News & Updates

Mediation

Viewing posts tagged Mediation

Michelin II or the Regulatory Robustness Rating: Part 2

What makes good mediation law?

Three-gold-stars

For those of you who have been following the plot, you will recognise this as the second in a series of three posts introducing what is now called the RRR — Regulatory Robustness Rating for mediation jurisdictions. You may also notice the name change. Yes, what originated as the Mediation Friendly Star System has transformed into the Regulatory Robustness Rating. Why? Simply because it’s more accurate. I have amended my previous post to reflect this new language and there is also a more detailed explanation of the reasons to be found there.

Now, to Part 2 of the Triology.

Previously, I introduced the 12 criteria upon which the RRR System is based. Together they form the foundations of the RRR System and inform the ratings given to each jurisdiction. The purpose of this post is to explain the thinking, assumptions and value judgments underpinning each criterion. After all, the rating indicates the extent to which a given jurisdiction offers a robust regulatory regime for cross-border mediation, or not.

Each criterion is given a rating of up to five stars, five being the highest score possible and one being the lowest. In addition, the criteria are weighted according to their importance from a user perspective. The weighting scale is one to three, with the higher number providing a higher weight. So if the ranking of each category is one to five, then a ranking of five:
• on weighting of three would result in 15 points;
• on a weighting of two would result in 10 points;
• on a weighting of one would result in five points.

I have set out the RRR criteria, weightings and underlying principles in tabular form for ease of reference. So when you click on the link below you will get a pdf with the RRR in tabular form.

Regulatory Robustness Rating for Mediation

The next and final post in the RRR triology will deal with how to apply the Regulatory Robustness Rating to any legal jurisdiction. Watch out for this next week.

Michelin guide assessing Mediation Friendliness in EU states

Michelin guide to mediation is from the new book written by Nadja Alexander and Sabine Walsh, which provides guidance on the Mediation Friendliness of each of the EU jurisdictions. It is the first of its kind to compare and contrast the mediation law and regulatory framework in each state, and offers insight for cross-border practitioners and mediation users seeking the best jurisdiction to conduct their mediation.

For more information, please click here.

Brexit and EU mediation —Kluwer Mediation Blog

BREXIT

In the aftermath of the Brexit vote and the appointment of Theresa May as England’s Prime Minister, there are many things to think about and there will be much to negotiate. While some commentators anticipate a U-turn on Brexit, Theresa May has made it clear that “Brexit means Brexit” – whatever that means.

In this post, I want to pay attention to cross-border mediation within the EU and, in particular, the impact Brexit may have on how London is perceived as a venue for cross-border mediation within the EU.

Currently within the EU, there are a number of mechanisms available to support cross-border mediation and the recognition and enforcement of cross-border mediated settlement agreements. These include mechanisms related to the EU Directive on Mediation in Civil and Commercial Matters , the Rome I Regulation and the Brussels 1 Regulation.

Like other member states, England has complied with the EU Directive (see the The Cross-Border Mediation (EU Directive) Regulations 2011, SI 2011/1133). It is unlikely that it would repeal these Regulations in the event of a Brexit. This is good thing in terms of certainty and clarity in relation to English cross-border mediation law. However, the Regulations deal only with enforceability, protection of mediators from giving “mediation” evidence in court, and the impact of mediation on litigation limitation periods. Other aspects of cross-border mediation law such as parties’ rights and obligations in relation to confidentiality and privilege remain in the general principles of the common law. And, of course, common law principles can sometimes operate quite differently from civil law principles. This is where choice of court and choice of law become really important. Given the potentially significant difference among civil law codes and the common law, disputing parties want to be sure:
– that they have expressly identified the laws and jurisdictions applicable to any dispute between them; and that
– in the event that they have not been clear in relation to the above, that they know which rules will be used to determine the applicable law and jurisdiction for their case.

In short therefore, where parties clearly state in writing the law (or laws) they want to govern their dispute and identify their jurisdiction of choice, then all is well. However where the choice of jurisdiction and law are not clear, there are rules to determine the relevant court and the governing laws. Within the EU there are two main Regulations that aim to achieve a harmonised set of rules for EU member states in this regard: the Rome I and Brussels I Regulations.

And so I now turn to the operation of these two Regulations and the possible implications for English mediation in a post Brexit world.

