A comparative analysis of mediation regulations and procedures for civil dispute resolution in indonesia and south korea

Abstract

Mediation is one of the mechanisms for civil dispute resolution that has become increasingly integrated into judicial systems, including in Indonesia and South Korea. Although both countries recognize mediation as a means of promoting amicable dispute resolution, differences exist in the regulatory framework, the involvement of courts, the position of mediators, and the scope of party autonomy. This study aims to analyze the legal framework governing mediation in civil dispute resolution in Indonesia and South Korea and to compare the mediation procedures in both countries from the perspective of voluntariness and party autonomy. This study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Legal materials are analyzed descriptively, analytically, and comparatively by examining provisions concerning the initiation of mediation, court referrals, the roles of judges and mediators, the conduct of mediation, and the legal consequences of mediation outcomes. The findings indicate that Indonesia regulates mediation through relatively detailed and standardized procedural requirements under Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2016, whereas South Korea provides courts with greater discretion under the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act. These differences demonstrate that the integration of mediation into the judicial system does not necessarily eliminate voluntariness, provided that decisions concerning the substance of the settlement remain with the parties. However, the greater the authority exercised by courts in directing and determining the settlement process, the more important it becomes to safeguard party autonomy.