Why in court it is worse than in the mediation Peaceful future is more important than the past conflict Traditions of mediation. enforcement action Lawyer and mediation. advisability Mediation – is not a panacea Field of mediation Mediation relieves courts Basic mediation techniques Forecasts for mediation development in Ukraine Mediation - algebra of conscience and justice Ukraine and mediation: marriage of convenience or love match?

Regardless of the dynamics, stages, determining factor of developmentof various legal systems, they all converge in that approach from the perspective of law in resolving disputes and conflicts in the courts, is needed in society and can be effective, especially if the case clearly falls under legal standards.

However, the common position also lies in the fact that the imperfection of the laws, the inability to envisagein them the specificity and complexity of the situation, sometimes their lag behind actual practice, courts overload, duration, and often high cost of litigation, the possibility of judicial error, the difficulties of enforcement of court decisions indicate the certain limitation of this approach.

The truth is that in view of the shortcomings of the state judicial system, judicial decision sometimes provokes an escalation of the conflict, not its solution.

WHY IN COURT IT IS WORSE THAN IN THE MEDIATION

The abovementioned factors that contribute to an increase in serious dissatisfaction in the legal practice and the judicial system, are supplemented by another such as:

1. in the event of bringing matter before the  court the parties provide the full set of powers to resolve the disputeto this body. In this case, it is the court to determine when the process starts and when it ends, how it is conducted and its results;
2. in many countries (e.g. USA), one of the main reasons for resorting to alternative ways of conflict resolution was the high cost of participation in the trial. The U.S. attorney's fees sometimes reach astronomical figures;
3. slow procedure of litigation, which does not permit to resolve the conflict situation as soon as possible, which has a negative impact on business processes;
4. the complexity of the majority of conflicts that are not restricted by one dispute.
5. stressful and frustrating procedure that accompanies the process of litigation.

Many experts note that, if a conflict arose between the people who are in ongoing relationships such as neighbors, spouses, employees, the stresses of the trial only worsen the relationship.

All these aspects have influenced the emergence of dissatisfaction with the legal forms of dispute resolution and the search for possible alternatives.

Mediation (from the Latin mediatio - Mediation) is a form of alternative dispute resolution, which aims to assist two (or more) parties of the dispute to reach a mutual and beneficial agreement with the participation and under the guidance of a neutral third party - the mediator (the mediator), which has no right to impose a mandatory decision on the parties.

PEACEFUL FUTURE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PAST CONFLICT

You have to understand that mediation is not just a tool that allows conflicting parties to settle the case at the pretrial stage.

Mediation is unique in that it encourages participants to interact directly with each other to treat the dispute as a common problem that needs solving and to search for different solutions, as well as to treat each other and the opposite positions with respect. Important is the factor that the mediation procedure is focused largely on the fact that the conflicting parties will do in the future, rather than on the merits of the dispute, which occurred in the past.

The success of mediation lies in its special design. The formal structure of mediation is designed so that, it contributes to the most favorable of all possible outcomes: the development of a strong common point of view. The mediator has no direct influence on the content dispute, it only organizes the process that restores the connection between the disputants, contributes to their understanding, resulting in increased creativity and commitment of the parties to find common ground, andthe most optimal solution comesto foreground from all possible. The condition for that acts the exact following of the chosen procedure, of the principles of mediation and the use of special technique.

In its pure form mediation works as a process of facilitation: the mediator has no advisory role. Instead, the mediator seeks to help participants of the dispute to develop a mutual understanding of the conflict and to work towards the adoption of practical and long-term agreement on the subject of dispute.

It must be emphasized that the final resolution of the dispute depends entirely on the parties themselves.

The ability of mediator to maintain objectivity and neutrality, to defy to emotions and not take, albeit unwittingly, the side of a disputant is very important for success.

Mediation should not be confused with similar alternative methods of dispute resolution, including mini-trial, early neutral evaluation, the private court and others that are most often used in the U.S. and Canada.