The Rome I Regulation aims to create a harmonised, if not a unified, choice of law system in contracts within the EU. In the context of cross-border mediation, there are three types of contract in mediation settings:
– An agreement between the parties to engage in mediation: this may take the form of a mediation clause in a commercial contract or a separate agreement between the parties.
– An agreement between the mediator(s) and the conflicting parties referred to as a mediation agreement, which regulates the rights and obligations of the signatories in relation to the mediation process.
– A mediated settlement agreement between the parties, which contains the terms of settlement of their dispute.

In absence of the parties making a clear selection of law to govern their dispute and the mediation process itself, Rome I establishes various rules to determine the applicable law. In this way it aims to provide a degree of certainty for those embarking on cross-border mediation within the EU. This is particularly important with respect to the English common law system, which can contain quite different legal constructs from civil law jurisdictions. For example, the legal construct of “without prejudice” privilege is not found in civil law EU jurisdictions. If England really does leave the EU, it will fall outside the unifying reach of Rome I. Unless it negotiates its way in again through new arrangements, this situation will create significant uncertainty in relation to how the applicable law will be determined. England will go back to its own general choice-of-law rules (rather than Rome I) to determine which laws will apply in relation to the dispute including rights and obligations associated with mediating the dispute.

Then there is the Brussels I Regulation. The Brussels I Regulation deals with court jurisdiction and judgment recognition issues in virtually all civil and commercial matters within the EU. In other words it is about choice of court, whereas Rome I is about choice of law. It aims to harmonise the rules on jurisdiction and prevent parallel litigation. Generally this Regulation is likely to play an increasing role in the development of European mediation law to the extent that:
– Courts make decisions about the recognition and enforcement of mediation clauses, agreements to mediate and mediated settlement agreements in their various contractual forms;
– Mediated settlement agreements take the form of a court order, court consent award or judgment; and
– Courts make decisions about other aspects of mediation such as confidentiality and admissibility of mediation evidence.

In addition, there are specific provisions in relation to cross-border mediated settlement agreements involving a pecuniary claims. This type of mediated settlement agreement can be made enforceable in the State of origin and subsequently enforced in another Member State by virtue of Article 24 or 25 of the Regulation No 805/2004. If it involves the delivery of specific assets it can be declared enforceable in another Member State according to Article 58 of the Brussels I Regulation.

At the same time, all eyes are now looking beyond the EU at UNCITRAL as its Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) focuses its efforts on enforceability of cross-border mediated settlement agreements and a potential multi-lateral convention along the lines of the highly successful New York Convention in relation to foreign arbitral awards. However until such a convention is finalised and implemented (which could take a while), Brussels I remains relevant to Europe and its benefits will not extend to a brexited Britain.

If and when Brexit occurs these mechanisms will be not be available in relation to enforcement in the UK. This means lack of uniformity and more uncertainty for disputing parties and their lawyers. Given that mediation clauses written today focus on managing disputes in the future, a quiet nervousness has already set in.

Mediation Fellowship for Graduate Students

There is an opportunity for a graduate student to work with PartnersGlobal on the Sustainable Mediation initiative in the Fall. It may be possible for the student to work with us on this remotely.

*************************************************************************************

Position Title: Mediation Fellow

Start/End Dates: September 1 – December 1 (Dates are flexible)

Organizational Background:

PartnersGlobal (previously Partners for Democratic Change), established in 1989, is an international, non-governmental organization committed to building sustainable capacity to advance democratic institutions, civil society, and a culture of peaceful change and conflict management worldwide. PartnersGlobal specializes in organizational development and social entrepreneurship, having provided the seed capital and technical assistance to establish 18 independent, local Centers around the world.

PartnersGlobal adheres to the values of participatory decision-making, collaboration, and consensus-building as the fundamentals of an inclusive, democratic society; and, we promote the application of these skills in all aspects of our work. The PartnersGlobal team includes process experts, facilitators, and trainers who apply those collaborative skills to achieve concrete results in technical areas such as the rule of law, women’s empowerment, security sector reform, and natural resource management. Our network of local Centers is renowned for undertaking cutting edge work and applying our process expertise to convene disparate parties to jointly tackle some of the most complex development challenges.

