ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND THE RISE OF MANDATORY MEDIATION: A NEW PARADIGM OR A FALSE EQUIVALENCE

Abstract

In recent years, mandatory mediation has become a famous tool in civil justice reform, inspired by several clear advantages. However, as mediation moves from being an optional process to a required step, important questions emerge regarding the nature and extent of access to justice in modern legal systems.1 In this paper, the growing matter of mandatory mediation through the lens of access to justice was discussed, questioning whether this change represents a real transformation in how legal systems deliver justice or it simply reduces the standards of access in pursuit of efficiency and effectiveness. Through a comparative approach in selected jurisdictions, the paper examined how different legal systems apply mediation in formal legal procedures, as a requirement for court access. It also discussed other contemporary issues. Additionally, the paper explores relevant case law within international human rights frameworks, critiques from access-to-justice research, and the ethical concerns around the role of mediators when mediation is compulsory. The paper further argued that while mediation can enhance access to justice when appropriately structured, mandatory mediation must as a matter of compulsion include strong procedural protections, clear options for opting out, and respect for the right to a court proceeding, or it risks undermining the justice it aims to support.