The market as a mechanism for conflict resolution: the case of Ecuador


  • Rubén Méndez Reátegui Universidad de Salamanca
  • Viviana Lescano Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador – Ambato (PUCE – A)
  • Mayra Mena Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador – Ambato (PUCE – A)



Efficacy, efficiency, and effectiveness are pillars in the field of law primarily referred to when the discussion focuses on access and the service of providing justice. As discussed by Landero (2014)1, conflict resolutions by means of alternative mechanisms, such as mediation, under the institutional framework, constitute guaran-tees to be respected in processes for which the provision may affect the rights of individuals. This has been well pointed out in Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights (2001)2, which regulates judicial guarantees and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Also, as intrinsic values of the legal system, the efficacy, efficiency and effectiveness have been extensively studied by doctrine contributions from Calsami-glia (1987)3, Paz-Ares and Valencia (1995)4, Mercuro and Medema (1998)5, Zywicki and Stringham (2010)6. However, presenting them operatively in a way that is related to how the evaluation mecha-nism is applied in order to have a better picture of the resolution of conflicts outside of court such as those confined within the field of childhood and adolescence through the market represents a novel contribution. In other words, it is a contribution that will assess the regressive performance (judged) compared to what is obtained by private instruments (mediation centers).

The evaluation of alternative justice, specifically mediation for a diagnosis of the performance of this justice, and to contrast it with the trial, allows for mistakes and successes in the develop-ment of service justice in relation to the mechanisms for the reso-lution of conflicts outside of court in cases of childhood and adolescence as a starting point for subsequent evaluations. The guidelines state, specifically with regard to effective mediation, mediation initiatives that are improvised and uncoordinated by states but are launched with the best of intentions, do not contrib-ute to the objective of raising institutional barriers that limit the spontaneous appearance of a culture of peace and non-aggression for which the processes must have strong technical and financial support. In light of this, Marquez (2012)7 evaluated mediation in court, employing the “criteria” that he called; Efficacy, Efficiency and Effectiveness. Although the methodology that was introduced was similar to that of this document, Marquez (2012) defends the role of the state by arguing that it does not conceptualize the crite-ria, and definitions given for the right to mediation should not focus on the issues of resolving conflicts outside of court in cases of childhood and adolescence.


díez piCazo, L. (1999). Experiences Law and Theory of Law, Third ed., Barcelona, Editorial Ariel S. A.

burGer, W. (1976). A need for Systematic Anticipation, The Pound Conference Perspectives on Justice in the Future, L. Levin & R. Wheeler Eds.

aitken, V. (2013): “An exposition of legislative quality and Its relevance for effective development”, ProLaw Student Journal, Volume 2, pp. 1-43.

benavente, H. (2012): Tutela Legal Consumer and Competition, Lima, Editorial San Marcos.

bilbao doMinGuez, R. AND dauder GarCía, S. (2002): Introduction to the Theory of Conflict in Organizations, Madrid, publications Service Rey Juan Carlos University.

bustelo eliçabe-urriol, D. (2009): Mediation Keys for Understanding and Practice, Madrid, Hara-Tritoma Press.

CalsaMiGlia, A. (1987): Efficiency and Law, Doxa, 4, pp. 267-287.

Capella, J. (1968): Law as language, Barcelona, Editorial Ariel.

ClaviJo, S. (2011): Costs and efficiency of the judicial branch policy operating shock Colombia, Bogota, National Association of Financial Institutions –CEE.

— Op. Cit, p. 47.

— Op. Cit, p. 47.

— Op. Cit, p. 47.

Constitution oF the republiC oF eCuador. 2008. Official Register 449 of October 20.

díez piCazo, L. (1999): Experiences Law and Theory of Law, Third ed., Barcelona, Editorial Ariel S. A.

elster, J. (1991): The Cement Company, Barcelona, Editorial Ariel. Flay biGlan, R., Boruch Robert, F., Gonzales Castro, F., Fredson Gottlieb, D., Sheppard, K. Moscicki, E., Schinke, S., Jeffrey C. Valentine, and Peter Ji. (2005): Prevention Science DOI: 10.1007 /s11121-005-5553, pp. 202-225.

FranCisCovik inGunza, B., AND torres anGulo, C. (2013): “The efficiency of alternative means or appropriate dispute resolution proce-salt versus civil”. Journal of the Faculty of Law and Political Science Ricardo Palma, 2, pp system. 231-260.

Garayo, B. A. (2013): “Civil action as a consequence of the Criminal Action”, Magazine Agreement, 18, p. 91.

GarCía villaluenGa, L., bolaños CartuJo, I., iron requena, M., GarriGós teMbleque, S., pit Martínez, P., dorado barbé, A., and Merino ortiz, C. (2010): The family talks and reach agreements: family mediation. Re- conflict resolution, Madrid, Complutense Institute for Mediation and Conflict Management (UCM).