Position Overview:

PartnersGlobal is seeking a law or graduate student to assist in the outreach and implementation of our Pathways to Sustainable Mediation project. In this project, PartnersGlobal collaborated with the JAMS Foundation to design a curriculum for sophisticated mediation promoters to go beyond strengthening the supply side of mediation, to rather focus on thinking strategically and systemically about their ability to build long-term (sustainable) mediation programs in their own contexts. The curriculum of the offered training is intended to provide a space for personal reflection and inspiration for the many committed and professional Mediation Promoters working to embed mediation and promote a culture of peaceful and efficient dispute resolution – whether at the community level, within the court system or through private/commercial mediation. The curriculum was recently piloted in Vienna for participants from 14 different European projects.

The next phase of the project is to adapt the curriculum to an on-line platform for virtual dissemination that would reach a large number of participants globally. The curriculum will serve as an educational program to provide distance coaching services for mediation promoters. The Mediation Fellow would assist in the adaptation of the curriculum to the PartnersGlobal redesigned website, as well as support the implementation of the educational program.

I. Primary Responsibilities include:

Assist in the adaptation of the curriculum to a distance coaching program residing on an online platform.
Develop and edit website content regarding the Pathways to Sustainable Mediation project.
Support the development and implementation of a monthly webinar series for senior-level mediation professionals to discuss their challenges in promoting mediation.
Liaise with international mediation professionals in order to develop and improve webinar series.
Help the technical team to promote the educational program to other international ADR donors and promoters.
II. Qualifications/Requirements:

This position requires a dynamic individual with a demonstrated ability to achieve results in a demanding and fast paced environment. Though PartnersGlobal is based in Washington, DC, there is a possibility for this fellowship to be done remotely.

  • Applicants must currently be students in a graduate program or law school.
  • Experience with mediation preferred.
  • WordPress and/or experience with updating or editing websites preferred.
  • Excellent cross-cultural/inter-personal communication skills.
  • Strong writing skills and fluency in English, written and oral.
  • Excellent critical thinking skills and judgment.
  • Independent, takes initiative.
  • Must be flexible, able to multi-task and self-directed.

To Apply: Please submit a cover letter and resume by email only to intern@partnersglobal.org, no later than August 15, 2016. As the subject, please type: “Application: Mediation Fellowship”. No telephone calls, please.

Negotiation and Memory – Kluwer Mediation Blog

Is it true that as we get older, we tend to forget things more easily? Or is it that some things are just less important?

As negotiators and mediators, we often deal with complex layers of information that appear all too much for any one person to recall. So we enter the negotiation room burdened with our big folders or sporting our slim iPads laden with mega data containing all the information that we might possibly need. I wonder though, if we sometimes rely too much on the documents when we could be structuring and presenting information and issues in ways that would maximise the negotiation experience — for everyone.

Let’s start with an overview of memory. From my reading there seem to be three types of memory: immediate, short term and long term. Immediate memory can take in a massive amount of information, but only for a couple of seconds. Some of this information passes into short-term memory, which works as a kind of central processor for the brain. We can think of it as our working memory. Certain information from our short-term memory will eventually establish itself in our long-term memory.

Of course some male readers might be brave enough to suggest that much conflict would be prevented if information destined for a woman’s immediate memory remained there rather than finding its way into her long-term memory – but let’s not go there today. I want to focus on the short term memory and how we can make the most use of it in negotiation.

The capacity of our Short Term Memory has been the subject of significant neurological and psychological research over the last 60 years.

The first seminal study on Short Term Memory capacity was conducted by Millar (1956). He famously argued that our Short Term Memory can only hold 7 (+/– 2) pieces or ‘chunks’ of information at any given time, and so was coined the “Magical number 7” for Short Term Memory. While Millar’s was an early seminal study in the field, more recent research has expanded on these early findings. Recent studies continue to show that our Short Term Memories do have a limited capacity, and that ‘chunking’ is critical to the amount of information we can hold in in our Short Term Memory. So this means that information needs to be presented in chunks both verbally and visually with the aim that negotiators at the table will be able to recall the chunks, rather than the detail. (You can look up your suitably-chunked iPad for detail).
At the same time, these studies show a lot of individual difference in the amount and type of information that we can retain.

magic number 7

For example, some researchers posit that Short Term Memory is more likely to be the ‘Magical number 4’ than 7, and that other processes are important in influencing our Short Term Memory limits. Factors that can affect our Short Term Memory abilities may include:
• our level of rehearsal of the information in our Short Term Memory (e.g. practising in front of the mirror before going into a negotiation),
• our level of attention,
• the amount of time elapsed before we must recall the information,
• the amount of interference we encounter, and
• our memories’ overall ability to recall information when needed.
Further, certain types of information may be easier than others to ‘chunk’ and so seemingly increase their Short Term Memory capacity.

