Designing an Alternative Dispute Resolution Model for Local Anthropogenic Environmental Damage
Comparative-Legal Study with Implications for the Russian Federation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52028/rbadr.v8.i15.ART06.RUKeywords:
Alternative dispute resolution, Environmental mediation, Conciliation, Environmental damage, Mediability, Constitutional law, Russian Federation, BRICS, Comparative law, Mediator competenceAbstract
The author of this article examines the design of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) model adapted to the specific features of disputes over local anthropogenic environmental damage. The research employs a range of methods, including comparative legal analysis, structural-functional analysis, doctrinal analysis, and case study, to identify procedural, institutional and competence-based elements that determine the effectiveness of environmental mediation and conciliation. The author argues that environmental disputes possess distinctive characteristics – a multiplicity of stakeholders, a public-interest component, technical and scientific complexity, and long-term consequences – that require specialized ADR design rather than the mechanical transposition of commercial mediation models. Drawing on the experience of the United States, New Zealand, international conciliation practice and BRICS countries, the article develops criteria for the mediability of environmental disputes, identifies competence requirements for environmental mediators and addresses the enforcement gap between mediated settlement and actual compliance. The article concludes with recommendations for modernizing Russian environmental and procedural legislation, with particular attention to the constitutional foundations of access to environmental justice under articles 42, 45 and 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
References
AMY, Douglas J. The politics of environmental mediation. New York: Columbia University Press, 1987.
BORRIE, Niki; SKELTON, Peter; MEMON, Ali. The practice of mediating environmental disputes by the Environment Court in New Zealand. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, v. 10, n. 3, p. 152-161, 2003.
BOWONDER, B. Environmental conflict resolution. Journal of Environmental Systems, v. 15, n. 4, p. 361-379, 1985.
BRASIL. Conselho Nacional de Justiça. Resolução nº 125, de 29 de novembro de 2010. On the National Judicial Policy for the proper handling of conflicts of interest within the Judiciary. Brasília, DF: CNJ, 2010.
BUCKLE, Leonard G.; THOMAS-BUCKLE, Suzann R. Placing environmental mediation in context: lessons from “failed” mediations. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, v. 6, n. 1, p. 55-70, 1986.
CAMPBELL, Marcia Caton; FLOYD, Donald W. Thinking critically about environmental mediation. Journal of Planning Literature, v. 10, n. 3, p. 235-247, 1996.
CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD (India). General framework for environmental damage compensation. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2022.
CIRIACY-WANTRUP, Siegfried V. Resource conservation: economics and policies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952.
CORMICK, Gerald W. The myth, the reality, and the future of environmental mediation. In: LAKE, Robert W. (org.). Resolving locational conflict. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1987. p. 302-314.
DELLA NOCE, Dorothy J. Evaluative mediation: in search of practice competencies. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, v. 27, n. 2, p. 193-214, 2009.
FERREIRA, Daniel Brantes; GROMOVA, Elizaveta A.; TITOVA, Elena V. The principle of a trial within a reasonable time and JustTech: benefits and risks. Human Rights Review, v. 25, n. 1, p. 47-56, 2024.
FERREIRA, Daniel Brantes; SEVERO, Luciana. Multiparty mediation as solution for urban conflicts: a case analysis from Brazil. BRICS Law Journal, v. 8, n. 3, p. 5-29, 2021.
FLOYD, Donald W. Managing rangeland resource conflicts. Rangelands, v. 15, n. 1, p. 27-30, 1993.
GLAVOVIC, Bruce C.; DUKES, E. Franklin; LYNOTT, Jonathan M. Training and educating environmental mediators: lessons from experience in the United States. Mediation Quarterly, v. 14, n. 4, p. 269-292, 1997.
GODWIN, R. Kenneth; SHEPARD, W. Bruce. Forcing squares, triangles and ellipses into a circular paradigm: the use of the commons dilemma in examining the allocation of common resources. Western Political Quarterly, v. 32, n. 3, p. 265-277, 1979.
