Mediators and commentators see a contradiction of expectations that a mediator be both fair and neutral. Some see this contradiction as an inherent one because neutrality “cannot stand side by side” with fairness. And many commentators have proposed various ways to resolve this apparent contradiction. Herein, the existence of such a contradiction is questioned and, assuming such existence, a possible solution is proposed from a practical view rather than a scholarly view.
To provide a foundation for the proposed solution here, an examination is first made into what “neutrality” and “fairness” might mean in the specific context of mediation. The meanings are examined from different viewpoints because those terms can have different meanings for different stakeholders – the mediation parties, the mediator, and governing bodies. Then, an analysis is made of whether there is a contradiction in achieving neutrality and fairness, and whether this contradiction creates problems for the stakeholder groups. The potential problems relate to whether a mediator can achieve both neutrality and fairness, and at the same time, whether the parties can find satisfactory levels of neutrality and fairness.
The document discusses mediators' perspectives on legal representation and achieving substantive justice in mediation. It outlines debates around whether mediation can deliver substantive justice or just procedural justice. The document also summarizes researchers' interviews with mediators, who expressed that achieving substantive justice is important but difficult to define, and that procedural fairness is key to empowering parties and working towards just outcomes.
Review Conflicts of Interest and Self-Dealing in the Pro.docxgertrudebellgrove
Review: Conflicts of Interest and Self-Dealing in the Professions: A Review Essay
Reviewed Work(s): Conflict of Interest in the Professions by Michael Davis and Andrew
Stark
Review by: Thomas L. Carson
Source: Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 161-182
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3857777
Accessed: 07-01-2020 05:46 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Business Ethics Quarterly
This content downloaded from 137.111.162.20 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 05:46:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
REVIEW ARTICLE
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND SELF-DEALING IN THE
PROFESSIONS: A REVIEW ESSAY
Thomas L. Carson
Conflict of Interest in the Professions
Michael Davis and Andrew Stark
New York: Oxford University Press, 2001; ISBN 0-19512863-X
This anthology begins with an excellent introduction by Michael Davis. Davis
1 identifies three overarching questions addressed in the book: 1. What is,
and is not, a conflict of interest? 2. What is morally wrong with conflicts of
interest? and 3. What should be done to handle or address conflicts of interest?
The papers included in this volume address conflicts of interest in a very
wide range of professions including the judiciary, the bar, government service,
journalism, accounting, engineering, corporate boards teaching, counseling,
anthropology, financial services, criticism, the film industry, medicine, and physi-
cal therapy. The great range of professions discussed allows for illuminating
comparisons between the issues faced by members of different professions. Most,
but not all, of the papers are of high quality and well worth reading. The papers
present a dizzying array of examples of conflicts of interests, some familiar,
others not. The book as a whole demonstrates the pervasiveness of conflicts of
interest in professional life and the centrality and importance of moral ques-
tions about conflicts of interest in professional ethics. I will not attempt to
summarize or describe all, or even most, of the papers included in this volume.
Instead, I will focus on a relatively small number of the papers those that ad-
dress the definition of conflicts of interest and conflicts of interest in business
and medicine. When appropriate, I discuss and refer to other important contri-
butions to the literature on conflicts of interests. I also venture an ac ...
The document discusses the importance of voluntariness in mediation. It defines mediation as communication between two or more parties with the assistance of a neutral third party mediator. Voluntariness means full and willing participation from both parties. While a resolution is not guaranteed, voluntariness ensures effective communication. It creates authenticity and makes both parties responsible for the outcome. Mediators may need to address the needs and concerns of reluctant parties by focusing on their sense of belonging, understanding, respect, safety and trust to achieve voluntariness.
April 2011 Part I What Every Executive Should Know About Dispute ResolutionRBCG1
The document discusses various dispute resolution options for business executives including mediation, arbitration, negotiation and litigation. It provides details on each process and notes that mediation and arbitration are generally better than litigation when future relationships are important. The document also summarizes the key steps and considerations for mediation and arbitration as the main alternative dispute resolution approaches.
Advisers are increasingly identifying themselves as ERISA fiduciaries in response to employer demands and new disclosure requirements. Some advisers have been hesitant to take on fiduciary status due to lack of education on ERISA rules and responsibilities. Failure to understand and properly manage fiduciary duties can result in severe penalties such as fines and lawsuits. Advisers can protect themselves by obtaining education on ERISA regulations, purchasing errors and omissions insurance, and establishing infrastructure to audit their compliance with fiduciary obligations.
BARRETT_MANUSCRIPT_Evaluating Business Ethics.2016Craig Barrett
This document provides an introduction and overview of a paper that will examine business ethics through a Kantian lens and stakeholder theory. It identifies two main challenges: 1) the procedural challenge of whether a business can be considered a moral agent that can be subject to moral obligations, and 2) the substantive challenge of directly applying Kant's categorical imperative to evaluate business decisions and practices. It notes that while businesses are made up of individuals, directly transferring theories of individual ethics may not apply to organizations. The document lays out that the paper will further explore these challenges and aim to develop an understanding of business ethics grounded in Kantian ethics through stakeholder theory.
The document discusses alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in India. It notes that ADR was introduced in India to help address the huge backlog of cases overwhelming the court system. ADR provides parties more cost-effective and timely mechanisms to resolve disputes through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and conciliation outside of litigation. The growth of ADR in India has helped promote access to justice and reduce strain on the courts.
The document discusses mediators' perspectives on legal representation and achieving substantive justice in mediation. It outlines debates around whether mediation can deliver substantive justice or just procedural justice. The document also summarizes researchers' interviews with mediators, who expressed that achieving substantive justice is important but difficult to define, and that procedural fairness is key to empowering parties and working towards just outcomes.
Review Conflicts of Interest and Self-Dealing in the Pro.docxgertrudebellgrove
Review: Conflicts of Interest and Self-Dealing in the Professions: A Review Essay
Reviewed Work(s): Conflict of Interest in the Professions by Michael Davis and Andrew
Stark
Review by: Thomas L. Carson
Source: Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 161-182
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3857777
Accessed: 07-01-2020 05:46 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Business Ethics Quarterly
This content downloaded from 137.111.162.20 on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 05:46:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
REVIEW ARTICLE
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND SELF-DEALING IN THE
PROFESSIONS: A REVIEW ESSAY
Thomas L. Carson
Conflict of Interest in the Professions
Michael Davis and Andrew Stark
New York: Oxford University Press, 2001; ISBN 0-19512863-X
This anthology begins with an excellent introduction by Michael Davis. Davis
1 identifies three overarching questions addressed in the book: 1. What is,
and is not, a conflict of interest? 2. What is morally wrong with conflicts of
interest? and 3. What should be done to handle or address conflicts of interest?
The papers included in this volume address conflicts of interest in a very
wide range of professions including the judiciary, the bar, government service,
journalism, accounting, engineering, corporate boards teaching, counseling,
anthropology, financial services, criticism, the film industry, medicine, and physi-
cal therapy. The great range of professions discussed allows for illuminating
comparisons between the issues faced by members of different professions. Most,
but not all, of the papers are of high quality and well worth reading. The papers
present a dizzying array of examples of conflicts of interests, some familiar,
others not. The book as a whole demonstrates the pervasiveness of conflicts of
interest in professional life and the centrality and importance of moral ques-
tions about conflicts of interest in professional ethics. I will not attempt to
summarize or describe all, or even most, of the papers included in this volume.
Instead, I will focus on a relatively small number of the papers those that ad-
dress the definition of conflicts of interest and conflicts of interest in business
and medicine. When appropriate, I discuss and refer to other important contri-
butions to the literature on conflicts of interests. I also venture an ac ...
