Mediation in administrative disputes: Government officials neglected their duties or unduly delayed

Abstract

This research aims to examine the principles and concepts related to administrative dispute mediation, specifically in cases where state officials neglect their duties or perform their duties with unreasonable delay. It analyzes the institutional design, procedural framework, and operational mechanisms of mediation in such disputes. The study also proposes reforms aimed at strengthening the effectiveness of mediation within Thailand’s administrative justice system.

The findings demonstrate that administrative mediation, as regulated under the Act on the Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure (No. 12) B.E. 2562 (2019), Sections 66/1–66/12, constitutes a formalized ADR mechanism within the administrative court system. The law authorizes courts to initiate mediation at any stage of proceedings prior to the completion of fact-finding. The procedural structure includes case screening, appointment of neutral mediators, facilitation of party participation under conditions of voluntariness and equality, and formal endorsement of settlement agreements with binding legal effect. Empirical and doctrinal analysis suggests that mediation enhances procedural efficiency by reducing litigation time, alleviating judicial caseloads, and lowering dispute-related costs. It also advances procedural fairness by promoting participation, voice, and consensual outcomes. In disputes characterized by power asymmetry between the state and individuals, mediation may mitigate adversarial dynamics and foster cooperative problem-solving. However, several structural and operational constraints remain. These include unclear criteria for case referral, uneven institutional capacity, and limited awareness among litigants regarding mediation as an effective ADR pathway. Such limitations restrict the full institutionalization of mediation within the administrative justice framework.