DOCSLIB.ORG

CONCILIATION: Tools, Techniques and Mindset

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CONCILIATION: Tools, Techniques and Mindset CONCILIATION: Tools, techniques and mindset EJTN February 18, 2019 Brussels Patrick Van Leynseele lawyer, arbitrator and mediator © 2018 Patrick Van Leynseele 1 Efficiency adjudication process? Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (former Justice Supreme Court USA): “ The courts of this country should not be the place where the resolution of disputes begin. They should be the places where disputes end-after alternative methods of resolving disputes have been considered and tried. ” 3 Before six beers After six beers six After 4 5 Before six beers After six beers six After 2 or three colums ??? Voltaire by Salvador Dalí. WHAT PROCESS CHOICES DO PARTIES HAVE ? Least Structured Consensual Least Formal Parties in control NEGOTIATION CONCILIATION MEDIATION HYBRIDS : • Arb-Med • Med-Arb ARBITRATION LITIGATION Most Structured Adversarial Most Formal Third party in control Other ADRs: ▪ Post arbitration mediation ▪ Binding mediation ▪ Non-binding Med-Arb ▪ « Medaloa » (Mediation & Last Offer Arbitration) or « Base-ball arbitration » ▪ Med then Arb ▪ Shadow mediation ▪ Co Med-Arb 10 Or even : • Roll the dice • Heads or tails • (African) « palabre » • Refusal to fight – abandonnement • Violence – war • Etc. 11 • Traditionnally: The « A » in ADR refers to an Alternative to justice system • More constructive: Look for Appropriate means of Dispute Resolution 12 Fundamental distinctions - Intervention of a third party or no? - Contractual logic (negotiation - mediation - conciliation) - Jurisdictional logic (courts – arbitration – third party binding decision) - Approach needs & interests >< Rights & duties 13 Truth ? Justice ? – The mediator Is not looking for what is right or wrong – The expert or conciliator may advise on what is "right" or “correct" – The mediator wishes the parties to find what is best for them (≠ what the law says or a court outcome would be) – The expert or conciliator atempts to find an agreement in line with the advice they have provided – The juge and arbitrator decide; they impose THEIR views based upon the rule of law – © 2018 Patrick Van Leynseele DISTINCTIONS • Right-duties / interests-needs • Factors time and costs • Decision by the parties/a third person • Procedural structure • « Win/loose » / Resolve • Confidentiality / Public hearings © 2018 Patrick Van Leynseele Users are entitled to • Being informed about dispute resolution options • Being provided with good advice about which ones to use in a particular case • Quick, cost effective resolution of their disputes with least amount of risk © 2018 Patrick Van Leynseele Attitude and role of the mediator • Neutrality • Is not the parties’ counsel • Does not (a priori) formulate proposals • Psychology and Communication • Absence of powers / Moral Authority • Empathy • “Leader”, directive or not • Focuses on interests and on priorities • Manages climate and emotions © 2018 Patrick Van Leynseele Pre-mediation : process designing Guided choice • Stakeholder mapping • Issues? • Interests, needs, concerns? • What caused the deadlock? • Expectations? • « Style » of mediation/mediator preferred? • Design process (incl. deadlock, combined processes) • Action plan (calendar, preparation, info, exchange) Negotiation phase : the mediator as process designer Directive (process) B. D. ( Evaluative ( Non Subject Directive Directive - Non-Evaluative Evaluative Evaluative Subject matter A. C. matter ) Facilitative Facilitative Non-Evaluative Evaluative ) Facilitative (process) The Power of the mediator « The mediator’s presence in the room changes the dynamics in the relationship between the parties… We cannot afford to be blind to this power. The mediator is the most powerful person in the room, » (as the judge is the most powerful person in his courtroom) (Rooney (2015) ‘Rebooting mediation by detaching from illusions of neutrality, just outcomes and balanced power) WHY ? ❑ Control over the process (ground rules, agenda, meeting protocols, etc.) ❑ Party dependence on / trust in the mediator ❑ Mediator’s normative and persuasive power ❑ Reframing techniques ❑ Use of caucuses, etc. ❑ Carry the process forward ❑ Declaring deadlock What about the courts? What can be done tot assist courts? • Courts provide rule-based justice when parties fail to agree • Active case management to : - Encourage early resolution of disputes - Encourage the parties to consider all their options other than court imposed solutions - Reduce trial time - Ensure more effective use of judicial resources - Establish trial standards - Monitor case loads - Develop information technology support • Court-connected ADR processes (« multi-door » concept) • Use of hybrid processes • Split cases between (legal) principles and other issues (e.g. damages) • Limited by principles of contradictory debate Indiciae of « mediability » The parties • There are personal problems, ego (emotional dimension). • One or several parties are agressive • One of the parties is economically weak (survival of the entreprise) • The profile/personality of the persons and of the lawyers • The parties take very strong positions • One of the parties has offered mediation Indiciae of « mediability » Relations between the parties • There is no more dialogue / Misunderstanding • The parties had a relationship based upon mutual confidence/friendship • There is potential for future relations • They need a workeable solution for the future