| المستخلص: |
بين الباحث التالي: - تعريف الوساطة المنتهية بالصلح بأنها: مجموعة من الإجراءات التي يقوم بها الوسيط وتتوج بتسوية منازعة بين طرفين بالتراضي والصلح وإذا لم تتم التسوية فتسمى وساطة فحسب. - مشروعية الوساطة لتسوية النزاعات، وعدّد نماذجاّ من وساطة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم. - عدد شروطا للطلح هي: أهلية المتصالحين، وعدم تحليل حرام أو تحريم حلال، وعدم كذب أحد المتصالحين في دعوى الحق على خصمه. - تنظيم الوساطة ق المملكة الصادقة على تنظم مركز الصالحة، وبين بعض أهم مواد التنظيم وقواعد العمل في مكاتب المصالحة وإجراءاته. - تحقق الوساطة المنتهية بالصلح مبدأ الاقتصاد في الإجراءات، والعدالة الرضائية السريعة بتكلفة أقل، مخففة العبء عن القضاء، وتعتبر و سيلة لإيجاد التفاهم المشترك بين طرفي النزاع في سريّة تامة. - فرّق بين الوساطة وبين المصطلحات التالية: (الصلح، والتحكيم، والتوفيق، والخبرة، والقضاء) - رأى البحث أن الوساطة تعتبر مرحلة سابقة على مرحلة الصلح، وبين عناصر الصلح في التالي: وجود نزاع قائم أو محتمل، ونية حسم النزاع، ونزول كل من طرفي النزاع عن جزء من طلباته على وجه التقابل. وأن توصية الوسيط في الوساطة غير ملزمة ما لم يتم قبولها من الأطراف، بعكس حكم التحكم فهو ملزم منه للنزاع بصدوره، حائز لقوة الأمر المقضي القابل للتنفيذ. وأن الخلاف بين الوسيط والمرفق يقتصر على أن الموفق يسعى إلى التقريب أو نقل وجهات النظر فقط، بينما يمتد عمل الوسيط إلى حد اقتراح الحلول في الوساطة. وأن من الخلافات بين الوسيط والخبير في أنه لا يجوز للخبير التعرض إلى المسائل القانونية وإنما إلى الوسائل الواقعية أو الفنية العملية فقط، بينما يجوز للوسيط التعرض لكلي المسألتين. وأن من أهم الفروقات بين الوساطة والقضاء في أن الأصل في القضاء علانية جلساته، وسرية جلسات الوساطة. - العناصر الأساسية لعملية الوساطة المنتهية بالصلح وهي: اتفاقية الوساطة، والوسيط، ومراحل الوساطة. - مفهوم اتفاقية الوساطة بأنه: عقد بين طرفي النزاع يحيلا بمقتضاه إلى الوساطة كل أو بعض المنازعات التي تنشأ أو يمكن أن تنشأ بينهما بشان علاقة قانونية محددة. - يحال موضوع الوساطة إلى المحكمة المختصة في الحالات التالية: إذا تعذرت المصالحة بين طرفي الدعوى، أو إذا امتنع المطلوب حضوره من الحضور أو تعذر تبليغه أو لم ترد ورقة التبليغ ما لم يطلب الطرف الآخر موعدا آخر على آن لا يتكرر الوعد أكثر من ثلاث مرات أو إذا كان المدعي لا يعرف عنوان المطلوب حضوره. - لا تدخل الوساطة في الأوقاف ولا أموال القصر ولا علي ما يحتاج النظر فيه إلى الغبطة والمصلحة. - آثار الوساطة على موضوع النزاع و أطرافه - الطبيعة النظامية للوساطة
The author discusses the following topics: Definition of mediation ending with reconciliation as “a set of procedures taken by the mediator culminating with the settlement of the dispute between two parties through reconciliation and agreement.” If no settlement is reached, it is called “mediation” only. Mediation for the settlement of disputes is legitimate. The author gives examples of the mediation undertaken by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The conditions of reconciliation include legal capacity of the parties to reconciliation, avoiding rendering something permissible impermissible or the other way round and avoiding lying by either party in his claim against the other disputant. Regulation of mediation in Saudi Arabia by ratifying the law of the mediation centre and the most important articles of the law and related implementing rules of mediation offices. Mediation ending with reconciliation realizes the principle of shortening procedures and quick agreement justice at a lower cost with the ultimate goal of alleviating burdens from the judiciary and establishing the means of mutual understanding between disputants in a confidential manner. Differentiation between mediation and terms like reconciliation, arbitration, agreement, expertise and justice. Mediation is a stage that precedes reconciliation and the elements of reconciliation in an existing or potential dispute, intent to settle the dispute and mutual concessions by disputants. The recommendation of the mediator is not binding unless accepted by all parties contrary to the arbitration award over the dispute which is binding and have force and effect. The difference between