Os meios alternativos de solução de conflitos são vantajosos para todos os envolvidos? uma análise da institucionalização da mediação e da conciliação no Brasil

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to analyze whether the institutionalization of mediation and conciliation in Brazil is always advantageous for everyone involved. Thus, the research sought to answer the following question: Is mediating and conciling always good for everyone involved? The hypothesis worked on here is that mediation and conciliation are always good for the State because they shorten the process and remove excess demands from the judiciary, but for litigants it is not always good to mediate and reconcile because in many cases they are vulnerable and susceptible to making a bad deal, which can even be discussed again in the judiciary. Bibliographic research on the topic was carried out in order to point out the positive and negative aspects of the use of alternative means of conflict resolution in Brazil. The survey of these points sought to show that mediation and conciliation should not be reduced only to the condition of a remedy capable of combating the growing numbers of the judiciary, although they have an effect on them, as they imply, first of all, in achieving access to justice in no-bureaucratic and efficient way and the real possibility of social pacification. Therefore, such instruments must be constantly improved. The research achieved the expected results and, based on the analyzed advantages and disadvantages, proposes integrated actions to enhance mediation and conciliation.