Gardais ondarza, G. (2002): “The legality and efficiency and effectiveness as fiscalizables legal principles”, Journal of Law of the Catholic University of Valparaiso, pp. 323-341.

Garner, A. B. (2001): Oxford Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, Oxford University Press, 3 Edition.

Guinart sola, J. M. (2004): “Indicators of Public Management”, Public Administration Magazine New Age 110, 39, 1, pp. 315-336. hart, H. (1980): The Concept of Law, Mexico, National Publishing.

— Op. cit, p. 49.

However, this proposal does not stop levanter suspicions in terms of results and costs transferred to civil society.

huerta oChoa, C. (2008): “Theory of Law”. Relevant issues, Mexico, Legal Research Institute.

huerta de soto, J. (2009): The Theory of Dynamic Efficiency, London, Routledge. Ibid, p. 17.

inter-aMeriCan Court oF riGhts. (2001): “Humans. Judgment Baena Ricardo et al”, series C. No. 72, paragraph 129.

JeaMMaud, A. (1985): "Around the problem of realization of the right", Journal of Critical Legal, pp. 5-15.

Jinesta, E. (2000): “Evaluation of results and accountability in public administration. The amendment to article 11 of the Constitution”. Iustitia Magazine, pp. 166-167.

kelsen, H. (1956): Introduction to the Pure Theory of Law, Mexico, Autonomous University of Mexico.

landero, CORNELIO. (2014): “Mechanisms Alternative Dispute Resolution as a Human Right Castilian-Manchego”. Journal of Social Sciences Universidad Juarez Autonoma de Tabasco, 17, pp. 81-95.

Marquez, M. (2012): Evaluation of Alternative Justice, Editorial Porrua, Mexico.

Mendez reateGui, R. (2013): “An Introduction to Institutional Coordination as an Alternate model for Neo Institutional Economic Analysis”, Procesos de Mercado. Revista Europea de Economía Política, Vol. X, 2, pp. 151-200.

— (2014): “A Legal-Economic and Institutional Reflection Civil Justice System in Peru”, Magazine of the Colombian Institute of Procedural Law, pp. 121-156.

— (2014): “Unemployment insurance in Peru: a preliminary through legal theory retrospection”, Neo Institutional Economics and the Austrian Law and Economics, UNED Law Journal, No 14, pp. 375-422.

Menendez, A. (2011). La lucha por una administracion Eficiente, en Homenaje al professor D. Juan Luis Iglesias Prada, pp. 54-49.

MerCuro, N. and Mederna, S. 1998. Economics and the Law, New Jersey, USA.

Muñoz, A. F., and Molina rueda, B. A. (2009): “Culture of Peace complex and conflicted”. The search for dynamic equilibrium. Peace and Conflict magazine. Granada, 3, pp. 44-61.

— Op. Cit., P. Four. Five.

— Op. Cit., P. Four. Five.

norMan, M. (2006): “Social Equity in Public Administration?”, Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17, pp. 233-252.

north, D. C. (1990): Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

pareJo. A. (1989): “La eficacia como principio jurídico de la actuación de la Administración Pública”, Revista de Documentación Administrativa, 218, pp. 16-65.

paz-ares, J and valenCia, J. (1995): “Efficiency Principle and Private Law”, Commercial Law Studies in tribute to Professor Manuel Broseta Pont, III, pp. 28-43.

poole, D. (2009): Philosophy of Law, Avila, UCAV.

posner, R. (1987): “Efficiency and the Efficacy of Title VII”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 136, pp. 513-522.

ritzer, G. (1993): Contemporary Sociological Theory, Madrid, McGraw Hill.

royal aCadeMy oF lanGuaGe. (2015): Dictionary of the Spanish language, edition of the Tercentenary.

sartori, G. (1998): Comparative constitutional engineering, Mexico: FCE.

varGas, E. (2010): “The Public Investment Management Seminar VII Judicial-CEJA”, the Justice Studies Center of the Americas-CEJA, p. 24.

varquer Cavalry, M. (2011): Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Right to housing in Spain, Madrid, Editorial Iustel.

ziMMerMann, A. (2012): “Marxism, communism and right: how Marxism led to disorder and genocide in the former Soviet Union”, Journal of Economics and Law, Vol 9, 34, pp. 97-144.

zywiCki, T. J. and strinGhaM, P. (2010): “Common Law and Economic eficiency”, September 8.




How to Cite

Reátegui, R. M. ., Lescano, V. ., & Mena, M. . (2017). The market as a mechanism for conflict resolution: the case of Ecuador. REVISTA PROCESOS DE MERCADO, 14(2), 291–315.