The document discusses the importance of voluntariness in mediation. It defines mediation as communication between two or more parties with the assistance of a neutral third party mediator. Voluntariness means full and willing participation from both parties. While a resolution is not guaranteed, voluntariness ensures effective communication. It creates authenticity and makes both parties responsible for the outcome. Mediators may need to address the needs and concerns of reluctant parties by focusing on their sense of belonging, understanding, respect, safety and trust to achieve voluntariness.
April 2011 Part I What Every Executive Should Know About Dispute ResolutionRBCG1
The document discusses various dispute resolution options for business executives including mediation, arbitration, negotiation and litigation. It provides details on each process and notes that mediation and arbitration are generally better than litigation when future relationships are important. The document also summarizes the key steps and considerations for mediation and arbitration as the main alternative dispute resolution approaches.
Advisers are increasingly identifying themselves as ERISA fiduciaries in response to employer demands and new disclosure requirements. Some advisers have been hesitant to take on fiduciary status due to lack of education on ERISA rules and responsibilities. Failure to understand and properly manage fiduciary duties can result in severe penalties such as fines and lawsuits. Advisers can protect themselves by obtaining education on ERISA regulations, purchasing errors and omissions insurance, and establishing infrastructure to audit their compliance with fiduciary obligations.
BARRETT_MANUSCRIPT_Evaluating Business Ethics.2016Craig Barrett
This document provides an introduction and overview of a paper that will examine business ethics through a Kantian lens and stakeholder theory. It identifies two main challenges: 1) the procedural challenge of whether a business can be considered a moral agent that can be subject to moral obligations, and 2) the substantive challenge of directly applying Kant's categorical imperative to evaluate business decisions and practices. It notes that while businesses are made up of individuals, directly transferring theories of individual ethics may not apply to organizations. The document lays out that the paper will further explore these challenges and aim to develop an understanding of business ethics grounded in Kantian ethics through stakeholder theory.
The document discusses alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in India. It notes that ADR was introduced in India to help address the huge backlog of cases overwhelming the court system. ADR provides parties more cost-effective and timely mechanisms to resolve disputes through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and conciliation outside of litigation. The growth of ADR in India has helped promote access to justice and reduce strain on the courts.
Mediation is an effective way to resolve interstate water disputes for several reasons:
1) Mediation can address the underlying interests of states in a dispute rather than just legal rights, which litigation cannot do as effectively.
2) Mediation can fit within the existing legal framework that states use to resolve water disputes.
3) Mediation is an adaptable process that states can customize to meet their specific needs and interests in a dispute.
4) Both states and third parties like courts involved in disputes should encourage the use of mediation to resolve interstate water issues.
As human service professionals there are times when confidentiality .docxcargillfilberto
As human service professionals there are times when confidentiality becomes part of the relationship when working with others. Whether this comes from agency policy or required by law, confidentiality is a cornerstone element across human services professions as it helps to build trust with others. Generally speaking, human service professionals have a responsibility to those with whom they work, but they also have a responsibility to their agency, to their profession, and to their community. Ethical dilemmas involving confidentiality arise when there are conflicts between responsibilities.
As noted above confidentiality is a cornerstone element across helping relationships; however, there are times confidentiality must be broken (also known as exceptions to confidentiality). The rules and laws of when this occurs vary by organizational policy and/or state law. They vary also between human services workers and clergy. Based on your understanding of this week’s material, what are the times when issues should be reported that require confidentiality to be broken? For someone you have been helping for quite some time and has significantly benefitted from your help, how would you feel about having to report this person when he or she reveals something that requires confidentiality to be broken? In other words, how would you feel being a mandated reporter? Elaborate as to why you think this way. For those who currently work for human service organizations or work in a ministry, what are the policies that exist regarding confidentiality?
NOTE: You may post up to 325 words as needed.
.
The document provides an overview of a business law course, including key concepts that will be introduced. It discusses the sources of law, classifications of law, and limits placed on government by the US Constitution. It emphasizes that critical thinking is important for understanding the legal system. Critical thinking involves questioning information, considering alternative explanations, avoiding biases, and examining the evidence and assumptions underlying arguments. The document provides several rules for students to follow to develop their critical thinking skills for the course.
The document discusses the meaning and significance of arbitrator independence and impartiality. It provides definitions, examples, and guidelines for determining independence and impartiality. It also addresses four specific parts:
1) The significance is that independence and impartiality are fundamental principles of arbitration. Arbitrators must be free from bias and not favor one party over the other.
2) The Dutch claimant can seek to remove the chairman based on doubts about his impartiality due to published views on intellectual property.
3) The Dutch claimant can seek to remove the Indonesian arbitrator based on his new role with a creditor of the Indonesian respondent, which raises doubts about independence.
4) A party can seek
SummaryThe national interest is examined through a constructivi.docxmattinsonjanel
Summary:
The national interest is examined through a constructivist viewpoint by Weldes, who believes that realist arguments can not accurately explain the actions of the state in international politics. Melde believes that under the realist perspective, the national interest is too vague of a concept for analysts to correctly judge what actions a statesmen should take.In the realist perspective, the national interest also has the fault of the analyst being unaware of what the “national interest” truly is, since it is up to interpretation. Weldes’ constructivist approach claims that national interest are social constructs created by the state to understand their position with respect to the other states. The state creates these constructs to have a better understanding of what their goals are and the obstacles that may appear in the form of other states or other organizations. The social constructs are created as a way to have an understanding of the surroundings of the state. These surroundings can be identified as other states, non-state organizations, social movements, etc. They are then described in relation to their impact to the state, like being a threat, an ally, or neutral.
Key Terms:
National interest: helps to identify what is important in international politics and to legitimize the actions taken by the state in foreign affairs
“Security dilemma”: states remain in inevitable and perpetual competition without the existence of the supra-state
Quasi-causal: not focused on accurate cause and effect; relies on patterns that can be easily noticed and justified
Domino theory: cold war belief that having one state fall to communism will lead to surrounding states following the first one
Articulation: using keywords from the language to attribute to political situations and events; a catchphrase for political terms
Interpellation: generating recognition and identification; creating a national identity to give illusion of unified state towards a common goal
Individuals:
Steve Smith: “the national interest” is a malleable term that can be used to the advantage of any state that uses it as a defense for their actions
Hans Morgenthau: “the national interest” is a term that can be considered the focus of the states’ actions in international politics
Alexander Wendt: uses constructivist perspective; the interpretations of interests and objects dictate how the state will react to different situations, so national interest will have a fixed meaning with boundaries in place that are different from the situations of other states
Week Five Learning Outcomes
This week students will:
1. Analyze collective bargaining processes and the major factors of contract negotiation.
2. Evaluate hazardous conditions and compliance issues.
Readings
Read the following chapters in: A Framework for Human Resource Management:
1. Chapter 9: Managing Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining
2. Chapter 10: Protecting Safety and Health
Discussions
To partici ...
The Arbitrator's Duty of Disclosure in Thailand (independence and impartiali...ramoussou
This Webinar war Organized by the CiADR on 22 February 2021
The conversation on the duty of disclosure of arbitrators is with no doubt, very important. It is also very interesting in the particular context of Thailand. In this presentation, I would like to focus on one specific aspect of the duty of disclosure which is the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator and their implication on the integrity of the arbitration system. There is a fundamental principle of justice that very well spelled out in “The Book of Leadership and Strategy: Lessons of the Chinese Masters” by Thomas Cleary (1992). Available on Amazon
Quote “When two people get into an argument and each of them thinks or believe he or she is right from their own standpoint of view, a third party may reasonably decide who is right or wrong, not necessarily because of wisdom, but because of not being involved in the argument” Unquote. This is the essence of independence and impartiality. The importance of this topic cannot be overstated.
It is all about TRUST and INTEGRITY
Because there is no justice without trust, judges (arbitrators) are required to be independent and impartial.
They must not be involved in any way, directly or indirectly in the dispute, or have any interest with the parties.
