Abstrakt

The article presents two different forms of behavior of a mediator. On the one end of the scale the “passive” mediator is presented whose main role is to control the procedure (facilitative mediation). On the other end of the scale the author describes the “active” mediator who helps the parties to find the solution of their problem / conflict by suggesting possible solutions (conciliative mediation / conciliation). Those two examples do not exist in real proceedings but the question raised in the article is whether a good, effective mediator should be passive or active. The author indicates that most of the voices of doctrine support (or at least it seems so) the passive role of the mediator and the facilitative form of mediation and he criticizes it. The conclusion of the article is that the active mediator and the conciliative form of mediation is a better solution. Such form helps parties to find the solution to their problem quicker and in spite of doubts is safe, as parties are always allowed to change their mediator if he is overly active.