ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN UZBEKISTAN: A COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL MEDIATION PRACTICE

Abstract

The article is devoted to the analysis of the current state and development prospects of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms in Uzbekistan, with a particular focus on the institutionalization and implementation of mediation. The importance of ADR is emphasized in terms of reducing the burden on courts, enhancing legal culture, improving the business climate, and mitigating societal conflict. Statistical data is presented that reflects the growing caseload of courts and the limited effectiveness of the existing mediation framework. Despite the availability of a legislative framework and trained mediators, mediation has not yet achieved widespread
application. Against the backdrop of international best practices (e.g., the United States, Singapore, Germany,
Turkey, etc.), the author highlights the need for institutional reforms in Uzbekistan, including the establishment of a Chamber of Mediators, the introduction of mandatory informational meetings with mediators, the development
of an ethical code, and a national electronic register. The Ministry of Justice is proposed to play a key coordinating role in ADR policy implementation. The significance of digitalization and international integration (including accession to the Singapore Convention) is underscored. The article concludes with specific recommendations
for legislative reform and the advancement of mediation as a core ADR tool. Uzbekistan is expected to pursue systematic modernization and legal adaptation to strengthen its position in the field of alternative justice in Central Asia and to foster a favorable environment for domestic and international investment.This article explores key aspects of the development of mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms in the Republic of Uzbekistan, with reference to international models. The comparative legal analysis includes
institutional reforms, the powers of justice authorities, digitization of procedures, and professional standards for mediators, as applied in countries such as Singapore, Italy, the United States, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Germany, and Russia.