Opinion on Syria’s Mediation Law Bill: 10 Gaps

Baghdadi Lawyers considers the Syrian Mediation Law Bill an important and necessary legislative step toward developing out-of-court dispute-resolution mechanisms. Its importance, however, lies not merely in adopting mediation, but in building an integrated framework that balances the flexibility of consensual settlement with the strength of its legal effects. The Bill gives a settlement agreement, once judicially ratified, an effect close to that of an enforceable instrument, but does not provide sufficient safeguards concerning the applicable legal framework, mediator qualifications, the mediator’s role, and protection of the parties’ will. The principal criticisms are that the Bill does not clearly identify the legal rules governing mediation, particularly in disputes involving a foreign element. It also does not adequately regulate the position of a private mediator outside the mediators’ register, nor does it require a clear professional system for training and accreditation. The text further needs to define the limits of a mediator’s expression of an opinion, so that the mediator does not provide a legal assessment beyond the scope of the role; regulate the language and translation of mediation in international disputes; and strengthen the parties’ right to obtain legal advice before signing an agreement that may become an enforceable instrument. The opinion also notes the need to restrict mandatory mediation so that it does not become an obstacle to the right of access to justice, and to give the court broader authority to prevent its abuse for delaying purposes. It further recommends expanding judicial review of settlement agreements to cover the parties’ capacity, the validity of consent, the validity of representation, and compliance with mandatory rules. In addition, mediation with criminal-law effects requires separate and precise regulation, while mediation centres—whether established, new, or foreign—should be subject to a unified system of licensing, supervision, and transparency. The final conclusion is that the Bill deserves support in principle, but requires serious legislative review before adoption. When mediation produces an agreement enforceable with the force of law, it cannot remain a flexible procedure with limited safeguards. The governing principle should be: the closer the effect of a settlement agreement is to that of a judicial judgment, the closer the safeguards for reaching it must be to the safeguards of justice.