The article analyses paradigmatic value matrices and sociocultural codes of the phenomena of justice and mediation using the cognitive tools of anthropo-sociocultural, consumer and comparative approach.

The purpose of the article is to establish the nature of justice and mediation as the systems for resolving conflicts (disputes) in society. The authors focus on the issues of the everyday origins of justice and mediation, the properties of the value matrices of justice and mediation, and the opportunities and forms of public-private partnership of justice and mediation. As a result of the study of the above issues, the authors of the article substantiated a number of conclusions, in particular: justice and mediation are competitive, mutually complementary systems for resolving conflicts (disputes) in civil society. The fundamental reasons that gave rise to and continue to predetermine the need for justice and mediation to the present time, are the attributively contradictory nature of the person himself, first of all, human autonomy and communicative solidarity as constituents and semantic conditions of human existence, as well as the no less contradictory existential structure of the human world.

For a long historical period the institutional leadership in resolving conflicts (disputes) in society belonged to the state legal procedure. The human-centered turn in the midtwentieth century and the emergence of civil societies changed the nature of the bulk of conflicts (disputes) in societies, caused the crisis of traditional legal proceedings and the need to legitimize and institutionalize at the national level the alternative ways of solving them, primarily mediation. Currently, mediation has declared itself as a de jure institution. It has yet to become such a de facto institution.

There is a fundamental asymmetry between justice and mediation. Its quintessence is the paradigmatic opposite of the value matrices of justice as an institution of the state and mediation as an institution of civil society. This opposition a priori does not allow one of the aforementioned institutions for resolving conflicts (disputes) in society to be embedded in another such institution without deforming both of them. Justice and mediation are doomed to coexistence and interaction. The most optimal legal form of such interaction in modern domestic society is the institutional-type public-private partnership of justice and mediation.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Coleman J S, Foundations of social theory (Harvard University Press 1990) (in English).

2. Keshavjee Mohamed M, Islam, Sharia and Alternative Dispute Resolution (I B Tauris 2013) (in English).

3. Enhels F, Proyskhozhdenye semy, chastnoi sobstvennosty y hosudarstva (v sviazy s yssledovanyiamy Liuysa H Morhana) (Azbuka-klassyka 2009) (in Russian).

4. Nort D, Nasylstvo ta suspilni poriadky. Osnovni chynnyky, yaki vplynuly na khid istorii (Nash format 2017) (in Ukrainian).

5. Orteha-i-Haset, Vybrani tvory (Osnovy 1994) (in Ukrainian).

6. Shumpeter Y A, Kapitalizm, sotsializm i demokratiia (Osnovy 1995) (in Ukrainian).

Edited books

7. Klassen Kh Dzh M, ‘Bylo ly neyzbezhnym poiavlenye hosudarstva’ v Hrynyna L E i drugie (red), ‘Ranee hosudarstvo, eho alternatyvy y analohy: sbornyk statei’ (Uchytel 2009) (in Russian). 8. Prytyka Yu (red), Alternatyvni sposoby vyrishennia sporiv (Pravo 2019) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

9. Benston Sh, Farkas B, ‘Mediation and Millennials: A Dispute Resolution Mechanism to Match a New Generation’ [2018] 2 (2) Article 3 Journal of Experiential Learning (in English).

10. Burbank S B, Stephen N S, ‘Litigation and Democracy: Restoring a Reasonable. Prospect of Trial’ [2011] 46 (1) Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review (in English).

11. Thompson D, ‘The Unluckiest Generation: What Will Become of Millennials?’ (2013) April 26 The Atlantic (in English).

12. Havrylyuk R, ‘Pravova pryroda mediatsii yak vyslid buttievykh vlastyvostei liudyny’ (2018) 3 Pravo Ukrainy (in Ukrainian).

13. Havrylyuk R, ‘Zumovlenist pravovoi pryrody mediatsii buttievym ustroiem liudskoho svitu’ (2018) 5 Pravo Ukrainy (in Ukrainian).

14. Hnatiuk N, ‘Mystetstvo domovliatysia’ (2018) 38 Yurydychnyi visnyk Ukrainy (in Ukrainian). 15. Kovalenko I, Poiedynok V, ‘Mediatsiia v korporatyvnykh sporakh’ (2021) 6 Pravo Ukrainy (in Ukrainian).

Theses

16. Hren N, ‘Realizatsiia prava liudyny na spravedlyvyi sud shliakhom protsedury prysudovoi mediatsii: teoretyko-pravove doslidzhennia’ (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2016) (in Ukrainian).

17. Mazaraki N, ‘Teoretyko-pravovi zasady zaprovadzhennia mediatsii v Ukraini’ (dys d-ra yuryd nauk, 2019) (in Ukrainian).

Conference papers

18. Diurih H, ‘Pryntsyp liudskoi hidnosti. Proekt praktychnoi systemy tsinnostei osnovnykh prav na osnovi chastyny pershoi statti 1 u poiednanni z chastynoiu druhoiu statti 19 Osnovnoho Zakonu’ v Shloer B (red), Liudska hidnist: shcho my rozumiiemo pid “hidnistiu”, “liudyno” ta “liudskoiu hidnistiu”?: materialy mizhnarodnoho naukovopraktychnoho seminaru “Liudska hidnist u pravi Nimechchyny, Polshchi ta Ukrainy” (Kyiv, 10–11 zhovtnia 2016) (V dele 2017) (in Ukrainian). 19. Khotynska-Nor O, ‘Sudova systema Ukrainy v epokhu pokolinnia millenialiv’ v Suchasni vyklyky ta aktualni problemy sudovoi reformy v Ukraini: Materialy II Mizhnaronoi naukjvo-praktychnoi konferencii (ChNU ym Yu Fedkovycha 2018) (in Ukrainian).

20. Lener M, ‘Liudska hidnist v Osnovnomu Zakoni Federatyvnoi Respubliky Nimechchyna’ v Shloer B (red), Liudska hidnist: shcho my rozumiiemo pid “hidnistiu”, “liudyno” ta “liudskoiu hidnistiu”?: materialy mizhnarodnoho naukovo-praktychnoho seminaru “Liudska hidnist u pravi Nimechchyny, Polshchi ta Ukrainy” (Kyiv, 10–11 zhovtnia 2016) (V dele 2017) (in Ukrainian). 21. Patsurkivskyy P, Havrylyuk R, ‘Zaprovadzhennia yevropeiskoi modeli mediatsii yak shans sudovii reformi v Ukraini’ v Suchasni vyklyky ta aktualni problemy sudovoi reformy v Ukraini: Materialy II Mizhnarodnoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferehcii (ChNU im Yu Fedkovycha 2018) (in Ukrainian).