Except for the mediation, all of these forms are similar to the judicial model. This is because they all involve the participation of lawyers who represent the clients’ cases to a third party, who makes the decision like a judge.

In a neutral expert evaluation the lawyers present their cases before a third lawyer, have a great experience of work. This expert makes an informal opinion on the legal strengths and weaknesses of the parties' positions aiming to give a more realistic basis for amicable settlement of the case.

A private court is almost identical to the normal court, but involves the participation of former judges ("Judges retired") to hear the case in the "private court".

Illustrative is the example from the U.S., which clearly demonstrates how mediation methods can be successful in legal practice.

For example, in 1989 in USA, Professor Frank Sander (Frank E.A. Sander) received a special award for outstanding contribution to the field for the ADR concept of so-called "multidoor courthouse”.

According to this concept, the U.S. civil court is seen as a kind of business that provides a variety of dispute resolution services. Visitor court firstly will deal with the "intake specialist”, who will study the situation, will diagnose the case and recommend the most appropriate way to resolve the dispute (next door), leaving the right of choice for the customer.

The options that can offer a specialist, having regard to the dispute and the intentions of the client, may include independent arbitration, an independent evaluation, mini-trial, mediation andactually the court hearing (the most expensive and time-consuming of all the options).

The main thing that parties get as a result of mediation - is the absence of losers on "battleground." Of course, each of the parties in the mediation procedure has to compromise something for the sake of finding the optimal way of resolving the conflict. But both sidesreceivinga "peaceful future" as a result, in which the parties can communicate normally, and not turn away eyes from each other, meeting in the aftermath. Althoughis an interesting dependence after the "victory" in court: the "brighter" is the victory of a party after the "legal battles", the more likely that in the future the parties of "legal battles" will not wish even to stretch each other's hand in greeting - not to mention is the continuation of cooperation.

TRADITIONS OF MEDIATION. ENFORCEMENT ACTION

Traditionally, mediation procedure is divided into several stages, each of which follows from the previous ones:
establishing contacts and conclusion of mediation agreement

• stage of information gathering
• negotiation stage
• stage of dispute resolution
• final stage (the conclusion of mutually beneficial for the both parties contract)

It is clear that the consent of the parties is needed in order the conducting of the mediation on the dispute was possible. Such an agreement must be in writing and may either be part of the agreement between parties of the contract, from which the disagreement has arisen, or it can be a separate document, drawn up prior to or after the dispute arose.

Preparatory phase of mediation is the selection and appointment of a mediator. It is assumed that a decision on this matter take parties to the dispute by mutual agreement.

If the parties haven’t reach an agreementmediator’s candidate is determined by the Institute, which organizes the process of mediation.
Actually mediation begins with a first discussion of the dispute, which is held by the mediator.

Usually by the time of first hearing the parties are sharing the necessary documents. During the first discussionthe characteristics ofhearing procedures are determined and timetable for the dispute settlement is agreed. The mediator may invite the parties to conduct some consultations tete-a-tete, without an opponent.

Further mediation process goes according to the approved schedule and usually takes no more than a month.

The result of mediation is usually an agreement between the parties.

As we mentioned earlier, this agreement cannot be forcibly enforced. As a general rule. Otherwise, it means that the mediation was left unfinished.

Similarly, the impugnmentofthe agreement is not foreseen. However, many of the current mediation rules provide the way which allows to bring terms of the agreement into effectforcibly.

This can be done by appealing to the arbitral tribunal or international arbitration, so that the reached agreement was formalized as its’ solution.

LAWYER AND MEDIATION. ADVISABILITY

It is needed to understand, first of all for lawyers who are just starting to deal with the institution of mediation that the mediator –is a neutral third party, not a judge or expert advisor, who must make a decision.

Instead, the mediator facilitates and assuresnegotiations between parties, bringing them to find their own solutions that will satisfy both sides.

Is the mediationalways advisable? Agree that the answer to this question cannot be unambiguous.

