La risoluzione delle controversie attraverso l’istituto giuridico internazionale e culturale della mediazione. Il contesto e i regimi della regolamentazione in alcuni Stati post sovietici (nella Federazione Russa, nella Georgia e nell’Ucraina).

The global landscape of mediation could be observed as an uneven picture represented by the variety of denominations, styles and approaches, modes of access and the varied nature of the institution of mediation. These differences have an impact on the way mediation is considered and applied in both theory and practice. National legal and political structures, cultural attitudes towards conflict and dispute resolution, and the solutions adopted vary greatly from one nation to another. Despite the path towards universality and recognition of the benefits of mediation at national and international levels, it is too early to say what the future of mediation will be and whether it will be possible to ensure a synergistic implementation of mediation in the global context. The relationship of mediation with the courts and its integration into the justice system, although an issue subject to much debate and evaluation, does not constitute a common framework and remains a point of reference for ongoing scientific research aimed at developing the best strategies and practices best suited to the needs of the parties. Despite criticism of the legitimacy of compulsory referrals to mediation, the reality today is that compulsory mediation cases make up the majority of mediation initiated through the judicial system. The last two decades can be characterised as a continuous encouragement for the use of mediation coming from international organisations that attempted, and still attempt, to provide a basic legal framework, based on the values and potentials of mediation encapsulated in its ability to reform a legal system of justice. Mediation, being a little-known method of dispute resolution, has received considerable attention from the main “players” in the international market (UNCITRAL, EU, WIPO, Council of Europe) which has influenced the national path of mediation towards “mobilisation”. The revival of mediation, as well as the method of dispute resolution, has attracted my attention focusing on a subject that has often challenged the problems and effectiveness of civil law and common law systems in the development of the European and international internal market. The structures and environment, the practical (the nuances of the language of the norm used) and legal context of mediation, as well as the results of mediation have yet to be explored from a global and comparative perspective. At the same time, many critical or undefined issues remain on the mediation process. Post-Soviet countries (Ukraine, Georgia, Russian Federation) have been my primary interest in identifying strengths and weaknesses of the regulatory regime for national and cross-border mediation and have become a starting point for further research. I used a benchmarking methodology within a system called “Regulatory Robustness Rating System” (“Regulatory Robustness Rating – RRR”, Kluwer Law International, 2017). The RRR system is elaborated in a detailed and explanatory manner by N. Alexander and is aimed at providing potential legal advisors and other actors in cross-border/international mediation processes with a quicker knowledge of the main features of the regulatory environment in which mediation will take place, stressing the importance of accessibility and predictability of the Mediation Law. Part I of the Thesis discusses the approaches of the regulative regimes and the principal foundations of mediation process and its increase popularity Part II describes the dimensions of legal mediation’s in Russian Federazione, and in the alternative and comparative perspective Part III and part IV analized the mediation regimes and principle in Georgia and Ucraine.