Future Challenges of the Influence of Neuroscience on Mediation Process


Abstract views: 9 / PDF downloads: 10

Authors

  • Ahtam Yakubov Karshi International University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.288

Keywords:

Neurotechnology, Mediation, Regulation, Ethics, Human Rights, Technical Specifications

Abstract

This study investigates the current and prospective future landscape of neurotechnology integration in mediation using a multi-disciplinary approach spanning law, neuroscience, technology ethics and alternative dispute resolution. It examines the theoretical promise and documented applications of neurotechnologies such as EEG, fMRI and tDCS to enhance mediation capabilities including improved perspective-taking, empathy, unbiased decision-making and mutual understanding between disputants based on empirical neuroscience. The research analyzes the extent of existing real-world integration in mediation processes, with a focus on adoption patterns in the emerging BRICS economies shaping global norms. Through doctrinal analysis and comparative scrutiny, major regulatory gaps are identified across BRICS countries concerning risks, consent protocols, accessibility safeguards, dispute resolution ethics codes and oversight mechanisms for accountable and rights-based neurotechnology use during mediation. To responsibly address these gaps, the study formulates a comprehensive governance framework encompassing licensing systems, training guidelines, technical specifications, human rights principles and BRICS coordination strategies to promote harmonized, socially beneficial advancement of neurotechnology integration in mediation. Evidence-based recommendations advocate urgent policy reforms to implement effective safeguards without impeding innovation. By elucidating promising capabilities alongside profound ethical dilemmas at the intersection of neuroscience, law and technology, this pioneering research provides constructive insights to guide stakeholders in responsibly steering the trajectory of neurotechnology-assisted mediation to enhance access to justice globally. Further research can validate and extend findings as the field evolves.

References

Anumanchipalli, G. K., Chartier, J., & Chang, E. F. (2019). Speech synthesis from neural decoding of spoken sentences. Nature, 568(7753), 493-498. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1119-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1119-1

AllahRakha, N. (2025). National Policy Frameworks for AI in Leading States. International Journal of Law and Policy, 3(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.270 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.270

AllahRakha, N. (2024). UNESCO’s AI Ethics Principles: Challenges and Opportunities. International Journal of Law and Policy, 2(9), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.225 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.225

Grau, C., Ginhoux, R., Riera, A., Nguyen, T. L., Chauvat, H., Berg, M., & Pouget, P. (2014). Conscious brain-to-brain communication in humans using non-invasive technologies. PLOS ONE, 9(8), e105225. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105225 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105225

Trimper, J. B., Wolpe, P. R., & Rommelfanger, K. S. (2014). When “I” becomes “We”: Ethical implications of emerging brain-to-brain interfacing technologies. Frontiers in Neuroengineering, 7, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneng.2014.00004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneng.2014.00004

Tai, K., & Chau, T. (2009). Single-trial classification of NIRS signals during emotional induction tasks: Towards a corporeal machine interface. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-6-39

Mann, C. (2018). How mediators can use brain science. Mediate.com. https://www.mediate.com

Stillinger, C., Epelbaum, M., Keltner, D., & Ross, L. (1991). The reactive devaluation barrier to negotiation. Stanford University.

Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Caviola, L., Faber, N. S., Crockett, M. J., & Savulescu, J. (2018). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125(2), 131. https://doi.org/xxxx (if available, otherwise omit the DOI) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000093

Tai, K., & Chau, T. (2009). Single-trial classification of NIRS signals during emotional induction tasks: Towards a corporeal machine interface. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 6(1), 1-13. https://jneuroengrehab.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-0003-6-39 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-6-39

Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(5), 1090–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030939

Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(5), 1090. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030939

Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435(7042), 673-676. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03701 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03701

Chen, C. H., Wu, Y. T., Hsueh, S. C., Li, H. F., & Tsai, C. H. (2017). The application of neuroscience to mediate disputes: A preliminary study in Taiwan. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 35(3), 234-246.

Van Der Gaag, C., Minderaa, R. B., & Keysers, C. (2007). Facial expressions: What the mirror neuron system can and cannot tell us. Social Neuroscience, 2(3-4), 179-222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17470910701376878

Catmur, C. (2013). Sensorimotor learning and the ontogeny of the mirror neuron system. Neuroscience Letters, 540, 21-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2012.10.001

Henderson, D. J. P. (2020). What (if anything) is wrong with neuromediation? Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 35, 289.

Eaton, A. A., & Illes, J. (2007). Commercializing cognitive neurotechnology—the ethical terrain. Nature Biotechnology, 25(4), 393–397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0407-393

Peters, S. L. (2016). Neuroscience, conflict, compromise. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 31(2), 437. https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/study/journals/osjdr-ohio-state-journal-dispute-resolution

Spranger, T. M. (2012). International neurolaw: A comparative analysis of national policies on neuroscience and human rights. Health Matrix, 22, 309. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-21541-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21541-4

Ervasti, M., Burr, K., Reitavuo, H., Puolakanaho, A., Suominen, A., Xu, J., ... & Laurienti, P. J. (2019). The role of emotions in conflict management: EEG and peripheral physiological correlates. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1180. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb022923/full/html

China State Council. (2017). New Generation AI Development Plan. https://www.unodc.org/ji/en/resdb/data/chn/2017/new_generation_of_artificial_intelligence_development_plan.html

NITI Aayog. (2018). National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence. https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-01/NationalStrategy-for-AI-Discussion-Paper.pdf

Ector, L., Schoonen, A., Stofberg, R., Rasquin, S., Garcia-Pimienta, J., Azzolini, M. L. M., ... & Rufo-Campos, M. (2017). Creating an intercontinental network of neuroethics: Aspirations and first steps. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health.

Published

2025-02-28

How to Cite

Yakubov, A. (2025). Future Challenges of the Influence of Neuroscience on Mediation Process. International Journal of Law and Policy, 3(2), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.288

Issue

Section

Articles