Advocates of divorce conciliation argue that it is preferable to the legal resolution of disputes over children because it gives parents joint responsibility for decision-making which leads to more suitable settlements and ones more likely to be implemented. This thesis seeks to gain an understanding of the conciliation process and thereby test the assumptions implicit in such statements. It is based upon the examination of interview and observation material from clients and conciliators of one out-of-court Conciliation Service and includes a statistical description of the Service. It also discusses the question of responsibility for attendance at, and participation in, conciliation; concluding that many parents interviewed had not taken such responsibility. The major part of the thesis, based on a detailed examination of transcripts of tape recordings or conciliation appointments, argues that the construction of the problem is vital to the conciliation process and analyses the way conciliator interventions narrow the area in which the problem can be located and focus on feelings and relationship difficulties. It further argues that the process includes and depends on the construction of a particular concept of parental responsibility. This prioritises communication, co-operation and joint decision-making and becomes the rationale for a range of sometimes conflicting solutions constructed as a result ot conciliator initiatives. The later part of the thesis examines the ways in which conciliators seek to motivate parents to agree, relating this to the current conciliation/therapy debate, and to the use of expert knowledge. Finally this thesis investigates the influences on parents which are external to conciliation. This reveals complexities which may affect the outcome of the process of conciliation. It is concluded that much of the present debate is conducted on the basis of inadequate empirical knowledge and conceptual frameworks which produce a blindness to such complexities.

Les processus de résolution amiable des différends – conciliation, médiation, procédure participative ou droit collaboratif – présentent une unité d’objectif. Leur mise en œuvre permet une tentative de conclusion d’un accord amiable : un contrat consacrant la solution du différend construite par les parties. Sans se départir d’une approche procédurale, cette étude propose une analyse contractuelle de la résolution amiable des différends. Au-delà d’une procéduralisation de la formation de l’accord amiable, le droit commun des contrats sert en effet de manière unitaire les négociations et la conclusion de l’accord amiable. Ce dernier présente néanmoins une certaine diversité au regard des qualifications contractuelles qu’il peut revêtir. Si le contrat de transaction apparaît comme un référent à l’accord amiable, tout accord amiable ne consiste pas nécessairement en une transaction. Mais au-delà du jeu des qualifications possibles, le droit commun des contrats fédère les conditions de validité et les forces de l’accord amiable. Une unité fondamentale des accords amiables se révèle ainsi, garantissant la résolution effective des différends / The amicable settlement process - conciliation, mediation, collaborative procedure or law - present the same aim. Every amicable settlement process permits the conclusion of an amicable agreement: a contract consecrating the solution built by the parties. Without distracting from procedural approach, this study offers a contractual analysis of the amicable dispute resolution. Beyond a proceduralisation of the negotiation and the amicable settlement formation, it is the general law of contract that insure a support to the amicable settlement process. However, the amicable settlement presents some diversity due to peripheral qualifications. If the transaction contract is a reference to the amicable settlement, every amicable settlement is not necessarily a transaction. Beyong the choice of qualifications, the general contract law unites the validity conditions and the forces of the amicable settlement. A fundamental unity of amicable settlements reveals, safeguarded the effective dispute resolution