Indiciae of « mediability » Limits of trials • A third party has (indirect) interests in the case • The parties have common interests • The context of the conflict is a microcosm • The decision will not solve the underlying conflict (it could even make it worse) Indiciae of « mediability » Negative consequences of a trial • The parties loose control over outcome (no influence over the solution) • Value at stake is too low to justify the cost and risks of a trial • The dispute is too complex • The result is too unpredictable, in fact or legally • There is a request of an expert investigation • A quick solution is necessary • Trial publicity is going to be harmful • Difficulties of enforcement of the judgment • An appeal is inevitable (long duration and important additionnal cost) Indiciae of non-mediability (but even then…?) • Excessive aggresivity • Excessive economic weakness. The solution is going to be « black or white » - judicial risks • Need to create case law • Question of principle (!) • Time plays against the parties • Proceedings are used as a means of pressure Promoting Party Self-Determination Decisions about what the conflict resolution method chosen should be about, must be governed: - not by a pretence of neutrality - by the principle that parties should have maximum control over the outcome, given their context and situation What is self-determination? The ability of parties to ❑ Craft their own solutions ❑ Voice their own thoughts and opinions ❑ Arrive at their own decisions ❑ Have adequate legal and other relevant information ❑ Understand their risks/alternatives to a negotiated agreement ❑ Understand their underlying needs & interests Techniques for promoting self-determination ❑Compulsory attendance of court hearing devoted to case management / first mediation session ❑Use levels of organisational authorithy to apply pressure ❑Influence funders of litigation, e.g. insurers ❑Terminate the process ❑Create a safe environment ❑Be inventive concerning court expenses as sanctions for trials pursued without prior ADR attempts To conclude • The rule of law requires fair and just resolution of disputes. • However it also requires that the process, particulary in relation to civil disputes, be cost effective. • The primary goal of a civil justice system is the just resolution of disputes through a fair but swift process at a reasonable expense. • Delay and excessive expense will negate the value of an otherwise just resolution • Systemic delay and expense will render the system inaccessible. The public must have confidence in not only the outcomes but in the processes of that litigation. 1. PRELIMINARY STEP Meeting Choice of mediator 2. PROCESS 3 FOLLOW UP • Create confidence - • Drafting validation • Facts analysis • Performance • Options / alternatives • Dialogue / negotiation • Decision / clarification • © 2018 Patrick Van Leynseele Participants to meeting • Authority required • Counsel ? • Parties’ experts ? • Insurer ? • Number of persons © 2018 Patrick Van Leynseele Create confidence Validate the Process S MEDIATOR T E P A B 1 Create confidence Validate the Process S • Presentation • Verification of parties’ authority T • Signature of Mediation Agreement • Role of the Mediator and limits E • Role of attorneys P • Decisions in the Parties’ hands • Caucus • Confidentiality 1 • Communication rules © Patrick Van Leynseele 2018 Climate of trust Validate the Process S Principled negotiation: T “Separate persons from the problem” E P © 2018 Patrick Van Leynseele 1 Communication Rules S • Do not interrupt / Everyone gives his ownversion • Every person speaks for herself T • Mutual respect E • Role of Counsel P • Active Listening • Questions • Detailed analysis 1 MEDIATOR A B Facts analysis S • Everyone gives own version / Perception • Clarification T • Active listening E • Summarise / Reformulate / Validate P • Define real disputes • Discover expressed & underlying interests • Build upon agreed items 2 Options and Alternatives S • Needs and interests / rights and duties • Scale of values and priorities T • Different Solutions E • “Brain Storming” P • “Increase the pie” • Long term relations • Caucus
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bring in the Lawyers: Challenging the Dominant Approaches to Ensuring Fairness in Divorce Mediation Craig A
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1995 Bring in the Lawyers: Challenging the Dominant Approaches to Ensuring Fairness in Divorce Mediation Craig A. McEwen Nancy H. Rogers Richard J. Maiman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation McEwen, Craig A.; Rogers, Nancy H.; and Maiman, Richard J., "Bring in the Lawyers: Challenging the Dominant Approaches to Ensuring Fairness in Divorce Mediation" (1995). Minnesota Law Review. 1059. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1059 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bring in the Lawyers: Challenging the Dominant Approaches to Ensuring Fairness in Divorce Mediation Craig A. McEwen, Nancy H. Rogers, and Richard J. Maiman* Introduction ............................................. 1319 I. The 'Fairness" Debate .............................. 1323 II. Evaluating the Two Dominant Statutory Approaches ......................................... 1329 A. The "Regulatory Approach" ...................... 1330 1. Mediator Duties Regarding Fairness ......... 1332 2. Case Selection ............................... 1335 3. Issue Limitations ............................ 1340 4. Mediator Qualifications ...................... 1343 5. Lawyer and Court Review