In other words, independence and impartiality are the cornerstone of justice that includes arbitration. In order to create and maintain trust, "Disclosure" has become the most important element in the justice and arbitration eco-system.
To use a terminology borrowed from information technology, "Disclosure" is the blockchain of the arbitration institution. The integrity cannot be compromised.
Part I What Every Executive Should Know About Dispute ResolutionRBCG1
This document provides an overview of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options for resolving business disputes, focusing on mediation and arbitration. It discusses the four main ADR processes - mediation, arbitration, negotiation, and litigation - and explains that mediation and arbitration are private processes where the parties craft their own solution or an arbitrator makes a binding decision, respectively. The document also outlines the typical steps involved in mediation and arbitration and highlights advantages like cost and time savings compared to litigation.
Part I What Every Executive Should Know About Dispute ResolutionRBCG1
This document discusses alternative dispute resolution options for resolving business disputes, focusing on mediation and arbitration. It provides information on four dispute resolution processes - mediation, arbitration, negotiation, and litigation. Mediation involves a neutral third party helping parties reach a mutually agreeable settlement. Arbitration involves a binding decision by an arbitrator. Negotiation involves direct discussions between parties. Litigation involves a public, adversarial process where a judge decides a winner. The document emphasizes that mediation and arbitration are better than litigation when future relationships are important.
Consumer arbitration for loyola consumer law symposiumStephen Ware
This document summarizes and critiques a study by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on arbitration agreements. It discusses the CFPB's finding that a temporary moratorium on arbitration clauses for some credit card issuers did not significantly affect pricing compared to issuers without the moratorium. The response critiques this finding on three grounds: (1) the study may not have examined impacts on non-price contract terms, (2) it can take time for businesses' cost changes to be reflected in prices, and (3) price changes may not occur at all for temporary cost changes.
Peer mediation is a program designed to help children resolve problems on their own without involving parents or authorities. It introduces a process where trained student mediators help their peers solve conflicts through open communication and finding mutually agreeable solutions. The document provides an example of a successful mediation between two students, Sherman and Jimmy, showing how the program can help anyone agree to set aside differences and get along. It argues that peer mediation and similar programs teaching communication and problem-solving skills should be implemented in all education levels.
EDUC 746 PPT 2
http://ccr.byu.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3461&Itemid=4504
There are many ways people deal with conflict:
Give in and accept the changes someone wants.
Do nothing; hoping the problem will go away.
Avoid the person or the situation.
Pretend the problem does not bother you when it really does.
Go to a higher authority.
Go to court or arbitration.
Fight and argue.
Talk things out with the other person (in private or with a mediator).
Steps to resolving a conflict
“If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault, between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.”
(Matt. 18:15)
Talk to the Other Party. Surprisingly, many people complain of impossible difficulties about their problem without ever once trying to talk with the person who could solve the problem. Two disagreeing parties should first try to make an honest effort to discuss their points of view and work things out on their own.
Be calm and respectful. Keep an open mind and be willing to listen. If you cannot talk face-to-face or by telephone, write a letter. Keep it short and to the point, and above all, be polite. See How to Talk Things Out to know more about talking to the other party.
Try Mediation. If your efforts to talk things out fail, you may request mediation service through the Center for Conflict Resolution. We will attempt to mediate by discussing the problem with both sides and, if necessary, by bringing the parties together
in a mediation conference. The mediator remains neutral and impartial and helps the parties work out what they think would be the best solution.
Arbitration or Court. When disputing parties fail to reach a settlement through mediation, they may carry it on through our arbitration process or the public judicial system. Arbitration is a private adjudicatory process similar to a court of law.
The decisions are legally binding. The disputants give up the power to create their own solution and place control of their problem in the hands of a neutral third-party, called an arbitrator. Therefore, arbitration or court should be the last resort to settle a dispute. When seeking adjudication of the dispute, the parties must choose either arbitration or court; they cannot do both. (See Arbitration.)
Part I: In Islamic culture, there are certain religious restrictions on use of imagery and representation of human or animal forms is forbidden in many art forms. As a result, Islamic art has developed highly sophisticated abstract, geometric, and linear decorative elements. Compare and contrast this aspect of Islamic art with art of another culture we have studied (your choice) that is centrally concerned with pictorial representations of iconic figures or realistic depictions of historical events or realistic situations. In your discussion, consider the various elements of art and de ...
Anny Serafina Love - Letter of Recommendation by Kellen Harkins, MS.AnnySerafinaLove
This letter, written by Kellen Harkins, Course Director at Full Sail University, commends Anny Love's exemplary performance in the Video Sharing Platforms class. It highlights her dedication, willingness to challenge herself, and exceptional skills in production, editing, and marketing across various video platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram.
Best Competitive Marble Pricing in Dubai - ☎ 9928909666Stone Art Hub
Stone Art Hub offers the best competitive Marble Pricing in Dubai, ensuring affordability without compromising quality. With a wide range of exquisite marble options to choose from, you can enhance your spaces with elegance and sophistication. For inquiries or orders, contact us at ☎ 9928909666. Experience luxury at unbeatable prices.
Digital Marketing with a Focus on Sustainabilitysssourabhsharma
Digital Marketing best practices including influencer marketing, content creators, and omnichannel marketing for Sustainable Brands at the Sustainable Cosmetics Summit 2024 in New York
The Most Inspiring Entrepreneurs to Follow in 2024.pdfthesiliconleaders
In a world where the potential of youth innovation remains vastly untouched, there emerges a guiding light in the form of Norm Goldstein, the Founder and CEO of EduNetwork Partners. His dedication to this cause has earned him recognition as a Congressional Leadership Award recipient.
The Genesis of BriansClub.cm Famous Dark WEb PlatformSabaaSudozai
BriansClub.cm, a famous platform on the dark web, has become one of the most infamous carding marketplaces, specializing in the sale of stolen credit card data.
More Related Content
Similar to THE CONTRADICTION OF MEDIATOR NEUTRALITY AND FAIRNESS: A POSSIBLE SOLUTION - by Michael Shimokaji www.SpectrumDisputeResolution.com
Mediation is an effective way to resolve interstate water disputes for several reasons:
1) Mediation can address the underlying interests of states in a dispute rather than just legal rights, which litigation cannot do as effectively.
2) Mediation can fit within the existing legal framework that states use to resolve water disputes.
3) Mediation is an adaptable process that states can customize to meet their specific needs and interests in a dispute.
4) Both states and third parties like courts involved in disputes should encourage the use of mediation to resolve interstate water issues.
As human service professionals there are times when confidentiality .docxcargillfilberto
As human service professionals there are times when confidentiality becomes part of the relationship when working with others. Whether this comes from agency policy or required by law, confidentiality is a cornerstone element across human services professions as it helps to build trust with others. Generally speaking, human service professionals have a responsibility to those with whom they work, but they also have a responsibility to their agency, to their profession, and to their community. Ethical dilemmas involving confidentiality arise when there are conflicts between responsibilities.
As noted above confidentiality is a cornerstone element across helping relationships; however, there are times confidentiality must be broken (also known as exceptions to confidentiality). The rules and laws of when this occurs vary by organizational policy and/or state law. They vary also between human services workers and clergy. Based on your understanding of this week’s material, what are the times when issues should be reported that require confidentiality to be broken? For someone you have been helping for quite some time and has significantly benefitted from your help, how would you feel about having to report this person when he or she reveals something that requires confidentiality to be broken? In other words, how would you feel being a mandated reporter? Elaborate as to why you think this way. For those who currently work for human service organizations or work in a ministry, what are the policies that exist regarding confidentiality?
NOTE: You may post up to 325 words as needed.
.
The document provides an overview of a business law course, including key concepts that will be introduced. It discusses the sources of law, classifications of law, and limits placed on government by the US Constitution. It emphasizes that critical thinking is important for understanding the legal system. Critical thinking involves questioning information, considering alternative explanations, avoiding biases, and examining the evidence and assumptions underlying arguments. The document provides several rules for students to follow to develop their critical thinking skills for the course.
