Mediation : A Comparative Study of People Sector and Village Committee

Abstract

This academic article aims to study the mediation over community disputes between a civil dispute mediation center pursuant to the Dispute Mediation Act, B.E. 2562 (2019) and a village committee pursuant to the Regulations on Mediation Practices of Village Committee, B.E. 2530 (1987) over civil and criminal disputes which may cause a redundancy issue related to a person. The study also aims to study the scope of dispute resolution for both parties and investigate a compulsory measure in case the parties agree to comply with but fail to follow.

The study results were found as follows. A person could have a duty of a village committee or a mediator of civil dispute mediation center if he/she was qualified and passed the dispute mediation curriculum introduced by the Mediation Act, B.E. 2562. Regarding the scope of dispute resolution, it was found that, in the civil aspect, the village committee had a dispute resolution power more than the civil dispute mediation center. However, in the criminal aspect, the civil dispute mediation center had broader dispute resolution power. This caused a disparity of law enforcement. As for the compulsory measure in the mediation, the village committee had no power to enforce if the parties agree to abide by but failed to comply with. However, the civil dispute mediation center could bring a complaint to court to enforce the agreement if a party failed to comply with the resolution.

The author suggests that the Ministry of Interior should amend the Regulations on Mediation Practices of Village Committee, B.E. 2530 (1987) to ensure the village committee has the dispute resolution power and duty in common with the civil dispute mediation center for the best benefit of the disputed parties in the community.