It must be said that mediation is advisable, if you have the following prerequisites:

• aggravation of the conflict, ie, through direct talks or negotiations, conflict is insoluble, or can be resolved satisfactorily
• conflict resolution at an impasse
• disputing parties interested in good relations with each other in the future
• All parties to the conflict seek an agreed solution to the conflict
• There is plenty of time to develop an agreed solution to the conflict.

I have heard repeatedly from some lawyers that mediation is a beast, which "takes the bread out from the lawyer."

In part, this statement is true. But it is important to understand then, what kind of "bread" is meant by lawyers: that "poisons" the life of customers, spoils relationships between customers, "raising" the "winner" of legal battlesin his own eyes, and "demeaning" the one who "lost" in court in the eyes of all participants of the judicial wars... About that "bread", which leads to an escalation of the conflict between the "winner" and "loser", that "bread", which eventually causes insomnia for "warriors" on the legal battle, and the lawyers themselves – i.e. about "bread", which poisons the "life" to everyone who got involved in litigation.

Then this "bread" - is a poison, and why then to feed customers with this poison, poisoning the life of all - customers and lawyers.

It is not secret to anyone what a high percentage of burnout exists among experienced lawyers ...

This "burnout" provoked by the that "bread" that lawyers obtain so hard on the court’s "battleground".

I'm talking about real practicing lawyers who are really in good faith approach to the developing and implementing strategies and tactics to protect clients' interests.

That the percentage of "lawyers" who combine their profession with the postal services of "postmen", bringing "envelopes", probably will not suffer from burnout. I write these lines, including to the lawyers who are concerned about the high level of conflicts that exists today in Ukraine. And who truly interested that our children to live in a society where the man to the man is brother, not the wolf. Who realize that the sooner we teach our clients to negotiate with each other without the involvement of third parties, the sooner the Ukrainian society will be kinder, smiling, and perhaps someUkrainian sayings like “My house is on the edge, I don’t know anything”, “As my chicken dies, so two neighbor’s chicken die” “I will not eat everything, but I will bite” will go out of use.

I sincerely believe that such positive-minded lawyers in Ukraine are many. The mediation procedures just unknown to them or benefits of mediation arelittle known for all parties to the conflict.

MEDIATION – IS NOT A PANACEA

However, the cases where the mediation is simply not acceptableshould be describedin order not to create for mediation the image of panacea:

• the party must demonstrate steadfastness not to receive such demands from others in the future
• the party is not interested in resolving this dispute,
• the party could easily get a favorable ruling in a short time and at lower cost, because has a strong legal position,
• the side needs to draw public attention to the dispute,
• thedispute involves criminal or constitutional decision.

There is also a positive practice in the world, when mediation is combined with the arbitration procedure. Although sometimes, unfortunately, in practice and sometimes in the professional literature, we have to deal with the idea that many professionals actually contradict each other, these two forms of ADR.

However, it is impractical to do so, because mediation compatible with arbitration sometimes gives a positive effect. In particular, attached to the arbitration process is called "mediation / arbitration," and is widely known in the U.S., the EU countries.

In this process, in case of failure of the parties to reach an agreement through mediation, the mediator becomes an arbitrator, moves the process of mediation in the arbitration and makes a binding decision.

Of course, the parties and the mediator may determine that the mediator will not act as a witness or as an arbitrator, or as a representative or counsel of either party in any arbitral or judicial proceedings in respect of the dispute that is the subject of mediation.

Also in the case of "mediation / arbitration," the parties may agree not to bring or introduce as evidence in arbitral or judicial proceedings, regardless of whether this investigation concerns dispute that is the subject of mediation:

• Views expressed or suggestions made by the other party to the dispute regarding the possible settlement of the dispute
• admissions made by the other party during mediation,
• the mediator offers.

FIELD OF MEDIATION

It should be noted thatscope of the mediation is sufficiently broad. It can be used in personal dispute cases, and in the group, or political, labor, business conflicts.