The document discusses the meaning and significance of arbitrator independence and impartiality. It provides definitions, examples, and guidelines for determining independence and impartiality. It also addresses four specific parts:
1) The significance is that independence and impartiality are fundamental principles of arbitration. Arbitrators must be free from bias and not favor one party over the other.
2) The Dutch claimant can seek to remove the chairman based on doubts about his impartiality due to published views on intellectual property.
3) The Dutch claimant can seek to remove the Indonesian arbitrator based on his new role with a creditor of the Indonesian respondent, which raises doubts about independence.
4) A party can seek
SummaryThe national interest is examined through a constructivi.docxmattinsonjanel
Summary:
The national interest is examined through a constructivist viewpoint by Weldes, who believes that realist arguments can not accurately explain the actions of the state in international politics. Melde believes that under the realist perspective, the national interest is too vague of a concept for analysts to correctly judge what actions a statesmen should take.In the realist perspective, the national interest also has the fault of the analyst being unaware of what the “national interest” truly is, since it is up to interpretation. Weldes’ constructivist approach claims that national interest are social constructs created by the state to understand their position with respect to the other states. The state creates these constructs to have a better understanding of what their goals are and the obstacles that may appear in the form of other states or other organizations. The social constructs are created as a way to have an understanding of the surroundings of the state. These surroundings can be identified as other states, non-state organizations, social movements, etc. They are then described in relation to their impact to the state, like being a threat, an ally, or neutral.
Key Terms:
National interest: helps to identify what is important in international politics and to legitimize the actions taken by the state in foreign affairs
“Security dilemma”: states remain in inevitable and perpetual competition without the existence of the supra-state
Quasi-causal: not focused on accurate cause and effect; relies on patterns that can be easily noticed and justified
Domino theory: cold war belief that having one state fall to communism will lead to surrounding states following the first one
Articulation: using keywords from the language to attribute to political situations and events; a catchphrase for political terms
Interpellation: generating recognition and identification; creating a national identity to give illusion of unified state towards a common goal
Individuals:
Steve Smith: “the national interest” is a malleable term that can be used to the advantage of any state that uses it as a defense for their actions
Hans Morgenthau: “the national interest” is a term that can be considered the focus of the states’ actions in international politics
Alexander Wendt: uses constructivist perspective; the interpretations of interests and objects dictate how the state will react to different situations, so national interest will have a fixed meaning with boundaries in place that are different from the situations of other states
Week Five Learning Outcomes
This week students will:
1. Analyze collective bargaining processes and the major factors of contract negotiation.
2. Evaluate hazardous conditions and compliance issues.
Readings
Read the following chapters in: A Framework for Human Resource Management:
1. Chapter 9: Managing Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining
2. Chapter 10: Protecting Safety and Health
Discussions
To partici ...
The Arbitrator's Duty of Disclosure in Thailand (independence and impartiali...ramoussou
This Webinar war Organized by the CiADR on 22 February 2021
The conversation on the duty of disclosure of arbitrators is with no doubt, very important. It is also very interesting in the particular context of Thailand. In this presentation, I would like to focus on one specific aspect of the duty of disclosure which is the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator and their implication on the integrity of the arbitration system. There is a fundamental principle of justice that very well spelled out in “The Book of Leadership and Strategy: Lessons of the Chinese Masters” by Thomas Cleary (1992). Available on Amazon
Quote “When two people get into an argument and each of them thinks or believe he or she is right from their own standpoint of view, a third party may reasonably decide who is right or wrong, not necessarily because of wisdom, but because of not being involved in the argument” Unquote. This is the essence of independence and impartiality. The importance of this topic cannot be overstated.
It is all about TRUST and INTEGRITY
Because there is no justice without trust, judges (arbitrators) are required to be independent and impartial.
They must not be involved in any way, directly or indirectly in the dispute, or have any interest with the parties.
In other words, independence and impartiality are the cornerstone of justice that includes arbitration. In order to create and maintain trust, "Disclosure" has become the most important element in the justice and arbitration eco-system.
To use a terminology borrowed from information technology, "Disclosure" is the blockchain of the arbitration institution. The integrity cannot be compromised.
Part I What Every Executive Should Know About Dispute ResolutionRBCG1
This document provides an overview of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options for resolving business disputes, focusing on mediation and arbitration. It discusses the four main ADR processes - mediation, arbitration, negotiation, and litigation - and explains that mediation and arbitration are private processes where the parties craft their own solution or an arbitrator makes a binding decision, respectively. The document also outlines the typical steps involved in mediation and arbitration and highlights advantages like cost and time savings compared to litigation.
Part I What Every Executive Should Know About Dispute ResolutionRBCG1
This document discusses alternative dispute resolution options for resolving business disputes, focusing on mediation and arbitration. It provides information on four dispute resolution processes - mediation, arbitration, negotiation, and litigation. Mediation involves a neutral third party helping parties reach a mutually agreeable settlement. Arbitration involves a binding decision by an arbitrator. Negotiation involves direct discussions between parties. Litigation involves a public, adversarial process where a judge decides a winner. The document emphasizes that mediation and arbitration are better than litigation when future relationships are important.
Consumer arbitration for loyola consumer law symposiumStephen Ware
This document summarizes and critiques a study by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on arbitration agreements. It discusses the CFPB's finding that a temporary moratorium on arbitration clauses for some credit card issuers did not significantly affect pricing compared to issuers without the moratorium. The response critiques this finding on three grounds: (1) the study may not have examined impacts on non-price contract terms, (2) it can take time for businesses' cost changes to be reflected in prices, and (3) price changes may not occur at all for temporary cost changes.
Peer mediation is a program designed to help children resolve problems on their own without involving parents or authorities. It introduces a process where trained student mediators help their peers solve conflicts through open communication and finding mutually agreeable solutions. The document provides an example of a successful mediation between two students, Sherman and Jimmy, showing how the program can help anyone agree to set aside differences and get along. It argues that peer mediation and similar programs teaching communication and problem-solving skills should be implemented in all education levels.
EDUC 746 PPT 2
http://ccr.byu.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3461&Itemid=4504
There are many ways people deal with conflict:
Give in and accept the changes someone wants.
Do nothing; hoping the problem will go away.
Avoid the person or the situation.
Pretend the problem does not bother you when it really does.
Go to a higher authority.
Go to court or arbitration.
Fight and argue.
Talk things out with the other person (in private or with a mediator).
Steps to resolving a conflict
“If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault, between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.”
(Matt. 18:15)
Talk to the Other Party. Surprisingly, many people complain of impossible difficulties about their problem without ever once trying to talk with the person who could solve the problem. Two disagreeing parties should first try to make an honest effort to discuss their points of view and work things out on their own.
Be calm and respectful. Keep an open mind and be willing to listen. If you cannot talk face-to-face or by telephone, write a letter. Keep it short and to the point, and above all, be polite. See How to Talk Things Out to know more about talking to the other party.
Try Mediation. If your efforts to talk things out fail, you may request mediation service through the Center for Conflict Resolution. We will attempt to mediate by discussing the problem with both sides and, if necessary, by bringing the parties together
in a mediation conference. The mediator remains neutral and impartial and helps the parties work out what they think would be the best solution.
Arbitration or Court. When disputing parties fail to reach a settlement through mediation, they may carry it on through our arbitration process or the public judicial system. Arbitration is a private adjudicatory process similar to a court of law.
The decisions are legally binding. The disputants give up the power to create their own solution and place control of their problem in the hands of a neutral third-party, called an arbitrator. Therefore, arbitration or court should be the last resort to settle a dispute. When seeking adjudication of the dispute, the parties must choose either arbitration or court; they cannot do both. (See Arbitration.)
