The institutionalization of mediation
Reflections from an expert panel
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1093Palabras clave:
Mediación, institucionalización, métodos colaborativos, participación, formato de debate estructurado, plurílogo, workshop DAFOResumen
El 27 y 28 de abril de 2017, el Instituto Internacional de Sociología Jurídica organizó un taller sobre el tema La institucionalización de la mediación: potencialidades y riesgos. Los coordinadores científicos de esta iniciativa promovieron una discusión estructurada para identificar los riesgos y potencialidades de la institucionalización para desarrollar aún más la mediación en la región, tema de las discusiones, y para informar la intensa discusión final dentro del grupo de 27 expertos en mediación (de Alemania, Bélgica, Francia, España y Portugal). En estas reflexiones finales, no queremos dar respuestas definitivas a preguntas candentes, pero esperamos arrojar luz sobre los dilemas cruciales tal como fueron discutidos en un taller al estilo de un café mundial al final de la reunión. Las limitaciones y las direcciones futuras se discuten a la luz de los métodos participativos y la innovación de la gobernanza.
Descargas
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF (English) 750
Citas
Abelson, J., et al., 2003. Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine [online], 57(2), pp. 239–251. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12765705 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Alberts, J.K., Heisterkamp, B.L., and McPhee, R.M., 2005. Disputant perceptions of and satisfaction with a community mediation program. International Journal of Conflict Management [online], 16(3), pp. 218–244. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022930 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
American Arbitration Association and American Bar Association and Association for Conflict Resolution, 2005. The Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators [online]. September. Available from: https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/document_repository/AAA%20Mediators%20Model%20Standards%20of%20Conduct%2010.14.2010.pdf [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Bailey, P., 2014. Neutrality in mediation: an ambiguous ethical value. Journal of Mediation & Applied Conflict Analysis [online], 1(1), pp. 53-56. Available from: http://kennedyinstitute.nuim.ie/journal-of-mediation-and-applied-conflict-analysis [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Beck, C.J.A., and Sales, B.D., 2001. Future mediation research. In: The Law and Public Policy. Family Mediation: Facts, Myths, and Future Prospects [online]. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 125-166. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1037/10401-009 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Benjamin, M., and Irving, H.H., 1995. Research in family mediation: Review and implications. Mediation Quarterly [online], 13(1), pp. 53–82. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3900130107 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Bingham, L.B., 2012. Transformative Mediation at the United States Postal Service. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research [online], 5(4), pp. 354–366. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2012.00112.x [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Bishop, T.A., 1984. Mediation standards: an ethical safety net. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 1984(4), pp. 5–17. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/crq [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Boulle, L., and Nesic, M., 2010. Mediator Skills and Techniques : Triangle of Influence. Haywards Heath: Bloomsbury Professional.
Brett, J.M., Barsness, Z.L., and Goldberg, S.B., 1996. The Effectiveness of Mediation: An Independent Analysis of Cases Handled by Four Major Service Providers. Negotiation Journal [online], 12(3), pp. 259–269. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1996.tb00099.x [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Burrell, N.A., Zirbel, C.S., and Allen, M., 2003. Evaluating peer mediation outcomes in educational settings: A meta-analytic review. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 21(1), pp. 7–26. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/crq.46 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Charkoudian, L., 2005. A Quantitative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Community Mediation in Decreasing Repeat Police Calls for Service. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 23(1), pp. 87-98. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.126 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Charkoudian, L., 2010. Giving Police and Courts a Break: The Effect of Community Mediation on Decreasing the Use of Police and Court Resources. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 28(2), pp. 141-155. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.20017 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Charkoudian, L., 2016a. Impact of Alternative Dispute Resolution on Responsibility, Empowerment, Resolution, and Satisfaction with the Judiciary: Comparison of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in District Court Civil Cases [online]. Report. Prepared for the State Justice Institute and Maryland Judiciary. Annapolis: Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts, February. Available from: http://mdmediation.org/sites/default/files/Impact of District Court DOT ADR.pdf [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Charkoudian, L., 2016b. What Works in District Court Day of Trial Mediation: Effectiveness of Various Mediation Strategies on Short-and Long-Term Outcomes [online]. Report. Prepared for the State Justice Institute and Maryland Judiciary. Annapolis: Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts, January. Available from: http://mdmediation.org/sites/default/files/What Works in District Court DOT Mediation.pdf [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Charkoudian, L., and Bilick, M., 2015. State of Knowledge: Community Mediation at a Crossroads. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 32(3), pp. 233–276. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/crq.21112 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Cohen, O., Dattner, N., and Luxenburg, A., 1999. The limits of the mediator’s neutrality. Mediation Quarterly [online], 16(4), pp. 341–348. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/crq.3900160404 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Cook, J.Y., and Boes, S.R., 2013. Mediation Works: An Action Research Study Evaluating the Peer Mediation Program from the Eyes of Mediators and Faculty [online]. Available from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED547782.pdf [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Cooks, L.M., and Hale, C.L., 1994. The construction of ethics in mediation. Mediation Quarterly [online], 12(1), pp. 55–76. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3900120106 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