I must say that in countries where mediation is known for a long time, such as USA, Canada, some EU countries, the mediation technique is widely spread in the resolution of marital conflict and issues related to divorce. Also, in settling disputes between neighbors, tenants and landlords.

Technologies, similar to mediation used in resolving conflicts in the workplaces. One is trying to resolve conflicts with the help of mediation, primarily in the EU, North America, in the political sphererelating to the protection of the environment, between civil initiatives, economics and management. At the same time until now it was about, the placement of industrial facilities, road construction projects, waste disposal, etc.There are enough successful examples of political mediationin the larger social conflicts in the international sphere.

In the European Union and the United States, managers and producers become more and more interested in mediation as a tool to resolve conflicts between business partners and within the workforce. It's no secret what resources are lost because of hidden or apparent conflicts, whether of intrigues aimed to change of management or intransigencies caused by the threat of losing benefits.
And as in the western management practice managers in addition to salary own shares of the enterprise in which they work, so their personal well-being depends on the effectiveness of the methods of resolving industrial disputes.

American concern «Motorola» has reduced its costs of litigation by 75 percent thanks to the participation of mediators. Company «Toyota» managed to reduce the number of lawsuits filed in court against it, with an average of two hundred a year to three.
On the benefits of mediation reports the computer giant NCR - up to 60 percent of the conflicts in this area are resolved with the use of mediation (according to the Center for Mediation in San Diego).

As well as in labor disputes, mediation in business has a significant role in resolving disputes between businesses in the Westfor this period.
In particular, in 1996, a survey conducted by consulting firm Deloitte &Touche, shows that almost two thirds of the surveyed firms and law firms recognized the mediation as the preferred of two forms of dispute resolution.

Major corporations around the world recognize that more than half of disputes resolved through mediation. They have understood long ago that mediation in business –is not only efficient but also low-budget tool to resolve the conflict.

Mediation is applicable in corporate disputes, at the stage of pre-contractual disputes and the conclusion of large transactions, as well as to resolve the conflict between owners, managers.

MEDIATION RELIEVES COURTS

The development of mediation will relieve the courts, make justice more accessible.

Certainly, in the domestic business practices conscientious participants of economic relations oftentimely take exhaustive measures to resolve disputes and disagreements without claims proceduresoutside the regulatory permission and compulsion.

These measures are, as a rule, have the nature of mutual negotiations, sometimes with the participation of intermediaries. However, they are usually spontaneous and are not based on any a formal procedure, by which the parties would be guided, if they came to agreement thatnegotiationsare needed. In this regard, they have a low level of efficiency and as a rule dispute goes to arbitration or civil court.

For ordering the prevailingpracticeprocedures, as well as to encourage of their wider use by entrepreneurs, the developing model regulations governing the conduct of negotiation or settlement of a dispute involving a mediatoris seen.

For example, in the U.S. such regulations are taken by such public organizations as the American Arbitration Association and American Bar Association. These regulations contain examples of agreements for conducting various kinds of procedures, process rules for the parties, their representatives and mediators. Particular attention is paid to ethics of negotiation, mediation, arbitration. By the impact, such provisions are recommendatory. However, having concluded an agreement to settle the dispute by means of a procedure, the parties are obliged to obey it.

It should be noted that mediation can function not only as a means of settling the dispute, but also as a preventative tool in emergence of a dispute.

For example, mediation can be used to negotiate the terms of contract, by identifying mutual interests and conducting effective negotiations between the parties.

BASIC MEDIATION TECHNIQUES

Sometimes the practice is moving away from the theory and, though the fundamental principles of mediation (voluntariness, equality, impartiality, confidentiality), the parties turn the process of mediation in some sort of hearing.

In order to prevent distortion of the nature of mediation, the mediator has to make a lot of effort. Otherwise, the essence of the mediation process is distorted, and the outcome of this conciliation will be negative.

