The Impact of ADR on The Dichotomy of Form and Substance in Law

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:35.4pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Thispaper investigates whether alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms havea transformative impact on the dichotomy between the form and substance of law.ADR is widely recognized for enabling faster and potentially more sustainableconflict resolution by relying on negotiation and mutual concessions ratherthan strict adherence to legal norms and procedurals. Accordingly, it has beenargued that ADR softens the formal character of modern law while strengtheningits substantive dimension.<o:p></o:p></span> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:35.4pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Thisstudy challenges that assumption, using the practice of mandatory mediation inTurkey as a case study. It begins by addressing the hierarchical dichotomybetween legal form and substance, with particular attention to howform—characterized by certainty, predictability, conceptual clarity, andsystematicity—is often privileged over substance, which includes the law’spurposes, values, principles, and empirical context.<o:p></o:p></span> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:35.4pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Subsequently,the paper examines whether and how ADR mechanisms alter this formalisthierarchy. Drawing on critical perspective, it discusses concepts such as <i>informaljustice, delegalization</i>, and <i>informalism</i>, which are often invoked inthe literature to suggest that ADR contributes to a broader anti-formalist turnin legal systems. This includes diverting certain types of disputes from theformal judiciary, empowering local and traditional authorities, and enhancingparty autonomy. However, some scholars argue that such mechanisms may insteadserve a <i>relegitimizing</i> (instead of <i>delegalization</i>) function forthe formal legal order.<o:p></o:p></span> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:35.4pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Inline with the latter view, this paper argues that ADR—specifically mandatorymediation in Turkey—does not, in practice, diminish the formal character oflaw. On the contrary, it generates new forms of formality by imposingprocedural prerequisites before access to court. The mandatory mediationprocess incorporates numerous formal rules typically associated with civilprocedure. Thus, rather than empowering the substantive aspects of law—itspurposes, values, and principles—mediation in this context reinforces formalitythrough new procedural layers. Ultimately, this study concludes that mediation,as currently institutionalized, fails to deliver the substantive legaltransformation it is often presumed to offer.<o:p></o:p></span>