De Palo, G., et al., 2014. “Rebooting” the mediation directive: Assessing the limited impact of its implementation and proposing measures to increase the number of mediations in the EU, Brussels [online]. Study. Brussels: European Parliament, January. Available from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/493042/IPOL-JURI_ET(2014)493042_EN.pdf [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Della Noce, D.J., Bush, R.A.B., and Folger, J.P., 2002. Clarifying the Theoretical Underpinnings of Mediation : Implications for Practice and Policy. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal [online], 3(1), pp. 39–65. Available from: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/163 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters. Official Journal of the European Union [online], L 163/3, of 24 May 2008. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32008L0052 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Dukes, E.F., 2004. What we know about environmental conflict resolution: An analysis based on research. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 22(1–2), pp. 191–220. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.98 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Dyck, D., 2010. The mediator as nonviolent advocate: Revisiting the question of mediator neutrality. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 18(2), pp. 129–149. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3890180204 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Emerson, K., O’Leary, R., and Bingham, L.B., 2004. Commentary: Comment on Frank Dukes’s “what we know about environmental conflict resolution”. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 22(1–2), pp. 221–231. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.99 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Emery, R.E., et al., 2001. Child custody mediation and litigation: Custody, contact, and coparenting 12 years after initial dispute resolution. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology [online], 69(2), 323-332. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.2.323 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Esplugues, C., and Marquis, L., eds., 2015. New Developments in Civil and Commercial Mediation Global Comparative Perspectives. Heidelberg: Springer.
European Commission, 2004. European code of conduct for mediators [online]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/adr/adr_ec_code_conduct_en.pdf [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Faget, J., 2010. Médiations : Les ateliers silencieux de la démocratie. Toulouse: Érès.
Federação Nacional de Mediação de Conflitos, 2016. Código de deontologia e boas práticas do mediador de conflitos da Federação Nacional de Mediação de Conflitos [online]. Available from: http://www.fnmc.pt/docs/codigo-deontologia-fnmc.pdf [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Field, R., 2000. Neutrality and power: myths and reality. ADR Bulletin [online], 3(1). Available from: https://epublications.bond.edu.au/adr/vol3/iss1/4 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Gale, J., et al., 2002. Considering effective divorce mediation: three potential factors. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 19(4), pp. 389–420. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3890190403 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Garcia, A.C., Vise, K., and Whitaker, S.P., 2003. Disputing neutrality: A case study of a bias complaint during mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 20(2), pp. 205–230. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.20 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Gazley, B., Chang, W.K., and Bingham, L.B., 2010. Board diversity, stakeholder representation, and collaborative performance in community mediation centers. Public Administration Review [online], 70(4), pp. 610–620. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02182.x [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Gibson, K., 1999. Mediator attitudes toward outcomes: A philosophical view. Mediation Quarterly [online], 17(2), pp. 197–211. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3890170209 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Gibson, K., Thompson, L., and Bazerman, M.H., 1996. Shortcomings of Neutrality in Mediation: Solutions Based on Rationality. Negotiation Journal [online], 12(1), pp. 69–80. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1996.tb00079.x [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Grisham, T., 2009. The Delphi technique: a method for testing complex and multifaceted topics. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business [online], 2(1), pp. 112–130. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1108/17538370910930545 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Hasson, F., Keeney, S., and McKenna, H., 2000. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing [online], 32(4), pp. 1008–1015. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Hsu, C., and Sandford, B.A., 2007. The Delphi Technique : Practical assessment, research and evaluation [online], 12(10). Available from: https://pareonline.net/pdf/v12n10.pdf [Accessed 28 September 2018].
International Mediation Institute, n.d. Code of Professional Conduct [online]. The Hague: International Mediation Institute. Available from: https://imimediation.org/imi-code-of-professional-conduct [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Izumi, C., 2010. Implicit Bias and the Illusion of Mediator Neutrality. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy [online], 34(71), pp. 71–156. Available from: http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/282 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Kelly, J.B., 2004. Family mediation research: Is there empirical support for the field? Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 22(1–2. Special Issue: Conflict Resolution in the Field: Assessing the Past, Charting the Future), pp. 3–35. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.90 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Kovach, K.K., 1997. Costs of Mediation: Whose Responsibility? Mediation Quarterly [online], 15(1), pp. 13–27. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3900150104 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Kressel, K., 2006. Mediation revisited. In: M. Deutsch, P.T. Coleman and E.C. Marcus, eds., The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. 2nd revised ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 726–756.