Within the survey among U.S. professional mediators the basic manipulative techniques that are used by the parties in mediation were found out:

• the parties try to "crush" under the opponent to make him the object of manipulation, to intimidate, "replay" through proficiency in speaking, or a greater competence in law, economics, psychology;
• try to win a mediator over to their side (sometimes through the demonstration of weakness, insecurity, lack of experience - at a very stubborn defense of their interests);
• absolve themselves of responsibility for the decision, reserving the right in the future to break it.

That is why it is essential for the mediator to be a professional and to have a good command of techniques that allows him to create an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect, proper, business, discussion of controversial issues and avoidance of any kind of manipulation.

Many well-known practice of mediation argue that specialmediationtool doesn’texist, you can use techniques from many other areas (group dynamics, moderation, counseling, training, education, etc.)

It is important also to understand that mediation is developing in stages. By the way, the Russian translation of the serialabout mediation "Fairly legal" voice-over practically doesn’t refer to the word "mediation" and constantly translates the term as "intercession." Perhaps the translator is not very familiar with the process of mediation, which is perfectly reflected in this serial.

Let’s remind that there are certain stages of mediation, and that if the parties have decided to seek the assistance of a mediator, they will have to go through the following:

The first phase - the initiation of mediation.
Second stage - taking the case to the mediation
The third stage – search for the problem solving
The fourth stage - an agreement between the parties on the merits of the conflict (dispute) or its’ part and the execution of the agreement.

All stages of the mediation united by one procedural goal and represent the complex of relationships that arise in the course of the mediation.

The time that will be spent for resolutionof the dispute depends on the situation in which are conflicting parties, personal relationships, as well as the interests of the parties.

The main thing during the mediation procedure is to allow all parties of the dispute to seek and find a solution that is convenient to everyone. And the final decision of mediation is not always as one that the parties intended at the outset, when they decided to seek the assistance of a mediator. The final decision may be much more interesting than thatone whichpartiesoriginally"fought" for.

In this is the beauty and uniqueness of mediation: it allows each of the parties of the disputeto open himself and allows to see the situation "through the eyes of the mediator" – i.e., from the side.

As Yesenin said: "Face to face you will not see the face, the great is seen from a distance."

FORECASTS FOR MEDIATION DEVELOPMENT IN UKRAINE

In the CIS countries, especially such as Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus - an interest in mediation by lawyers, psychologists, conflictologies has a wavy path. The peaks of short-term fashion are replaced disappointment. Then the new wave of interest, and then repeat an apathetic lack of interest.

All of the mentioned countries have adopted the law on mediation, except Ukraine.

And I think that this means that Ukraine has a chance to improve the draft law on mediation, and to take into account the problems / misunderstandings that emerged in the countries after the adoption of a law on mediation.

Discomfort in the interpretation of the term "mediation" and in the use of mediation in practice was observed in three occupational groups:

• psychologists-therapists,
• Lawyers
• entrepreneurs-managers.

It could be said that all without exception appreciated the need for the implementation of mediation. But after a brief in time efforts to useit in the practice of psychological or legal assistance, the belief ininopportuneemerges, that neither people nor the system aren’t ready to use mediation in the practice of conflict management. , I’ve heard a lotof such conversations in Ukraine.

In what direction will go the development of mediation in Ukraine? This issue is being discussed at government level, legislators, legal, business and scientific community for several years.

Whether it goes by the "American" scenario, where mediation is as an alternative to formal court? Or "European", where the mediation means the development of cultural treatment of conflict?

It seems that Russia for example, needs the mediationmore as a tool for internal democratization and liberalization, i.e., the development of autonomy and freedom, social tolerance. The judicial system of the Russian Federation objectively is less corrupted and structured.

While there is certainly a lot of problems, but they are not as destructive as in the judicial system of Ukraine. The latter, alas, is subject to very serious destructive factors: political pressure, the tremendous level of corruption, problems of judicial self-regulation, chronic underfunding.

