International Experience as a Source for Improving the Procedure of Party Reconciliation in Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The procedure of party reconciliation is an important element of administrative proceedings that facilitates effective and prompt resolution of disputes between citizens and government authorities. In the current context of Ukraine, there is a pressing need to improve this procedure to enhance the effectiveness of administrative justice, reduce the burden on the judicial system, and ensure adequate protection of citizens' rights and freedoms. In this regard, studying international experience appears as a valuable source of useful practices and tools for reforming existing approaches. This article examines the primary models of party reconciliation in administrative proceedings across different countries, particularly those in the European Union, the United States, and Canada. Special attention is given to alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation and negotiation, which are widely utilized in these jurisdictions. It is demonstrated that these mechanisms contribute to reducing time and resource expenditures, increasing parties' satisfaction with the outcomes of conflict resolution, and lowering the level of confrontation among process participants. Based on an analysis of international experience, the author proposes recommendations for improving the procedure of reconciliation in Ukraine's administrative proceedings. Among the suggested measures are the implementation of mandatory mediation at certain stages of court proceedings, the establishment of an institute of independent mediators within the courts, the enhancement of the legal culture of process participants, and the development of new legal norms to promote voluntary dispute resolution. The proposed changes would contribute to a more effective functioning of Ukraine's judicial system and ensure better access to justice for citizens, representing an important step in the reform of the country's legal system towards European standards. The application of international experience will also enable the introduction of new approaches to the training of judges and other participants in the reconciliation process, thereby enhancing their professional competence and ability to effectively apply mediation procedures. Furthermore, the adaptation of such practices will help create more transparent and predictable dispute resolution processes, fostering greater public trust in the judicial system. The successful implementation of these changes will be a step towards harmonizing national legislation with European standards, ensuring greater effectiveness and fairness in administrative proceedings in Ukraine. Keywords: reconciliation of parties; administrative proceedings; alternative dispute resolution; mediation; reconciliation of parties in administrative proceedings of foreign countries; the powers of the subjects of power in relation to reconciliation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".