    [Show full text]
  • Dispute System Design and Bias in Dispute Resolution Lisa Blomgren Amsler Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, [email protected]
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Southern Methodist University SMU Law Review Volume 70 Article 7 Issue 4 ADR Symposium Part 2 of 2 2017 Dispute System Design and Bias in Dispute Resolution Lisa Blomgren Amsler Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, [email protected] Alexander B. Avtgis [email protected] Michael Scott aJ ckman Indiana University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons Recommended Citation Lisa Blomgren Amsler, et al., Dispute System Design and Bias in Dispute Resolution, 70 SMU L. Rev. 913 (2017) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol70/iss4/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. DISPUTE SYSTEM DESIGN AND BIAS IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION Lisa Blomgren Amsler, Alexander B. Avtgis, and M. Scott Jackman* ABSTRACT This article examines the role of mediator race and gender in perceptions of procedural justice as measure of accountability and representative bu- reaucracy in a national mediation program for complaints of employment discrimination at a large federal organization, the United States Postal Ser- vice. Mediation represents a forum of accountability in which employees may hold an employer accountable for violating federal law prohibiting forms of employment discrimination, in this case, race discrimination, sex discrimination, and sexual harassment. Representative bureaucracy theory suggests passive or symbolic representation when the demographics of public officials should mirror those of the public they serve.
    [Show full text]
  • Concepts of Conciliation and Mediation and Their Differences
    CONCEPTS OF CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION AND THEIR DIFFERENCES by Justice M. Jagannadha Rao One of the questions constantly asked by many is as to what is meant by conciliation and mediation, whether they are the same and, if not, whether there are any differences? Conciliation and Mediation Whether, in common parlance, there is some difference between conciliation and mediation or not, it is however clear that two statutes by Parliament treat them as different. (a) In the year 1996, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was passed and sec. 30 of that Act, which is in Part I, provides that an arbitral tribunal may try to have the dispute settled by use of ‘mediation’ or ‘conciliation’. Sub-section (1) of sec. 30 permits the arbitral tribunal to “use mediation, conciliation or other procedures”, for the purpose of reaching settlement. (b) The Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 which introduced sec. 89, too speaks of ‘conciliation’ and ‘mediation’ as different concepts. Order 10 Rules 1A, 1B, 1C of the Code also go along with sec. 89. Thus our Parliament has made a clear distinction between conciliation and mediation. In Part III of the 1996 Act (sections 61 to 81) which deals with ‘Conciliation’ there is no definition of ‘conciliation’. Nor is there any definition of ‘conciliation’ or ‘mediation’ in sec. 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended in 1999). Conciliation In order to understand what Parliament meant by ‘Conciliation’, we have necessarily to refer to the functions of a ‘Conciliator’ as visualized by Part III of the 1996 Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Permanent Court of Arbitration Optional Conciliation Rules
    PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION OPTIONAL CONCILIATION RULES 147 OPTIONAL CONCILIATION RULES CONTENTS Introduction 151 Permanent Court of Arbitration Optional Conciliation Rules 155 Application of the Rules (Article 1) 155 Commencement of Conciliation Proceedings (Article 2) 155 Number of Conciliators (Article 3) 156 Appointment of Conciliators (Article 4) 156 Submission of Statements to Conciliator (Article 5) 157 Representation and Assistance (Article 6) 157 Role of Conciliator (Article 7) 157 Administrative Assistance (Article 8) 158 Communication between Conciliator and Parties (Article 9) 158 Disclosure of Information (Article 10) 159 Co-operation of Parties with Conciliator (Article 11) 159 Suggestions by Parties for Settlement of Dispute (Article 12) 159 Settlement Agreement (Article 13) 159 Confidentiality (Article 14) 160 Termination of Conciliation Proceedings (Article 15) 160 Resort to Arbitral or Judicial Proceedings (Article 16) 161 Costs (Article 17) 161 Deposits (Article 18) 162 Role of Conciliator in Other Proceedings (Article 19) 162 Asmissibility of Evidence in Other Proceedings (Article 20) 162 Notes to the Text 164 149 OPTIONAL CONCILIATION RULES INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Rules Parties who have disputes that they are unable to settle through consultation and negotiation with each other may wish to consider conciliation as a method for resolving their differences without the need to resort to arbitration or judicial means. Although the benefits of conciliation are widely recognized, some parties may hesitate to enter into conciliation because they may be unfamiliar with the process or may have different views concerning how a conciliation should be conducted. In order to facilitate greater use of conciliation, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has, with the approval of the Administrative Council, established these Optional Conciliation Rules (‘the PCA Optional Conciliation Rules’).