There is a hope that the Law on Combating Corruption, which entered into force in Ukraine since July 1, 2011 will positively affect the development of the country as a whole and on the mentality of the Ukrainians in particular.

But until today the evolved over the years "depraved" practice of "implantation" of the mentioned factors in the daily life of Ukraine adversely affect the impartiality of the judicial system and certainly not conducive to raising the level of Legality and Rule of law in the Ukrainian state.

For this reason, many experts from the EU and the U.S. claim that the development of ADR, and in particular the system of mediation in Ukraine, will contribute to achieving of social justice.

It is difficult to disagree with this conclusion. However, the resistance from the state judicial system to development of ADR, arbitration courts, and sometimes even resistance to enforcement of the decisions of international arbitration in Ukraine shows that the state isn’t interested in the development of any alternative.

All this, in its’ turn, can lead to enormous destructive consequences for both the state and for its legal system. But we trust in the best, and believe that the mediation will soon firmly settle down in the minds of Ukrainian citizens, as well as in the minds of Ukrainian officials.

MEDIATION - ALGEBRA OF CONSCIENCE AND JUSTICE

A great many explanations of the various attitudes to mediation and to the different methods of dispute resolution could be found in the famous book by V.Lafevr "Algebra of Conscience": "In the early 80s, it was shown that two types of culture might exist. In cultures of the first type the  people's dignity is enhanced when they establish a relationship of compromise with each other, and in cultures of the second type – when they are uncompromising with each other. In view of these features in the cultures of the first type the procedure of conflict self-resolution  arises easily, while in the cultures of the second type such a procedure does not appear itself. "

And further: "Imagine a broad road on which cars are going. Natural to assume that each driver tends to reach the destination point quickly. Also natural to assume that while driving, drivers interfere with each other and thus come into constant conflict. Let us imagine that there are two roads. Drivers on the first road rise up in their own eyes and in the eyes of other drivers, if they concede to each other. And drivers of cars on the second road losing their face when they cede. It is clear that the rate of movement at the first road is higher than at the second. Attempts of large numbers of drivers to maintain their individual dignity "by suppressing the dignity of the other drivers" have a significant impact on the whole macro process. They generate turbulence in the traffic, which slows down the movement. "

Using this metaphor, V. Lefebvre shows "... that such a seemingly distant from the schemes of the traditional economy factor as the desire to preserve the dignity, can lead to serious makroeffects. At first glance, it seems that it is simple to solve the problem: to increase the number of police officers and severely punish the drivers who come into conflict. They will no longer conflict, but the speed may drop even more, because of massive moral depression."

However, one of the key factors influencing on slow pace of development in the ADR system in the countries of former Soviet Union, lies in following lines of the book "Algebra of justice": the "official culture of the Soviet Union belonged to the second type of the above ... that leads to a lack of procedure of conflicts self-resolution: they either end with victory for one side or eliminated by a higher authority. "

"What is the market from the social-psychological point of view? This is a huge variety of conflicts, each of which, resolved, turns into a deal. The system could begin to work successfully only if the participants are able to cede each other while maintaining their individual dignity. If the assignment of individual dignity just falls, then the market could not work itself. What was the solution? Globally, it would be made on massive reflexive governance, that introduces the principles of mutual cooperation, at least on the economic arena."

That is what European Union is trying to do at his level by issuing the "Green Book" of mediation and the various directives of mediation. That's what tends UNCITRAL, creating uniform rules on international arbitration and mediation. But, as we understand, any international initiatives are just about to break up on clumps of low sense of justice and corruption at the national level. That is what we see in Ukraine, where failing to create courts of arbitration, and gave up in support of their activity by sufficient legal regulation, the legislator decided to just destroy them, while they are not really created.

That is what we observe in the rate of development of Ukrainian mediation, which could be named just as sluggish.

And all the efforts of international organizations for development and implementation of a functioning system of alternative dispute resolution are lost in the flow of political battles in Ukraine, the constant change of centers of influence, and a low level of lawmaking.

