decisive for Democracy. The would so hot, love Mediators or Mediators, when You something to say have to the Court system.
[38:20]Something Critical perhaps also to the, what straight spoken was, or something Confirmatory, report You itself with pleasure, so that we ins Conversation come can. I have the Impression, Mrs Otte, You would on each Case there again with ins Conversation Go and the Dialogue there also direct with Mediators also continue. Very with pleasure and even not only the Dialogue. Perhaps gives it also times Opportunities for one ordinary Discussion. Or for one ordinary Discussion. Exactly. The would be also times again one Opportunity, Discussions ins Life to call and not only always the Exchange, but also really one insightful Discussion.
[38:55]Mrs Otte, I wanted now already say, many Thanks to for the Conversation, but maybe, because the Yes also Your formulated Idea was, perhaps have I Yes still one important Point forget or the still You Important is to the Aspect, the we even not addressed have. Me seems there still much there unspoken also to be.
[39:14]
Discussing the future of the justice portal
[39:14]Me would be it important, that the Mediators and Mediators superior, which Place would like them in so one Justice portal have. So these Discussion, that them them now lead, that them the Proximity or the Distance advocate, the Question, like dives one on, like are Turnoffs, like would itself the Mediators and Mediators introduce. The would be for me a great Contribution to the more Development one such Idea. With the Question finish we the Conversation and take the on other Place then again on. Many Thanks to. Many Thanks to, Mrs Otte. Thank you very much. Many Thanks to, that you here again with thereby were, as we here to this Topic spoken have in this Podcast. And when you the please has and the Podcast you agrees and you would like also, that other, the this Podcast still not know, but get to know should, because it for them interesting is and interesting would be, then leave behind but one Star rating and a Feedback on Apple Podcast or Google Business and give known in yours Podcast.
[40:20]The here to Mediation, Conflict coaching, Organisational consulting and the Whole also in the Face the new Technologies podcasted becomes. For the Moment everything Good, her and yourselves. I say goodbye me with the best Wishes. Until to the next Times. Comes good through the Time. I am Sascha Weigel, yours Host from INKOVEMA, the Institute for Conflict and Negotiation management in Leipzig and Partner for professional Mediation and Coaching training programmes.
Leave A Comment