    [Show full text]
  • FEDERAL MEDIATION and CONCILIATION SERVICE 2100 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20427 Phone, 202–606–8100
    546 U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL For further information, contact the Office of the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573±0001. Phone, 202±523±5725. Fax, 202±523±0014. FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE 2100 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20427 Phone, 202±606±8100 Director JOHN CALHOUN WELLS Deputy Director, Field Operations FLOYD WOOD Deputy Director, National Office WILMA B. LIEBMAN The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service assists labor and management in resolving disputes in collective bargaining contract negotiation through voluntary mediation and arbitration services; provides training to unions and management in cooperative processes to improve long-term relationships under the Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978, including Federal sector partnership training authorized by Executive Order 12871; provides alternative dispute resolution services and training to Government agencies, including the facilitation of regulatory negotiations under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990; and awards competitive grants to joint labor-management committees to encourage innovative approaches to cooperative efforts. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation reached 30 days in advance of a Service (FMCS) was created by the Labor contract termination or reopening date. Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 The notice must be filed with the Service U.S.C. 172). The Director is appointed and the appropriate State or local by the President with the advice and mediation agency. The Service is consent of the Senate. required to avoid the mediation of Activities disputes that would have only a minor effect on interstate commerce if State or The Federal Mediation and Conciliation other conciliation services are available Service helps prevent disruptions in the to the parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Peaceful Settlement of Disputes
    G.J.C.M.P.,Vol.6(1):11-17 (January-February, 2017) ISSN: 2319 – 7285 PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES Abdualla Mohamed Hamza1,* Miomir Todorovic2 1 Union Nikola Tesla University, Department for Postgraduate Studies, Ph.D Candidate, Libya. 2Knez Mihaljeva Street, Belgrade, Serbia Abstract The purpose is to provide a general survey of the practice among States of the peaceful settlement of international disputes. There are variety of instruments for peaceful settlement, including negotiation, commissions of inquiry, Mediation, Conciliation and Good Offices. Care is taken to indicate the quantitative significance of the inter-State arbitration in relation to the use of standing international tribunals, such as the International Court of Justice. Key word: International law, peaceful settlement. Negotiation, mediation, inquiry, United Nation, Arbitration. 1. Introduction Historically, International Law has been regarded by the international community as a means to ensure the establishment and preservation of world peace and security. The maintenance of international peace and security has always been the major purpose of the International Law. It was the basic objective behind the creation of the League of Nations in 1919 and the United Nations in 1945. Since the direct cause of war and violence is always a dispute between States, it is therefore in the interest of peace and security that disputes should be settled. Methods and procedures for the peaceful (pacific) settlement of disputes have been made available in the International Law. States have concluded a great number of multilateral treaties aiming at the peaceful settlement of their disputes and differences. The most important treaties are the 1899 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes which was revised by the Second Hague Peace Conference in 1907, and the 1928 General Act for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes which was concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Dispute Resolution Challenges and Opportunities
    Proceedings of the UNECE Forum on ODR 2003 http://www.odr.info/unece2003 Note on Editing: suggested changes are in comments will be in parenthesis. Overall – this is good, some edits imbedded as you can see. Be careful to keep out of the first person and in the third, tried to catch most of them but certainly some got through. Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing ODR by Graham Ross Managing Director The Claim Room.com Ltd www.TheClaimRoom.com Challenges Scope The first challenge is one of definition. What exactly is ODR? Unless we are talking about the same subject it will be difficult to achieve a consensus. ODR, as a term, has been used to offer a wide embrace that covers, at the one end of the scale, consumer complaints negotiated directly between the parties and, at the other end, to mediation and arbitration of commercial disputes, frequently with lawyer representation, that otherwise might be expected, cost permitting, to end up in a court of law. Definition is important to ensure that in discussions and debates all participants are addressing the same issues. In any discussion on ODR, however, its scope can vary according to context. To what does the word ‘online’ refer? Does it refer to the nature of the dispute, so that ODR refers to a facility for disputes formed online, or does it refer to the medium employed in the resolution of the dispute? Is it an online version of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution – with ‘alternative’ universally understood to be an alternative to court based resolution) or can it embrace the courts and cyber court technology? Does its validity rest solely with disputes in which the parties are at a distance or can the technological aspects, and the capacity to archive and manipulate outcomes, add value to attendance based mediation? ADR at its most generic level is any system of resolving disputes outside of the Courts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Lawyers in Mediation: Insights from Mediators at Victoria’S Civil and Administrative Tribunal
    THE ROLE OF LAWYERS IN MEDIATION: INSIGHTS FROM MEDIATORS AT VICTORIA’S CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KATHY DOUGLAS* AND BECKY BATAGOL** Mediation is an increasingly important part of legal practice with the institutionalisation of alternative or appropriate dispute resolution in our legal system. Mediation has been embraced by courts and may be part of pre-action requirements in some jurisdictions. How lawyers can best contribute to mediation has been discussed in the literature and is informed by ethical requirements. This article provides insights into the role of lawyers in mediation using interviews with sixteen mediators at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal of Victoria. It explores collaborative approaches that lawyers can adopt within the spectrum of roles that lawyers may take when representing a client in mediation developed by Olivia Rundle. I INTRODUCTION The institutionalisation of alternative or appropriate dispute resolution (ADR) within the Australian civil justice system means that lawyers are increasingly engaging with ADR.1 Lawyers must adjust their practice to serve their clients’ needs in a changing legal environment.2 ADR can include a number of different processes, ranging from arbitration to the most widely used mediation.3 Mediation is a standard feature of contemporary dispute resolution and is mandated in most courts in Australia.4 The approach of lawyers to mediation is important in achieving resolution to a dispute, as lawyers infl uence the process and success of * BA, LLM, (Monash), Dip Ed (Melbourne), PhD (RMIT University), Senior Lecturer in Law, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University. ** BA (Hons), LLB (Hons), PhD (Monash), Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash University.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution Practitioner's Guide
    ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PRACTITIONERS GUIDE CONTENTS I. Introduction: Purposes and Use of the Guide 1 II. Key Observations 3 III. What is ADR? 4 IV. What Can ADR Do? 7 V. The Limitations of ADR 21 VI. What Background Conditions Are Important? 24 VII. What Program Design Considerations Are Important? 33 VIII. Conclusion 48 Appendix A -- Taxonomy of ADR Models from the Developed and Developing World Appendix B -- Case Studies Appendix C -- Research Methodology Appendix D -- Working Bibliography of Literature Appendix E -- Dispute Resolution Institutional Problems; DR/ADR Solutions and Conditions for Success ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS About CMG Conflict Management Group (CMG) is dedicated to improving the methods of negotiation, conflict resolution, and cooperative decision-making as applied to issues of public concern. Public conflicts and ineffective means for dealing with them lead to wasted resources, social instability, reduced investment, chronic underdevelopment, and loss of life. CMG believes that good negotiation, joint problem-solving, facilitation, and dispute management skills can help those with differing interests, values, and cultures cope more effectively with their differences. CMG is an international non- profit organization. It is engaged in the training of negotiators, consulting, diagnostic research, process design, conflict analysis, facilitation, consensus-building, and mediation. CMG also facilitates the building of institutions for the prevention and ongoing management of conflicts. CMG is non-partisan and takes no stand on the substantive issues of a dispute. About the Authors Scott Brown Since 1996, Scott Brown has been the Dean of the William Jewett Tucker Foundation, the first endowed deanship at Dartmouth College. Prior to his appointment as dean, he was the President and Executive Director of Conflict Management Group from 1992–1996.