Thus, we will try to find out more details in the roots and methods of counteracting to these processes.

The crisis of the judicial system, when the official court with its branches contributes to corruption, we see only as a difficulty for the system of ADR. Once the judicial system will be destroyed, the government will lose its credibility. On the one hand - this seems like a good precondition for the emergence of means self-regulation: people are trying to find the stability in private life, the protective mechanisms rise that push including the development of mediation. On the other - an atmosphere of fear interferes the normal development of healthy trends.

UKRAINE AND MEDIATION: MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE OR LOVE MATCH?

Are Ukraine  and mediation suits to each other? Country where the tradition of democracy is interrupted, where there is no free market, the problems with human rights and rule of law? Will the social technology that suggests the rejection of looking for an enemy and where the ability to seek out a positive and constructive start is supported, where the law of respecting the other person with his own needs and legitimate desires rules, survive here?

The statements like this could be frequently heard among experts in the field of international arbitration and ADR from Ukraine: "due to the lack of practice of mediation in this country, an effort to conduct it in practice can turn into a sort of legal fiction, when the guilty party will have time to get rid of assets thanks to the mediation."

Therefore, many lawyers believe that one should directly apply to the state courts or international arbitration, where the interim measures of defense could be used.

What is it - another "zealous view" toward alternative methods of dispute resolution, which arbitration courts in Ukraine have already felt, or simply a reluctance to change in ones psychology and the psychology of the customer aims related to the resolution of the dispute, in which "black and white" states: "As the dispute arose - only to the court!" One of the few alternative suggestions in dealing with this kind of collision between judicial and extrajudicial dispute settlement systems, is to offer tiered arbitration clauses in which one stage of the resolution of future conflicts should be mediation, and in case of failure - only arbitration.

Real understanding of the current situation in Ukraine, where there is no normal legal framework, and as a consequence, law enforcement practices that would ensure a normal and civilized way of development of the institute of mediation is most likely to cause the current ambiguous attitude of legal public (mostly - Ukrainian) to the mediation.

Although the statistics given in the study of International Financial Corporation, shows certain trends regarding the scope of dispute resolution in business, which makes ones wonder.

Here are some figures:

• Ukrainian company has in average four disputes a year, and disputes in most cases lead to a rupture of business relations.
• small and medium enterprises suffer more from disputes, while large enterprises more often go to the law to resolve disputes and more often win lawsuits
• 80% of the enterprises and their management has not enough knowledge about the system of ADR, international arbitration and mediation.

As for the most wide spread methods of resolving disputes in the business environment in Ukraine, they are at this period the follows:

• negotiations without the participation of the third (unbiased) person - 77%
• Claims procedure - 73%
• appeal to the courts of Ukraine - 67%
• rupture of relations with the opponent company - 44%
• negotiations with the participation of the third (unbiased) party - 13%
• appeal to the media - 3%
• appeal to the arbitration courts - 2%
• appeal to international arbitrations - 1%.

As to the question "As far as you know such method of dispute resolution, as mediation?" only 4% of the representatives of Ukraine's businesses surveyed, said they were familiar with this method, 29% - a little familiar, and 66% - do not know absolutely.

Some are comic in judging the mediation: they think that it is the same thing as mediTation ...

Not much better situation is with arbitration courts. Thus, 24% of respondents indicated that they do not know anything about the arbitration courts, 10% - well familiar with them, and 66% - know but very little.

On the eve of Euro 2012 in Ukraine, we have great hope that the influx of foreign citizens in Ukraine from the countries where mediation has been used for a long time, and as a whole has positive results for their country, will a little help the Ukrainians to change their attitude to mediation, and will positively impact on changing the mentality of the Ukrainian people, and tell the Ukrainians that "cede" - is not "lose", it means to find a wise way to resolve the dispute, in which both sides will “win”.

Therefore, we believe that summer 2012 will be marked not only with the victory for Ukrainian football, but also with the victory for mediation in Ukraine.