Part I: In Islamic culture, there are certain religious restrictions on use of imagery and representation of human or animal forms is forbidden in many art forms. As a result, Islamic art has developed highly sophisticated abstract, geometric, and linear decorative elements. Compare and contrast this aspect of Islamic art with art of another culture we have studied (your choice) that is centrally concerned with pictorial representations of iconic figures or realistic depictions of historical events or realistic situations. In your discussion, consider the various elements of art and de ...
Similar to THE CONTRADICTION OF MEDIATOR NEUTRALITY AND FAIRNESS: A POSSIBLE SOLUTION - by Michael Shimokaji www.SpectrumDisputeResolution.com (11)
Anny Serafina Love - Letter of Recommendation by Kellen Harkins, MS.AnnySerafinaLove
This letter, written by Kellen Harkins, Course Director at Full Sail University, commends Anny Love's exemplary performance in the Video Sharing Platforms class. It highlights her dedication, willingness to challenge herself, and exceptional skills in production, editing, and marketing across various video platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram.
Best Competitive Marble Pricing in Dubai - ☎ 9928909666Stone Art Hub
Stone Art Hub offers the best competitive Marble Pricing in Dubai, ensuring affordability without compromising quality. With a wide range of exquisite marble options to choose from, you can enhance your spaces with elegance and sophistication. For inquiries or orders, contact us at ☎ 9928909666. Experience luxury at unbeatable prices.
Digital Marketing with a Focus on Sustainabilitysssourabhsharma
Digital Marketing best practices including influencer marketing, content creators, and omnichannel marketing for Sustainable Brands at the Sustainable Cosmetics Summit 2024 in New York
The Most Inspiring Entrepreneurs to Follow in 2024.pdfthesiliconleaders
In a world where the potential of youth innovation remains vastly untouched, there emerges a guiding light in the form of Norm Goldstein, the Founder and CEO of EduNetwork Partners. His dedication to this cause has earned him recognition as a Congressional Leadership Award recipient.
The Genesis of BriansClub.cm Famous Dark WEb PlatformSabaaSudozai
BriansClub.cm, a famous platform on the dark web, has become one of the most infamous carding marketplaces, specializing in the sale of stolen credit card data.
How are Lilac French Bulldogs Beauty Charming the World and Capturing Hearts....Lacey Max
“After being the most listed dog breed in the United States for 31
years in a row, the Labrador Retriever has dropped to second place
in the American Kennel Club's annual survey of the country's most
popular canines. The French Bulldog is the new top dog in the
United States as of 2022. The stylish puppy has ascended the
rankings in rapid time despite having health concerns and limited
color choices.”
Discover innovative uses of Revit in urban planning and design, enhancing city landscapes with advanced architectural solutions. Understand how architectural firms are using Revit to transform how processes and outcomes within urban planning and design fields look. They are supplementing work and putting in value through speed and imagination that the architects and planners are placing into composing progressive urban areas that are not only colorful but also pragmatic.
Zodiac Signs and Food Preferences_ What Your Sign Says About Your Tastemy Pandit
Know what your zodiac sign says about your taste in food! Explore how the 12 zodiac signs influence your culinary preferences with insights from MyPandit. Dive into astrology and flavors!
Cover Story - China's Investment Leader - Dr. Alyce SUmsthrill
In World Expo 2010 Shanghai – the most visited Expo in the World History
https://www.britannica.com/event/Expo-Shanghai-2010
China’s official organizer of the Expo, CCPIT (China Council for the Promotion of International Trade https://en.ccpit.org/) has chosen Dr. Alyce Su as the Cover Person with Cover Story, in the Expo’s official magazine distributed throughout the Expo, showcasing China’s New Generation of Leaders to the World.
Industrial Tech SW: Category Renewal and CreationChristian Dahlen
Every industrial revolution has created a new set of categories and a new set of players.
Multiple new technologies have emerged, but Samsara and C3.ai are only two companies which have gone public so far.
Manufacturing startups constitute the largest pipeline share of unicorns and IPO candidates in the SF Bay Area, and software startups dominate in Germany.
Profiles of Iconic Fashion Personalities.pdfTTop Threads
The fashion industry is dynamic and ever-changing, continuously sculpted by trailblazing visionaries who challenge norms and redefine beauty. This document delves into the profiles of some of the most iconic fashion personalities whose impact has left a lasting impression on the industry. From timeless designers to modern-day influencers, each individual has uniquely woven their thread into the rich fabric of fashion history, contributing to its ongoing evolution.
Navigating the world of forex trading can be challenging, especially for beginners. To help you make an informed decision, we have comprehensively compared the best forex brokers in India for 2024. This article, reviewed by Top Forex Brokers Review, will cover featured award winners, the best forex brokers, featured offers, the best copy trading platforms, the best forex brokers for beginners, the best MetaTrader brokers, and recently updated reviews. We will focus on FP Markets, Black Bull, EightCap, IC Markets, and Octa.
[To download this presentation, visit:
https://www.oeconsulting.com.sg/training-presentations]
This PowerPoint compilation offers a comprehensive overview of 20 leading innovation management frameworks and methodologies, selected for their broad applicability across various industries and organizational contexts. These frameworks are valuable resources for a wide range of users, including business professionals, educators, and consultants.
Each framework is presented with visually engaging diagrams and templates, ensuring the content is both informative and appealing. While this compilation is thorough, please note that the slides are intended as supplementary resources and may not be sufficient for standalone instructional purposes.
This compilation is ideal for anyone looking to enhance their understanding of innovation management and drive meaningful change within their organization. Whether you aim to improve product development processes, enhance customer experiences, or drive digital transformation, these frameworks offer valuable insights and tools to help you achieve your goals.
INCLUDED FRAMEWORKS/MODELS:
1. Stanford’s Design Thinking
2. IDEO’s Human-Centered Design
3. Strategyzer’s Business Model Innovation
4. Lean Startup Methodology
5. Agile Innovation Framework
6. Doblin’s Ten Types of Innovation
7. McKinsey’s Three Horizons of Growth
8. Customer Journey Map
9. Christensen’s Disruptive Innovation Theory
10. Blue Ocean Strategy
11. Strategyn’s Jobs-To-Be-Done (JTBD) Framework with Job Map
12. Design Sprint Framework
13. The Double Diamond
14. Lean Six Sigma DMAIC
15. TRIZ Problem-Solving Framework
16. Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats
17. Stage-Gate Model
18. Toyota’s Six Steps of Kaizen
19. Microsoft’s Digital Transformation Framework
20. Design for Six Sigma (DFSS)
To download this presentation, visit:
https://www.oeconsulting.com.sg/training-presentations
Innovation Management Frameworks: Your Guide to Creativity & Innovation
THE CONTRADICTION OF MEDIATOR NEUTRALITY AND FAIRNESS: A POSSIBLE SOLUTION - by Michael Shimokaji www.SpectrumDisputeResolution.com
1. Page 1 of 15
THE CONTRADICTION OF MEDIATOR NEUTRALITY AND FAIRNESS:
A POSSIBLE SOLUTION
By Michael Shimokaji
www.SpectrumDisputeResolution.com
Mediators and commentators see a contradiction of expectations that a mediator be both fair and
neutral. (Astor, 2007, p. 236). Some see this contradiction as an inherent one because neutrality “cannot
stand side by side” with fairness. (Exon, 2006, p. 43) And many commentators have proposed various
ways to resolve this apparent contradiction. Herein, the existence of such a contradiction is questioned
and, assuming such existence, a possible solution is proposed from a practical view rather than a
scholarly view.
To provide a foundation for the proposed solution here, an examination is first made into what
“neutrality” and “fairness” might mean in the specific context of mediation.
