Mediation plays a critical role in the development of any civil justice system. The positive effects of mediation could only manifest if the process is protected in ways that allow parties to truly be able to choose what is best in their interests and explore options free from interference from anyone else. The Chinese legal culture, coupled with a systemic distortion of the function of mediation during the period between March 2008 and March 2013, made it very difficult to develop an authentic mediation system that places party autonomy and other core principles at the heart of the process. As much as the leaders of the Supreme People’s Court today are aware of the need to strengthen the courts role in declaring legal norms and enforcing rights, it is argued that courts (especially lower courts) are likely to continue to use judicial mediation for institutional or strategic purposes.

Taking the recent European Commission’s Report on the application of Mediation Directive 2008/52/EC as a starting point, the authors set out to reconstruct the pattern of ADR/mediation activities undertaken by the EU and the Council of Europe over the past 40 years. The authors conclude that the European initiatives have been conducive to a broadening and deepening of the ADR debate. Remarkable shifts can be observed in the emphasis placed by the European agencies during this period, notably a shift from emancipatory to efficiency-based arguments. The inherent coupling of private mediation and public adjudication entails risks however for each of these distinct conflict resolution strategies. The authors call for advanced research designs to generate the data needed for a genuine evidence-based policy in this domain.

Over the last years the expectations of Belgian clients have changed and the Flemish lawyer needs to adapt his positioning. Clients are looking for a personalized solution that not only provides a solution for the substantive (pure legal) aspect of the dispute, but also meets, at least takes into account, the more emotional and relational aspects of the conflict.
In collaborative negotiation (also called principled or interest-based negotiation), the approach is to treat the relationship as an important and valuable element while seeking an equitable and fair agreement for all parties.
As part of the collaborative law method, each party engages its own specially trained Collaborative attorney whose job consists in helping to settle the dispute outside the court. If one of the parties however decides to go to court, the collaborative law process terminates and both attorneys are disqualified from any further involvement in the case.
The Association of French- and German-speaking Bars of Belgium has integrated collaborative law in its code of ethics. The Association of Dutch speaking Bars of Belgium looks in which way collaborative law can also become a part of the practice of the Flemish lawyer.

This article is about the process of Collaborative Practice, also known as Collaborative law, and more specific collaborative divorce. The aim of this article is to explain what the process entails, when it can be used, what the benefits for clients are and what a professional can gain by making this method his own.
The history of the Collaborative Practice process and the manner the process was introduced from the United States to Europe are reported. Furthermore, the development of the Collaborative Practice community in Europe, with a focus on the expansion in the Netherlands and Belgium, is described.
On the basis of a practical case the process will be explained and the findings, experiences and reviews from the multidisciplinary team and the clients will be exemplified.