Kressel, K., 2014. The mediation of conflict: context, cognition, and practice. In: M. Deutsch, P.T. Coleman and E.C. Marcus, eds., The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 817–848.
Lande, J., 2000. Toward More Sophisticated Mediation Theory. Journal of Dispute Resolution [online], 2000, p. 321. Available from: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jdisres2000&div=28&id=&page= [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Lande, J., 2004. Commentary: Focusing on Program Design Issues in Future Research on Court-Connected Mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 22(1), pp. 89–101. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.93 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Linstone, H.A., and Turoff, M., 2002. The Delphi Method: Techniques and applications [online], pp. 1-616. Available from: https://web.njit.edu/~turoff/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Mayer, B.S., 2004. Beyond Neutrality : Confronting the Crisis in Conflict Resolution. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McWilliam, N., 2010. A school peer mediation program as a context for exploring therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ): Can a peer mediation program inform the law? International journal of law and psychiatry [online], 33(5–6), pp. 293–305. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.09.002 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2014. Alternative and Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Context Formal, Informal, and Semiformal Legal Processes. In: M. Deutsch, P.T. Coleman and E.C. Marcus, eds., The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2016. The Future of Mediation Worldwide: Legal and Cultural Variations in the Uptake of or Resistance to Mediation. In: I. Macduff, ed., Essays on Mediation Dealing with Disputes in the 21st Century. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer Law International, pp. 29–46.
Menkel-Meadow, C., Love, L.P., and Schneider, A.K., 2013. Mediation: Practice, Policy, and Ethics. 2nd ed. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Milieu Ltd., 2014. Study for an evaluation and implementation of Directive 2008/52/EC – the “Mediation Directive” [online]. Final report, October. Prepared for the European Commission. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available from: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/bba3871d-223b-11e6-86d0-01aa75ed71a1/ [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Milieu Ltd., 2016. Study for an evaluation and implementation of Directive 2008/52/EC – the “Mediation Directive” [online]. Final report, updated 16 March. Prepared for the European Commission. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available from: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/bba3871d-223b-11e6-86d0-01aa75ed71a1/language-en [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Moore, C.W., 2014. The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mullen, P.M., 2003. Delphi: myths and reality. Journal of Health Organization and Management [online], 17(1), pp. 37–52. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/14777260310469319 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Neves, T., 2009. Practice Note: Community Mediation as Social Intervention. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 26(4), pp. 481–496. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.244 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Okoli, C., and Pawlowski, S.D., 2004. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management [online], 42(1), pp. 15–29. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Parkinson, L., 2014. Family Mediation. 3rd ed. Bristol: Family Law.
Poitras, J., and Le Tareau, A., 2009. Quantifying the Quality of Mediation Agreements. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research [online], 2(4), pp. 363–380. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2009.00045.x [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Poitras, J., et al., 2015. Managerial mediation competency: A mixed-method study. Negotiation Journal [online], 31(2), pp. 105–129. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12085 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Pruitt, D.G., et al., 1993. Long-term success in mediation. Law and Human Behavior [online], 17(3), pp. 313–330. Available from: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1007/BF01044511 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Raines, S.S., Pokhrel, S.K., and Poitras, J., 2013. Mediation as a Profession: Challenges That Professional Mediators Face. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 31(3), pp. 79–97. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21080 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Ramos, N., and Moleiro, C., 2017. Intercultural Challenges in Conflict Mediation. In: A. Thomas, ed., Cultural and Ethnic Diversity: How European Psychologists can Meet the Challenges. Göttingen: Hogrefe, pp. 87-92.