The meanings are
examined from different viewpoints because those terms can have different meanings for different
stakeholders – the mediation parties, the mediator, and governing bodies. Then, an analysis is made of
whether there is a contradiction in achieving neutrality and fairness, and whether this contradiction
creates problems for the stakeholder groups. The potential problems relate to whether a mediator can
achieve both neutrality and fairness, and at the same time, whether the parties can find satisfactory levels
of neutrality and fairness.
Next, the question of - whether “neutrality” and “fairness” are or should be goals rather than
standards of conduct - is addressed. That leads to the proposed solution here – allow the marketplace
and parties participating in mediation to determine the meaning and extent to which “fairness” and
“neutrality” should exist in mediation, particularly litigated cases.
WHAT IS “NEUTRALITY”?
2. Page 2 of 15
To determine what neutrality means for the mediation parties (not their counsel), one may look at
dictionary meanings of “neutrality.” Counsel is omitted here, not because their perspective is irrelevant,
but rather because they can have a perspective distinct from the parties they represent. Princeton’s
WordNet defines neutrality as a “nonparticipant in a dispute;” and “tolerance attributable to lack of
involvement.” Webster’s Dictionary defines it as “the condition of being unengaged in contests between
others;” “state of taking no part on either side;” and “indifference.”
Those definitions suggest a lack of participation by a mediator – which seems contrary to the
expectations of the mediation parties. The parties expect the mediator to resolve the dispute, and this
seems implausible in the absence of mediator participation.
Therefore, these “ordinary person”
definitions provide little help to the mediation parties (and mediator) in determining whether their
mediator is being neutral.
In contrast, Answers.com defines neutrality as “not invested in the success or failure of a
particular national/political agenda, party or interest;” “not taking sides;” and “balanced.” Wikipedia
defines it as the “absence of declared or intentional bias.” Perhaps some of these definitions provide
potential guidance to the mediation parties deciding whether their mediator is neutral. For example, if
“not invested” means that the mediator has no financial interest in a party or outcome, a mediation party
can objectively determine that absence. “Declared or intentional bias” may be another standard which a
party can measure against outward behavior. “Declared” may mean the mediator makes an explicit
statement, and “intentional” may mean the mediator consciously acts to prejudice a party.
Other definitions fail to provide objective guidance to a mediation party of what is neutral. For
example, do most mediation parties have the same idea of what it means to “not taking sides”? Do most
mediation parties have the same idea of what it means to be “balanced”? These definitions leave much
room for a difference in opinion. And if there is a large difference in opinion, then mediators and
3. Page 3 of 15
governing bodies should avoid using those definitions to set the expectations of the mediation parties
concerning neutrality.
BusinessDirectory.com defines neutral as an “impartial third party that has no financial, official,
or personal interest in a controversy, dispute or issue.”
Of all of the above “ordinary meaning”
definitions, this one seems to provide the most objective standards that mediation parties can use to
determine whether a mediator is neutral. However, this definition appears incomplete. Mediation
parties seem to expect that an impartial mediator is more than an absence of financial, official, or
personal interest.
From the governing body perspective, in California for court-ordered mediation, the rules discuss
neutrality but do not define it. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.852(1) defines mediation as a “process
in which “a neutral person or persons facilitate communication between the disputants to assist them in
reaching a mutually acceptable agreement.” Rule 3.852(2) defines a mediator as a “neutral person.”
Neither definition objectively assists the mediator in determining what conduct or lack thereof achieves
neutrality. The same applies to mediation parties – the definitions provide no objective criteria by which
the parties can measure mediator neutrality.
The California Rules of Court discuss “impartiality” but do not state whether or how
“impartiality” relates to “neutrality.” According to some commentators discussed below, “impartiality”
seems to be related to “neutrality” but there is a distinction. (Douglas, 2006, page 187). In fact,
“impartiality” and “neutrality” are used interchangeably, though they have different meanings. (Van
Gramberg, 2006, 201).
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.855(a) states that a “mediator must maintain impartiality
toward all participants”. But “impartiality” is not defined. Nevertheless, Rule 3.855(d) assumes that the
mediator knows the definition of impartiality and provides that “[s]ubject to the principles of
impartiality . . . , a mediator may provide information or opinions. . . .” And the Advisory Committee
4. Page 4 of 15
Comment to subsection (d) says “[s]ubject to the principles of impartiality . . . , a mediator may (1)
discuss a party's options, including a range of possible outcomes in an adjudicative process; (2) offer a
personal evaluation of or opinion on a set of facts as presented, which should be clearly identified as a
personal evaluation or opinion; or (3) communicate the mediator's opinion or view of what the law is or
how it applies to the subject of the mediation . . . . “
The California Rules of Court provide no real guidance to either the mediation parties or
mediator on what is or is not neutral behavior. At best, a mediator and the parties can assume that being
neutral and being impartial are equivalent or similar. For “impartiality”, a list of actions identifies
acceptable conduct.
But since the “principles of impartiality” are exceptions to the list and the
principles are not defined, the mediator and the parties are still left in the dark about what is neutral
behavior.
On a national basis, the American Arbitration Association, the American Bar Association, and
the Association for Conflict Resolution jointly prepared the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators.
The Standards state that they do not have the “force of law.”
Interestingly, the Model Standards do not require “neutrality”; instead, they require
“impartiality.”
Standard IIA requires that the mediation be conducted in an “impartial manner.”
“Impartiality means freedom from favoritism, bias, or prejudice.”
mediator “should not act with partiality or prejudice.”
Standard IIB provides that the
Perhaps “impartiality” is supposed to be
equivalent to “neutrality” under the Model Standards, but the Standards do not so state.
These
definitions of “impartiality,” like the California Rules of Court, provide little, if any, objective guidance
on what constitutes acceptable “neutral” or “impartial” behavior.
In turning to how mediators define “neutrality,” one might surmise that mediators consider a
combination of “ordinary meaning” definitions, such as the above, as well as governing body
5. Page 5 of 15
definitions. If this is an accurate assumption, then it also seems true that mediators sit in a greater haze
of uncertainty than do the parties when it comes to determining neutrality.
WHAT IS “FAIRNESS”?
Returning back to “ordinary person” meanings, AudioEnglish.net says that fairness includes
“conformity with rules or standards” and “ability to make judgments free from discrimination or
dishonesty.”
It further includes the definition of “free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or
deception.” The Random House Webster’s College Dictionary provides a definition of “being free from
bias, dishonesty, or injustice.” The Princeton WordNet defines it as the “ability to make judgments free
from discrimination or dishonesty. Wikipedia defines it as the “principle allowing for the use of
discretion and fairness when applying justice.” It also defines it as the “perceived appropriateness of
rules or procedures used to allocate goods, benefits, and other outcomes” and the “absence of bias.”
Do these definitions objectively help the parties and mediator determine whether the mediator is
being fair? It does not seem so. While they give the parties and mediator some sense of what is
expected for fairness, the definitions lack objective criteria.
The guidance from governing bodies is better but still lacking. California Rules of Court, Rule
3.857(b) states that a “mediator must conduct the mediation proceedings in a procedurally fair manner.
‘Procedural fairness’ means a balanced process in which each party is given an opportunity to
participate and make uncoerced decisions. A mediator is not obligated to ensure the substantive fairness
of an agreement reached by the parties.” In contrast to the ordinary meanings, the Rules provide greater
clarity to the meaning of fairness because of the Rules’ distinction between procedural versus
substantive fairness. In other words, a mediator is only obligated to ensure a fair process. However, the
Rules still allow a mediator to ensure substantive fairness, though the mediator is not obligated to do.
But if a mediator ensures substantive fairness, is not the mediator being biased or prejudiced in favor of
the party who seems to be getting “the short end of the deal”? And, worse yet, would not a party see
6. Page 6 of 15
mediator action that ensures substantive fairness to be a lack of fairness in the process? Therefore, while
the Rules provide some objective criteria for being fair, following the criteria may actually lead to
unfairness.
