Developing the Operational Mechanisms of Community Mediation Centers for Effective Dispute Resolution and the Promotion of Justice for Citizens

Abstract

This research article aims to 1) examine the problems and obstacles in the operations of community mediation centers (CMCs) under the Mediation Act B.E. 2562 (2019) in Thailand; 2) study and compare the operational models of CMCs in dispute resolution under Thai and foreign legal frameworks; and 3) propose guidelines for developing models and standard criteria for effective community dispute mediation. This study employs a qualitative research methodology using documentary analysis, collecting data from legislation, academic literature, research articles, theses, and related documents in both Thai and foreign languages, then analyzing and synthesizing findings through descriptive methods.

The research findings reveal that 1) CMCs established under the Mediation Act B.E. 2562 continue to face structural deficiencies, lacking provisions for strong quality oversight, resulting in inconsistent operations across regions, as well as ineffective enforcement mechanisms for mediated agreements, causing parties to lose confidence in the process; additionally, insufficient budgetary support leaves centers without adequate facilities, equipment, technology, and appropriate mediator compensation; 2) comparative legal studies of the United States (Florida), the Lao People's Democratic Republic, and the Republic of Singapore indicate that these countries have developed standardized mediation systems with clear oversight mechanisms and appropriate mediator compensation, contributing to the effectiveness and credibility of their systems; and 3) during fiscal years B.E. 2565–2567, a total of 113,117 disputes entered the mediation process, with 110,907 cases successfully resolved, reflecting the high potential of mediation in reducing court caseloads.

The researcher recommends that, in terms of legislation, provisions should be amended to establish uniform quality oversight of CMCs nationwide, centers should be granted legal entity status, and dedicated budget support and mediator compensation should be established. In terms of policy, relevant agencies should promote public awareness of CMC roles and benefits, provide incentives and motivation for practitioners, and establish mobile mediation units to ensure that people in remote areas can access alternative justice processes equitably.