Red Empúries, 2014. Aspectos pertinentes de la conceptualización de la mediación: perspectivas anglo-sajona y latina. La Trama [online], 42. Retrieved from http://www.revistalatrama.com.ar/contenidos/larevista_articulo.php?id=290&ed=42 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Report From The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council And The European Economic And Social Committee on the application of Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters (COM(2016) 542 final) [online]. Brussels, 26 August. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2016%3A542%3AFIN [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Rifkin, J., Millen, J., and Cobb, S., 1991. Toward a new discourse for mediation: A critique of neutrality. Mediation Quarterly [online], 9(2), pp. 151–164. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3900090206 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Rowe, G., and Frewer, L.J., 2000. Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values [online], 25(1), pp. 3–29. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F016224390002500101 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Saposnek, D.T., 2004. Commentary: The future of the history of family mediation research. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 22(1–2), pp. 37–53. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.91 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Shapira, O., 2016. A Theory of Mediators’ Ethics [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316534205 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Shaw, L.A., 2010. Divorce Mediation Outcome Research: A Meta-Analysis. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 27(4), pp. 447-467. Available from: http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/crq.20006 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Silbey, S.S., 1993. Mediation Mythology. Negotiation Journal [online], 9(4), pp. 349–353. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1993.tb00722.x [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Silbey, S.S., 2002. Emperor’s New Clothes: Mediation Mythology and Markets. Journal of Dispute Resolution [online], 1(11), pp. 171–177. Available from: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2002/iss1/11 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., and Macnaghten, P., 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy [online], 42(9), pp. 1568–1580. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Taylor, A., 1997. Concepts of neutrality in family mediation: Contexts, ethics, influence, and transformative process. Mediation Quarterly [online], 14(3), pp. 215–236. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3900140306 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Umbreit, M.S., 2001. The Handbook of Victim Offender Mediation: An Essential Guide for Practice and Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Umbreit, M.S., Coates, R.B., and Vos, B., 2004. Victim-Offender Mediation: Three Decades of Practice and Research. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 22(1–2), pp. 279–303. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.102 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Waldman, E., 2011. Mediation Ethics : Cases and Commentaries. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wall, J., and Kressel, K., 2012. Research on Mediator Style: A Summary and Some Research Suggestions. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research [online], 5(4), pp. 403–421. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2012.00117.x [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Wall, J.A., and Dunne, T.C., 2012. Mediation Research : A Current Review. Negotiation Journal [online], 28(2), pp. 217–244. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2012.00336.x [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Wall, J.A., Stark, J.B., and Standifer, R.L., 2001. Mediation a current review and theory development. Journal of Conflict Resolution [online], 45(3), pp. 370–391. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022002701045003006 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Wilson, B., 2010. Mediation Ethics : an Exploration of Four Seminal Texts. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution [online], 12(1), pp. 119–142. Available from: https://cardozojcr.com/vol12no1/119-142.pdf [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Wing, L., 2009. Mediation and Inequality Reconsidered: Bringing the Discussion to the Table. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 26(4-Special Issue: Colloquy Edition: Challenging the Dominant Paradigms in Alternative Dispute Resolution), pp. 383–404. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.240 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Wiseman, V., and Poitras, J., 2002. Mediation Within a Hierarchical Structure: How Can It Be Done Successfully? Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 20(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.10 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Wissler, R.L., 2002. Court-Connected Mediation in General Civil Cases: What We Know from Empirical Research. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution [online], vol. 17, pp. 641-703. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1723292 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Wissler, R.L., 2004. The effectiveness of court-connected dispute resolution in civil cases. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 22(1–2. Special Issue: Conflict Resolution in the Field: Assessing the Past, Charting the Future), pp. 55–88. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.92 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Zariski, A., 2010. A Theory Matrix for Mediators. Negotiation Journal [online], 26(2), pp. 203–235. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2010.00269.x [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Zehr, H., 2004. Commentary: Restorative Justice: Beyond Victim-Offender Mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly [online], 22(1-2. Special Issue: Conflict Resolution in the Field: Assessing the Past, Charting the Future), pp. 305-315. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.103 [Accessed 28 September 2018].
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2019 Ursula Sabine Caser, Nuno Ramos
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Los autores conservan el copyright de sus trabajos, que se publicarán en OSLS bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento NoComercial SinObraDerivada. Puede consultar más detalles en: http://es.creativecommons.org/licencia/. Si no está de acuerdo con esta licencia, por favor, póngase en contacto con nosotros.
El autor concede los permisos necesarios para difundir la información bibliográfica del artículo, incluyendo el resumen, y autorizar a otros, incluyendo las bases de datos bibliográficas, de índices y servicios de alerta de contenidos, a copiar y comunicar esta información.
Para más información sobre los permisos para distribuir su artículo en cada fase de la producción, por favor, lea nuestra Política de Autoarchivo y Divulgación (en inglés).
Las condiciones de copyright con el nombre de autores y co-autores, y la licencia Creative Commons se mostrarán en el artículo. Estas condiciones se deben aceptar como parte del proceso de envío de un artículo a la revista. Por favor, asegúrese de que todos los co-autores se mencionan correctamente, y que entienden y aceptan estos términos.