In the Model Standards, Standard VI requires a mediator to conduct the mediation in a “manner
that promotes . . . procedural fairness. . . .” Standard VI lists expected actions and non-actions by
mediators, but the Model Standards do not define procedural fairness. As such, the Model Standards
provide less objective guidance to parties and the mediator of what is fair when compared to the
California Rules of Court.
Again, for the mediator looking to ordinary definitions and governing body rules, there are no
useable, objective criteria by which a mediator can be fair.
THE INTERSECTION OF “NEUTRALITY” AND “FAIRNESS”?
The following scenarios provide examples of how issues of neutrality and fairness arise, and how
they intersect, in the mediation of litigated disputes.
In one example, a dispute involves a polluted river. The defendant is a chemical factory located
upstream of the plaintiff which is fish farm. The plaintiff uses the river water to supply water to its
farm.
The mediator is a board of director member of the National Resource Defense Council
(“NRDC”). The NRDC website describes itself as: “the nation's most effective environmental action
group, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members and online activists with the courtroom
clout and expertise of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals. The New York Times
calls us ‘One of the nation's most powerful environmental groups.’ The National Journal says we're ‘A
credible and forceful advocate for stringent environmental protection.’”
Highly experienced counsel represents both parties. The mediator conducts the mediation in a
manner that allows both parties to fully participate and articulate their interests. The mediator also gives
each party the opportunity to make uncoerced decisions. The mediator provides his legal evaluation to
7. Page 7 of 15
both parties of what a court or jury might decide. The parties reach a resolution with the chemical
factory paying millions of dollars to the fish farm and pleading guilty to a pending criminal charge. At
no time does the mediator disclose to the parties his affiliation with the NRDC.
Was the mediator neutral? Was the mediation conducted in a neutral manner? A fictitious
mediation party observing all of the facts would likely view the mediator as not being neutral. The
mediator was “invested in the success or failure of a particular national/political agenda, party or
interest”?
This was so, under the definition of Answers.com, since the dispute concerned an
environmental issue and the mediator was a board of director member of a well-known environmental
group; and this group likely had an interest in favor of the fish farm.
But under the Wikipedia definition, the fictitious mediation party might deem the mediator as
neutral - the mediator arguably had an “absence of declared or intentional bias.” In other words, the
mediator did not declare or state that he/she was biased. And the mediator did not intentionally act in a
biased manner against one party, though perhaps unintentionally.
A fictitious mediator observing all of the facts of the example might look to the California Rules
of Court to decide whether the actual mediator was neutral. But the fictitious mediator may find no
help, since the Rules give no definition of neutrality. Rule 3.855(a) gives some guidance to the fictitious
mediator observer in that a mediator “must maintain impartiality toward all participants”.
Since
“impartiality” is not defined, the fictitious mediator may feel justified in believing the actual mediator
was neutral since both parties were treated in the same fashion. On the other hand, if the fictitious
mediator looks to Model Standard IIA, he/she may find that the actual mediator was not impartial since
that requires “freedom from favoritism, bias, or prejudice.” The fictitious mediator could find it difficult
to objectively conclude that the parties were free from the actual mediator’s favoritism for an
environmentally harmed party and bias against an environmental wrongdoer.
8. Page 8 of 15
Turning to fairness from the parties’ perspective, and under the Random House definition above
for neutrality, a fictitious mediation party would probably see that the mediator was not “free from bias,
dishonesty, or injustice.” Not only would the fictitious mediation party see bias by the mediator, but
perhaps more importantly, the fictitious mediation party would see dishonesty in the mediator for not
disclosing his/her affiliation with the NRDC.
But when the fictitious mediator looks at the question of fairness, a contrary conclusion could
likely be reached. In the context of fairness under the California Rules of Court, the mediator is only
required to conduct the proceeding in a “procedurally fair manner. ‘Procedural fairness’ means a
balanced process in which each party is given an opportunity to participate and make uncoerced
decisions.” On the other hand, the mediator is “not obligated to ensure the substantive fairness of an
agreement reached by the parties.”
In this example, the mediator gave each party an opportunity to participate and make uncoerced
decisions with the assistance of highly experienced counsel. Also, while the mediator provided a legal
evaluation of the dispute, and that such evaluation could have likely been biased, highly experienced
counsel represented both parties. Presumably such counsel gave their respective clients their evaluation
of the dispute. While the chemical factory eventually agreed to pay millions of dollars, and plead guilty
to a crime, again, highly experienced counsel presumably provided the chemical factory with an
evaluation of the likely outcome at trial. And the mediator was not obligated to ensure that the
resolution was substantively fair to both parties.
The fictitious mediator observer could likely reach the same conclusion of fairness under the
Model Standards.
So, was the mediator neutral and fair in the above example?
From the mediation party
perspective, the mediator was neither neutral nor fair. From the mediator perspective, the mediator
might not have been neutral, but was fair.
9. Page 9 of 15
In another example of the intersection between neutrality and fairness in mediation, the plaintiff
was injured at work while using equipment made by the defendant. The plaintiff is a quadriplegic,
unrepresented by counsel, and has difficulty in speaking English. The mediator spends almost 90% of
the entire mediation time in private caucus with the plaintiff. The mediator explains to the plaintiff the
trial process, the need for experts at trial, the cost of hiring experts, the potential bias against the plaintiff
because of his lack of English skills, the plaintiff’s legal burdens of proof, the plaintiff’s handicap of
proceeding to trial without an attorney, and the likely outcome at trial which the mediator believes to be
an award to the plaintiff of at least $5M. The plaintiff tells the mediator that the plaintiff fully
understands what the mediator explained. The mediator does not address the foregoing issues with the
defendant, including the likely outcome at trial. The plaintiff agrees to a settlement of $1,000.
In this second example, was the mediator neutral? A fictitious mediation party knowing all of
the facts might likely answer “no.” Using the definitions of Answers.com, the fictitious mediation party
might likely say that the mediator was “taking sides” and not “balanced.” The mediation party might
see that spending 90% of the entire mediation time with the plaintiff was not a balanced split of time.
And since the mediator discussed the trial-related issues with only the plaintiff, the fictitious mediation
party might see that the mediator was taking the side of the plaintiff.
In responding to the question of whether the mediator was neutral, a fictitious mediator knowing
all of the facts of the mediation might answer “yes. Consistent with the Advisory Committee Comment
to Rule 3.855(a), the mediator was impartial since the mediator discussed trial issues with the plaintiff
party and provided a legal evaluation, which is allowed under the Rule.
However, using Model Standard IIA, the fictitious mediator could likely see the actual mediator
as having been impartial since there could be a perceived favoritism for the injured party. This could be
based on the amount of time spent with the injured party and willingness to discuss various issues with
only the injured party.
10. Page 10 of 15
Was the mediator fair in the second example? If the fictitious mediation party looks at the
Random House definition for a definition, the fictitious party may see the mediator as biased for the
same reasons the fictitious party sees the mediator as non-neutral.
From the perspective of the fictitious mediator, there is more uncertainty to whether the mediator
was fair. At first glance, the fictitious mediation might conclude there was procedural fairness. Since
the injured party was not represented by counsel, the actual mediator took the needed steps to ensure that
the injured party had sufficient information to make informed decisions.
Still, the fictitious mediator might question whether there was procedural fairness based on the
fact that the actual mediator valued the case at $5M and but allowed the injured party to accept $1,000 in
settlement.
Presumably, the actual mediator accounted for the “problems” with the case when
evaluating the case at $5M. If true, and the mediation process was fair, then the fictitious mediator
might likely believe that the injured party would have only settled at an amount much closer to $5M.
Since the injured party accepted an amount far from $5M, then the fictitious mediation might find one
explanation for the low settlement as the mediation process being unfair.
