The May 2026 issue of Alternatives magazine carried a striking analysis. Written by Giuseppe De Palo and shaped by the contributions of Vassiliki Koumpli, an Athens-based lawyer, mediator and academic, and published by the CPR Institute, it was a piece I found myself pausing over more than once.
Because what it described is not only Greece's story.
Europe's Most Detailed System, Its Most Modest Outcome
In little more than a decade, Greece built one of the most detailed mediation frameworks in Europe: a central regulatory authority, a mandatory initial mediation session, a comprehensive accreditation system, an ethical code. Everything looks perfect on paper.
The numbers Koumpli reports, however, tell a different story.
Settlement rates in mandatory initial mediation sessions remain below 10 percent. In voluntary mediation, they consistently exceed 80 percent.
The same process, the same country, the same mediators. The only difference: in one, the parties are required to be there; in the other, they choose to be.
The Gap Is Not in the Procedure. It Is in the Culture.
This is where Koumpli's analysis is at its most powerful. Greece designed mediation as a procedural obligation. Parties arrive, sit, complete the formality, and leave. A genuine search for resolution rarely begins.
When mediation is a choice, the picture changes entirely. When parties come to the table of their own accord, the process works.
This finding feels very familiar to me.
Where Does Turkey Stand in This Equation?
Mediation statistics in Turkey look strong. In 2025, 54 percent of disputes concluded with an agreement. The caseload in labour courts fell by 77.5 percent.
But there is an important point worth bearing in mind here. Turkey's mediation system was not actually built on compulsion. It was built on the principle of voluntary mediation. The fundamental approach of Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes was to encourage parties to seek resolution of their own will. It was only later, in order to reduce the burden on the judicial system and introduce parties to alternative resolution methods, that mandatory pre-litigation mediation was introduced for certain categories of dispute.
For this reason, Turkey's experience is not a story that can be read through the lens of mandatory mediation alone. On one hand, there is a strong legislative framework built on a system grounded in voluntariness; on the other, there are mandatory pre-litigation mechanisms operating in specific areas.
It is precisely for this reason that the questions Koumpli raises about Greece need to be asked about Turkey as well: How many of these agreements come from processes in which parties were genuinely seeking resolution? How many are the natural product of a procedural requirement? What difference exists between cases where lawyers present mediation as a genuine opportunity and cases where it is seen simply as a step to be completed before litigation begins?
Understanding this distinction more deeply matters enormously for assessing the future of mediation in Turkey.
Legislation Does Not Change Culture
At the heart of Koumpli's work lies this finding: building a legal framework and achieving cultural adoption are very different things.
Without mediation being internalised by legal professionals, without it being offered to parties as a genuine option, without active support from the judiciary, without integration into legal education, it cannot move beyond being a procedure.
This is Turkey's essential question.
The legislation is strong. The institutional infrastructure is developing. But turning mediation into a culture happens not through law, but through transforming the attitudes of lawyers, the approach of the judiciary, and above all the mindset of the parties.
Seeing It Early, Winning Early
Greece walked this path before us. We saw where it stalled. We understand why. The reform recommendations are clear: financial incentives, judicial empowerment, and integration into legal education.
If Turkey can apply these lessons to its own experience, it may be possible to move forward without encountering the same obstacles.
There is, however, an important nuance here. When mediation becomes mandatory, parties must be told accurately what that obligation actually means. Because the purpose of pre-litigation mediation requirements is not to compel parties into an agreement; it is to ensure that mediation is recognised, attempted, and considered as a resolution option in suitable disputes.
When this purpose is lost sight of, the process can easily become a formality. But when parties see mediation as a genuine option, it ceases to be merely a mechanism for reducing court caseloads and becomes part of a culture of dispute resolution.
Mediation works when it is embraced as a choice.
Recognising this distinction early is critical for the future of the field.
Reference: Giuseppe De Palo (with contributions by Vassiliki Koumpli), "Greece's Mediation Experiment: Institutional Strength Without Cultural Traction", Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, Vol. 44 No. 5, May 2026. CPR Institute.