the mediator and reconciler is that the latter endeavours to bring the views of disputants closer to each other while the work of the mediator extends to proposing solutions. The differences between the mediator and the expert is that the latter may not tackle legal matters and that his duties are limited to actual or technical and practical matters only while the mediator can tackle both matters. One of the most important differences between mediation and justice is that the latter handles public sessions while the former handles secret ones. The main elements of mediation ending with reconciliation is the mediation agreement, the mediator and the stages of mediation. The concept of mediation agreement is that it is a contract between the parties to the dispute under which they resort to mediation on all or some disputes that arise or may arise between them concerning a specific legal relationship. The subject of mediation is referred to the competent court in the following cases If reconciliation fails or if the person sumthe revoking witness. Revocation after the issue of the judgment: If the minimum number of witnesses is not met in case of revocation, the author is of the opinion that the revoking persons should pay the amount from their money according to the number of witnesses and the number of revoking persons. If the minimum amount does not decrease, the author is of the opinion that the revoking witness is not liable for anything. However, if the witness revokes his testimony after judgment and execution, the judgment may not be revoked and the person in whose favour the testimony is provided must not repay what he has taken. Revocation of Testimony by Some Witnesses in Hudood and Qisaas: Revocation before Judgment on Adultery. Three opinions are expressed: 1st Opinion: The hadd is to be applied against the four witnesses according to Abu Haneefah and his two disciples, some of the Shaafi’ites and a narration from Ahmad. This is the opinion the author considers as the preponderant one. 2nd Opinion: The hadd is to be applied against the non-revoking witnesses according to the Hanbalites. 3rd Opinion: The hadd is to be applied against the revoking witness only according to Zufar from the Hanafites and some of the Shaafi’ites. Revocation of testimony by some witnesses which does not affect the minimum number of witnesses after issuing the judgment and before execution in cases of testimony related to hudoodand qisaas is a point of difference among scholars. The author is of the opinion that the revoking witness is not to be held liable as long as the remaining number of witnesses is sufficient to substantiate the right. Revocation of testimony by some witnesses which affects the minimum number of witnesses after issuing the judgment and prior to execution in cases of hudood and qisaas is a subject of difference among scholars. The author is of the opinion that the hadd should be applied against the witnesses who did not revoke their testimony. Revocation of some witnesses after issuing the judgment and execution is a point of difference among jurists. The author is of the opinion that the revoking witness is the one who should be punished with the defamation hadd and penalized with quarter the amount of blood money. Jurists differ as to revocation by the witness in four opinions. The author is of the opinion that the statement of the witness should be accepted if he revokes his testimony provided that he continues to have legal capacity, no judgment is issued based on the testimony and not leaving the court session. Jurists differ as to the judge’s dictating witnesses to revoke their testimony in two opinions. The author is of the opinion that the judge may dictate him. Jurists differ as to the revocation of commendations of witnesses and whether they are held liable. The author is of the opinion is that the persons who commend the witnesses should be penalized if they revoke their commendations.
|