The foregoing examples suggest that substantive fairness cannot be separated from procedural
fairness. The examples also indicate that different stakeholders in the mediation process can perceive
neutrality and fairness differently. But that alone does not address the question of whether neutrality
and fairness can be achieved at the same time.
IS
THERE
A
CONTRADICTION
IN
ACHIEVING
BOTH
“NEUTRALITY”
AND
“FAIRNESS”?
As demonstrated above, there are inconsistent definitions of both neutrality and fairness –
whether viewed from the parties, mediator, or governing bodies. If there is no consistency in definition,
must one conclude that there is an inherent contradiction in achieving both neutrality and fairness in
mediation?
11. Page 11 of 15
On a cerebral level, one might think so. If there is no consistent definition of neutrality and
fairness, then a mediator cannot determine what to do and what not to do in order to achieve neutrality
and fairness. But a lack of consistency in definitions might only mean that there is a lack of clarity of
what to do and what to avoid if one is the mediator. For a mediation party, perhaps there is a lack of
clarity of what to expect by a mediator in terms of neutrality and fairness.
However, a lack of
consistency in the definition, or lack of clarity of expectation, does not necessarily mean that there is an
inherent conflict in concepts – that is, one concept exists to the exclusion of the other.
An absence of an inherent conflict between neutrality and fairness seems to be borne out by
anecdotal evidence. Look at the number of private mediation companies, and the number of mediations
they conduct. The same observation can be made of court-ordered mediations. Given the large numbers
of mediation sessions, and continuing interest in mediation, there must be more than just a few
mediation parties who find mediation to be neutral and fair.
Yet, those parties have no consistent definition of neutrality and fairness, though it is probable
that those parties have some commonality in their perception of what is neutral and fair. Likely, the
perception of neutrality and fairness is a general feeling, and not a specific feeling based on an analysis
of objective criteria. So, for mediation parties, there appears to be no problem resulting from an absence
of consistent definitions of neutrality and fairness.
Nevertheless, most commentators seem to be of the opinion that notions of neutrality and
fairness conflict. For example, Exon claims that “[u]nder the current structure . . . , rarely can a
mediator truly act as a neutral and impartial outsider, especially when she attempts to attain a fair result,
achieve other concepts of fairness, balance power struggles and promote informed decisions. (p. 46).
Douglas explains that the “recent literature on the concept of neutrality in mediation acknowledges that
whilst it is a core concept to the mediation process, it is also ironically a controversially flawed
12. Page 12 of 15
theoretical notion. Much of the academic critique asserts that neutrality is an unattainable aspiration. . .
.” (p. 178).
Why is there a divergence between the opinions of commentators and the apparent view of
mediation parties? One explanation is that commentator opinion is based on scholarly analysis, which
may differ from anecdotal analysis. Another explanation is that mediation parties care little about
neutrality and fairness – but that seems implausible in Western culture. (Van Gramberg, 2006, p. 199).
A still further explanation is that mediation parties care little about specific definitions of
neutrality and fairness, while commentators care more about specific definitions.
And in the
commentators’ view, there is an unstated assumption that the defined characteristics of neutrality and
fairness must be absolutely followed; and if not absolutely followed, those characteristics cannot exist.
In other words, for example, neutrality has a characteristic of self-determination by the parties, while
fairness has a characteristic of balancing the power of the parties. (Van Gramberg, 2006, p. 201-202).
When so viewed by commentators, if the parties should be in control of their respective destinies (i.e.,
self-determination), then the mediator must leave the parties to their own devices, even though there is
an imbalance of power (i.e., negotiation abilities).
But the absolute, either/or view above ignores the possibility that there can be varying shades of
neutrality and fairness. When there is more neutrality, there may be less fairness, and vice versa. Thus,
if one acknowledges the possibility of a balancing of the two concepts, then both concepts can co-exist.
If they can co-exist, there is no inherent contradiction between achieving both neutrality and fairness.
DOES A CONTRADICTION CREATE AN UNSOVABLE PROBLEM?
For some, the above analysis may seem too theoretical; for others, not so.
If there is a
contradiction in a mediator achieving both neutrality and fairness – whether inherent or not - the next
question is whether this creates a problem for either the mediator, the parties or both? And, if there is a
problem, what is it?
13. Page 13 of 15
To determine whether the contradiction creates a problem, one can start with an examination of
the objectives of a mediator, apart from what may be required by law. One objective is simply to reach
a resolution – irrespective of whether the outcome is fair to all parties and irrespective of the process
used to reach the resolution. This objective stems from the realities of working as a mediator. If a
mediator cannot achieve a record of resolutions, parties may have less interest in using that mediator. If
the mediator is not being used, the mediator cannot make a living.
Yet, in the process of getting to any resolution, the mediator may pressure one or even both
parties into agreeing to options that may not be of real interest to the parties. The pressured party would
likely see that us unfair. If not seeking to pressure one or both parties, the mediator may allow one party
to bully another party, thereby perpetuating an imbalance in bargaining power. If a party views itself as
having less bargaining power in comparison to the other parties, the former party may see the process
(and ultimately the mediator) as being unfair. If a party views the process (or mediator) as being unfair,
then there is loss of confidence in the process. In turn, there is reluctance by other potential parties to
use the process. In turn, mediators cannot make a living.
Another objective of the mediator may be to achieve a resolution that is fair to all parties, i.e.,
substantive fairness. (Exon, 2006, p. 19). A fair resolution to all parties may take into account matters
over how things are distributed to the parties. (Van Gramberg, 2006, p. 200). But it seems that ensuring
fairness in the resolution automatically puts doubt in at least one party’s mind of the mediator’s
neutrality. By taking a step of ensuring substantive fairness, there is necessarily an underlying
assumption by the mediator that, in the absence of process intervention, the resolution will (or at least
could) be unfair to at least one party. But if a party sees process intervention by the mediator to that
party’s detriment, then that party may see the mediator as unfair, even if the resolution is fair.
14. Page 14 of 15
What these scenarios show is that the attempt to ensure both neutrality and fairness can result in
a mediation party questioning the neutrality and/or fairness of the mediator. That is a problem, but is it
an unsolvable problem?
A PROPOSED SOLUTION
There is an obvious lack of clarity on what is neutrality and fairness. But these concepts may be
similar to ones where “you know it if you see it.” In other words, perhaps these concepts do not need to
be specifically defined because parties know what they mean, even though parties cannot articulate the
meaning. Thus, the concepts can be left undefined. So undefined, the concepts do not have to be
governing body standards of mediator conduct, but instead undefined mediator goals.
The reason neutrality and fairness can be left undefined by people or governing bodies is that the
market for mediators will “define” those concepts. Mediation parties will know if and when a particular
mediator has been neutral and fair. In turn, and assuming that the market will drive itself towards
neutrality and fairness in Western culture, parties will continue to use mediators that are neutral and fair.
For those mediators who are not neutral and fair, the market will discontinue using those mediators.
What is achieved is a market definition of mediator neutrality and fairness, while not requiring a
governing body to define those terms. A market definition is desirable, rather than a governing body
standard, because the market definition will be consistent with what the market needs and wants. And
isn’t that what governing bodies seek to achieve by their regulation?
REFERENCES
Astor, H. (2007) “Mediator Neutrality: Making Sense of Theory and Practice,” Social and Legal Studies,
16:221-239.
Douglas, K. & Field, R. (2006) "Looking for Answers to Mediation's Neutrality Dilemma in Therapeutic
Jurisprudence," eLaw Journal, 13(2):177-201.
15. Page 15 of 15
Exon, S. (2006). “How Can a Mediator be Both Impartial and Fair: Why Ethical Standards of Conduct
Create Chaos for Mediators,” The Berkeley Electronic Press.
Van Gramberg, B. (2006) “Managing Neutrality and Impartiality in Workplace Conflict Resolution: The
Dilemma of the HR Manager,” Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44(2):197-210.