Jurisdiction In Dispute Mediation : A Comparative Analysis Of The Courts Of Justice And Administrative Courts

Abstract

This academic article aims to study and compare the scope of jurisdiction of two court systems in dispute mediation, focusing on the legal framework, the role of mediators, the level of freedom to agree, and structural limitations affecting the effectiveness of the process. The study found that the ordinary courts have flexible and broad jurisdiction over mediation, both before and during litigation, based on the principles of equality among parties and freedom of compromise. In contrast, the administrative courts have more limited jurisdiction due to their need to operate within the framework of public law, the principle of legality of administrative actions, and the principle of public interest. This results in stricter conditions and limitations for mediation in administrative cases. Furthermore, significant obstacles to mediation in administrative courts include the limitation of the types of cases that can be mediated, complex procedures, problems in enforcing agreements, and concerns about the liability of government officials. Therefore, the article proposes policy recommendations including expanding the scope of cases eligible for mediation, establishing clear guidelines on the scope of discretion, developing standards for mediators, and creating mechanisms to protect government officials acting in good faith. A new body of knowledge from this study is the proposal of a "three-axis" analytical framework for considering the scope of court jurisdiction in dispute mediation. This framework includes the level of freedom to negotiate, the status of the mediator, and legal conditions. This framework can be used to develop future laws and policies on dispute resolution in Thailand.