KONEVA, Natalia S.; SHUMAKOVA, Nadezhda I.; TITOVA, Elena V.; SUKHANOVA, Anastasia A. The role of alternative dispute resolution in development of inclusive academic environment on inter-university campus. Revista Brasileira de Alternative Dispute Resolution – RBADR, Belo Horizonte, year 7, n. 13, p. 157-172, Jan./Jun. 2025.
NEW ZEALAND. Resource Management Act 1991. Wellington, 1991.
PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION. Conciliation between the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste and the Commonwealth of Australia: report and recommendations of the compulsory conciliation commission constituted under Annex V of UNCLOS. 9 May 2018.
REPORT and recommendations to the Governments of Iceland and Norway of the Conciliation Commission on the continental shelf area between Iceland and Jan Mayen, May 1981. Reports of International Arbitral Awards, v. XXVII, p. 1-34.
RUSSIA. Constitution of the Russian Federation, adopted by popular vote on 12 December 1993, with amendments approved on 1 July 2020. Official Internet portal of legal information. Available at: http://pravo.gov.ru. Accessed: 27 May 2026.
RUSSIA. Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 193-FZ of 27 July 2010 “On the Alternative Procedure for Dispute Settlement with the Participation of a Mediator (Mediation Procedure)”.
RUSSIA. Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 224-FZ of 13 July 2015 “On Public-Private Partnership and Municipal-Private Partnership in the Russian Federation and Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation”.
RUSSIA. Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 7-FZ of 10 January 2002 “On Environmental Protection”.
SENECAH, Susan L. Current issues facing the practice of environmental mediation. Mediation Quarterly, v. 17, n. 4, p. 391-407, 2000.
SIPE, Neil G. An empirical analysis of environmental mediation. Journal of the American Planning Association, v. 64, n. 3, p. 275-285, 1998.
SIPE, Neil G.; STIFTEL, Bruce. Mediating environmental enforcement disputes: how well does it work? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, v. 15, n. 2, p. 139-156, 1995.
SORENSON, John H.; SODERSTROM, Jonathan; CARNES, Sam A. Sweet for the sour: incentives in environmental mediation. Journal of Environmental Management, v. 8, n. 4, p. 287-294, 1984.
SOUTH AFRICA. National Environmental Management Act, No. 107 of 1998.
STERN, Rachel E. The political logic of China’s new environmental courts. The China Journal, n. 72, p. 53-74, 2014.
STUDER, Tobias. Environmental accountability: a case for international conciliation? Journal of International Dispute Settlement, v. 14, n. 3, p. 350-374, 2023.
SUSSKIND, Lawrence; CRUIKSHANK, Jeffrey. Breaking the impasse: consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books, 1987.
UNITED NATIONS. Convention on Biological Diversity. Adopted 5 June 1992, 1760 UNTS 79.
UNITED NATIONS. Minamata Convention on Mercury. Adopted 10 October 2013.
UNITED NATIONS. Paris Agreement. Adopted 12 December 2015.
UNITED NATIONS. United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Singapore Convention on Mediation). Adopted 20 December 2018, entered into force 12 September 2020.
UNITED NATIONS. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Adopted 9 May 1992, 1771 UNTS 107.
WONDOLLECK, Julia M. A crack in the foundation? Revisiting ECR’s voluntary tenet. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, v. 27, n. 3, p. 321-343, 2010.
ZHANG, Mingyuan; ZHANG, Bao. Specialised environmental courts in China: status quo, challenges and responses. Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law, v. 30, n. 3, p. 361-390, 2012.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Revista Brasileira de Alternative Dispute Resolution - Brazilian Journal of Alternative Dispute Resolution - RBADR
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
No royalties or other compensation shall be due for the publication of the works.
The opinions expressed by the authors of the articles and reviews are their sole responsibility.