    [Show full text]
  • Restorative Justice Empowerment*
    Restorative Justice Empowerment* Charles Barton** *Acknowledgements Versions of this paper have previously appeared in print as detailed below. The author acknowledges and thanks the relevant Editors for their permission to re-produce the article on the VOMA Web-Page: 1. The Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics, vol. 2, no. 2, 2000. 2. Just Peace?: Peace Making and Peace Building for the New Millennium. (Proceedings of a Conference held 24 – 28 April 2000, at Massey University, Albany, Aotearoa/New Zealand) Edited by Warwick Tie. Massey University Centre for Justice and Peace Development. (pp. 50 – 62). **Biographical Note Charles Barton is a professional philosopher and conflict resolution specialist who lectures and trains in Law and Morality, Professional and Applied Ethics, and Restorative Justice. He is a Lecturer in the School of Policing Studies, and a Research Fellow in the ARC Special Research Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, at Charles Sturt University, Australia. He is also a former Research Fellow of Massey University (NZ), and a current Visiting Fellow in the Key Centre in Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance at Griffith University, Queensland, Australia, and a Visiting Professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, USA. Charles Barton is the developer and author of the Empowerment Model of Restorative Justice, which is based on a unified and comprehensive philosophy and theory of conflict resolution that makes Empowerment the central and most critical feature of restorative justice responses and interventions. He may be contacted at the above institutions or by electronic mail: [email protected], or [email protected] .
    [Show full text]
  • Conciliation As a Mechanism for the Resolution of International Economic and Business Disputes
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 14, Issue 3 1990 Article 3 Conciliation As A Mechanism For The Resolution Of International Economic And Business Disputes Linda C. Reif∗ ∗ Copyright c 1990 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj Conciliation As A Mechanism For The Resolution Of International Economic And Business Disputes Linda C. Reif Abstract This Article will examine the use of conciliation as a mechanism for the resolution of dis- putes arising out of trade, investment, and other business relationships in this broadly framed transnational system. Part I presents an overview of dispute resolution methods. Part II provides a definition of “international conciliation.” Part III discusses the various uses of international concil- iation as a method for the resolution of international conflicts; this Part highlights several relevant international agreements and organizations. Part IV argues in favor of conciliation as a means for achieving the settlement of international economic and business disputes. CONCILIATION AS A MECHANISM FOR THE RESOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS DISPUTES Linda C. Reif * INTRODUCTION The hallmark of dispute' settlement in the international system is its consensual nature. Disorder in relations between entities which have formal status on this level, primarily the nation-state and certain international organizations, cannot be remedied unless all the parties involved consent both to the implementation of the process of dispute resolution and the specific mechanism to be engaged. This remains true whether the particular method selected is adjudicative or diplomatic in nature. This configuration of the international order is the product of its decentralized format where all states are, in prin- ciple, juridically equal and where there is no superior govern- mental entity with the authority to prescribe, adjudicate, and enforce the law.
    [Show full text]
  • CONCILIATION/MEDIATION of LABOUR DISPUTES Information Note
    SOCIAL DIALOGUE CONCILIATION/MEDIATION OF LABOUR DISPUTES 9 – 14 NOVEMBER 2020 TURIN, ITALY Information Note BACKGROUND The recent changes in the global labour market have affected traditional labour dispute resolution methods. The place of adversarial rights-based processes such as labour tribunals or arbitration is not in dispute, but alongside this is a growing recognition of the value of effective consensus-based dispute resolution methods including conciliation and mediation. Nowadays, conciliation/mediation plays an important role in the way in which employers, employees and their representative organisations, including trade unions, find agreed solutions to common problems in the workplace, enterprise and different levels. An agreement reached through conciliation/mediation has usually benefits for all parties involved. First of all, it creates an opportunity for disputing parties to find a mutually beneficial solution to a dispute when negotiation has failed. Secondly, the intervention of an independent conciliator/ mediator often helps parties reduce the extent of their differences. The outcome of a successful labour conciliation/ mediation is a new equilibrium that resolves the prevailing dispute and establishes the foundations of a more co-operative relationship. Finally, it is well known that when parties have agreed the terms of the resolution to a dispute instead of having a decision imposed upon them by a third party, they are much more likely to comply with that outcome. Enforceability is therefore much less of a problem. Furthermore, an effective dispute managing system promoting consensus-based initiatives reduces both the cost and the time associated with traditional methods of dispute resolution whether it be through tribunals, arbitration or the use of strikes and lockouts.
    [Show full text]