The moderated contract

有三种方法可以解决冲突。通过判决、合同或调解。在调解结束时，有一个缓和的合同。这是我调查的主题，并以版主的活动命名。适度的特点是它只有几个特点。调解究竟如何进行，并没有法律规定。这一说法可以通过分析与不同缓和情况有关的法律要求来证明。然而，适度活动的两个永久特征可以形成。首先是中立调解的要求，其次是调解人作为所谓“自决保证人”的功能。主持人参与的后果是矛盾的。一方面，在法律制度中，他对合同的订立具有独特的利益。这不是指合同的具体内容，而只是指合同——无论其内容如何——已经订立的事实。这种利益为遵守中立性要求带来了系统性的危险。另一方面，在中立调解的情况下，调解人的担保人地位比没有调解人的合同增加了被调解合同的合法性。这是因为在版主合同的情况下，合同的合法性是通过程序来加强的。合法化的基础仍然是使契约合法化的自决。调解人增加了仲裁权，例如，调解人对仲裁合同的影响与审判观察员的存在对法院判决的影响类似。由于调解人的参与，合法性的增加是通过增加判决的合法化力量来实现的，卢曼将其描述为审判的秘密理论。调解人还加强了双边条约所描述的条约机制，其正确性也使条约合法化。既然中立调解是增加被调解合同合法性的基础，那么必须回答一个问题，即调解人对中立的遵守是否以及如何在法律上得到保障。结果是令人惊讶的：版主的合同没有受到保护，不能防止（隐藏的）违反版主的中立义务。话又说回来，正是版主的特殊利益需要特殊的保护机制。为了制定适当的法律回应，创建了经过审核的合同的移动系统（Bewegliches System），其中包含构成经过审核的合同的基本评估。在此基础上，可以制定提案，为那些调解人不中立调解的调解人合同创建撤销权。

There are three ways to solve a conflict. By judgment, by contract or by mediation. At the end of mediation there is a moderated contract. This is the subject of my investigation and named after the moderator's activity. Characteristic for the moderation is that it only has a few characteristics. How exactly the mediation takes place is not covered by statutory regulations. This statement could be proven through the analysis of the legal requirements relating to different situations of moderation. However, two permanent characteristics of the moderation activity could be formulated. Firstly, the requirement of neutral mediation and secondly, the function of the moderator as a so-called "guarantor of self-determination".The consequences of the moderator's participation are ambivalent. On the one hand, he has an - in the legal system unique - interest in the conclusion of the contract. This does not refer to a specific content of the contract, but only to the fact that a contract - regardless of its content - is concluded at all. This interest entails a systemic danger for the compliance with the neutrality requirements.On the other hand, in the case of neutral mediation, the guarantor position of the moderator increases the legitimacy of the moderated contract compared to contracts concluded without a moderator. This is because in the case of a moderator contract, the legitimacy of the contract is strengthened by procedures.The basis for legitimation remains the self-determination that legitimates the contract. It is increased by the moderator, for example by having a similar effect on the moderated contract as the presence of trial observers has on the court decision.Due to the moderator's participation, an increase in legitimacy is achieved by adding the legitimizing forces of the judgment, which Luhmann described as the secret theory of the trial. The moderator also reinforces the treaty mechanism described for the bilateral treaty, the correctness of which also legitimizes the treaty.Since neutral mediation is the basis of the increased legitimacy of the moderated contract, the question had to be answered as to whether and how the moderator's adherence to neutrality is legally secured. The result is surprising: The moderated contract is not protected against a (hidden) violation of the moderator's duty of neutrality. Then again, it is the moderator's particular interest which would require special protective mechanisms.In order to develop an adequate legal response, the Mobile System (Bewegliches System) of the moderated contract was created, which contains the essential evaluations that make up the moderated contract. On this basis, the proposal could be formulated to create a withdrawal right for those moderated contracts where the moderator does not mediate neutrally.