From a negotiation standpoint, the capacity of our Short Term Memory is important as this information is used by our executive functions for decision making. So if we are unable to take in enough, or the right kinds of, information, this will have a direct impact on the quality of decisions that we make.

A negotiator’s initial psychological state is important as certain negative states can reduce the amount of information we are able to hold in our Short Term Memory. For example, anxious individuals absorb and recall less information in our Short Term Memory then non-anxious individuals. This means if negotiators are anxious at the commencement of the negotiation process, they will be more likely to miss key information or more regularly need information to be repeated (particularly following breaks) as they may have trouble holding and recalling multiple pieces of information at any given time. Essentially, the calmer participants feel during negotiation, the more likely they are to absorb the required information. If you notice that some parties seem to be mis-recalling or missing key information, it could be related to their Short Term Memory and the way in which they process information.

The good news is that neuroscientific research suggests that we can influence how our Short Term Memory serves us as negotiators. Through pre-negotiation stress-reducing and focus-building mindfulness activities, we can reduce sources of interference and raise our magic number. Here it’s important to pay attention to how much information we can hold at any given time and whether we have a preference for how we like to receive information.

For example, when someone reads a news story aloud to you, do you find yourself asking to read it afterwards? If so, you may prefer to ‘chunk’ visual information. How do you cope with ‘interference’ during an actual negotiation such as interruptions, breaks, managing the process while also retaining and using key information? Recently I attended a negotiation with my 14 month old daughter in tow. although she was well-behaved (by baby standards, that is) one of the lawyers at the table was completely thrown. (And, no it wasn’t a tactic, just an unavoidable situation.) So, depending upon your Short Term Memory strengths and weaknesses, you may need to adjust aspects the negotiation process. For example, you may choose to use checklists, note-taking, visualisations or you may ask to sit far away from the baby.

Consider taking steps to accommodate different communication preferences in your negotiations. Think about using multi-modal methods of communication such as visual and verbal summaries and physically walking around the proposed site of your join venture development. This will help all negotiators to better absorb, process and understand information. Also keep breaks relatively short so as not to ‘interfere’ with the effective communication of key information from the session.

For original article, please click here.

Mediators’ Institute Ireland (MII) – 17th Annual Conference

Nadja Alexander gave the keynote address at the 17th MMI Annual Conference on Mediation and the Art of Regulation: Making it REAL.

The regulation of mediation is a topic that has the potential to excite and enthuse each and every one of us. Never before in regulatory history have so many people like you and I been involved in shaping mediation regulatory policy. Whether we like it or not, we cannot not influence how mediation practice is regulated. We are living and breathing regulatory stakeholders.

So what can we do about it then? How can we use our position of ‘regulatory’ influence intelligently and have fun at the same time?

Audience members had the opportunity to design their own personal regulatory plan for mediation.

Photos of the event below:

MII_0442

MII_0396

MII_0431

MII_0469

MII_0640

MII_0647

MII_0649

MII_0655

What’s your country’s mediation-friendly ranking? – Kluwer Mediation Blog

As mediation seeks to claim a larger slice of the international dispute resolution pie, an increasingly important question for lawyers is: where and according to which law would I choose to have the mediation of my clients matter conducted?

Say your client is a multinational corporation doing business with numerous organizations around the globe. Your advice is to insert a dispute resolution clause with mediation as a central component. Typically we select jurisdictions with which we are familiar to do business with. Smits explains the research that backs this up. This is sometimes referred to as the status quo bias. It might be our own jurisdiction or it might be another internationally well-known jurisdiction that has been the standard home for applicable law in dispute resolution clauses for decades.

Read More

Chief Justice launches Mediation rules – Samoa Observer

Chief Justice, His Honour Patu Tiava’asue Falefatu Sapolu yesterday launched Samoa’s Mediation Rules 2013 during a gathering at the Samoa Tourism Authority (STA) fale.

Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi was among Cabinet Ministers and senior government officials present. Also present was the Speaker of the House, La’auli Leuatea Polata’ivao as well as members of the judiciary.
His Honour Patu said the launch yesterday was a significant milestone for Samoa.

Read More