Feed aggregator

Water Cooperation—Necessary and Challenging: Q&A with Danilo Türk and Sundeep Waslekar - ReliefWeb

Google International ADR News - Fri, 2018-04-06 10:59

Water Cooperation—Necessary and Challenging: Q&A with Danilo Türk and Sundeep Waslekar
ReliefWeb
On the sidelines of an event on global water management hosted by the International Peace Institute in January, the Global Observatory spoke with Danilo Türk and Sundeep Waslekar on the complexities of water cooperation. Mr. Türk, a former President of ...

The Lost Art of Listening, with a nod to Senator Kaine

ADR Prof Blog - Fri, 2018-04-06 10:43
I am in Washington, DC at the annual ABA Section of Dispute Resolution Spring Conference enjoying the cherry blossoms and the fabulous line-up of speakers and presentations. In particular, the plenary sessions yesterday and today were extraordinary, both in their timeliness of topic and thought-provoking quality. Yesterday, the NY Times’ columnist Thomas Friedman received the … Continue reading The Lost Art of Listening, with a nod to Senator Kaine →

SCC publishes caseload statistics for 2017 - CDR Magazine

Google International ADR News - Fri, 2018-04-06 10:19

SCC publishes caseload statistics for 2017
CDR Magazine
In figures released last month, the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) has published its caseload for 2017, with statistics revealing that it is business as usual, with only minor contrasts in data compared to 2016. The ...

and more »

SCC publishes caseload statistics for 2017 - CDR Magazine

Google International ADR News - Fri, 2018-04-06 10:19

SCC publishes caseload statistics for 2017
CDR Magazine
In figures released last month, the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) has published its caseload for 2017, with statistics revealing that it is business as usual, with only minor contrasts in data compared to 2016. The ...

and more »

Vannin Names First-Ever Head of International Arbitration - Business Wire (press release)

Google International ADR News - Fri, 2018-04-06 04:26

Business Wire (press release)

Vannin Names First-Ever Head of International Arbitration
Business Wire (press release)
Yasmin's appointment comes amid a period of long-term growth for alternative dispute resolution. Statistics from 11 of the world's largest international arbitration institutions* document an overall 37% increase in the number of new arbitration cases ...

and more »

A Modest Proposal to Mitigate Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in the Workplace - Mediate.com

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-04-05 21:31

Mediate.com

A Modest Proposal to Mitigate Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in the Workplace
Mediate.com
Social and news media bombard us daily with accounts of sexual harassment and misconduct by captains of industry, the arts and politics. The accounts and identities of these formerly admired men continue to shock the public with no end in sight. The ...

and more »

U.S. District Courts Rule Consent Awards Fall Within New York Convention

Kluwer Arbitration Blog - Thu, 2018-04-05 20:28

Ava Borrasso

ArbitralWomen

The importance of memorializing a settlement agreement into a consent award was recently highlighted in Transocean Offshore Gulf of Guinea Vii v. Erin Energy Corp., Case No. H-17-2623 (S.D. Tex. March 12, 2018). There, a Texas district court addressed whether a consent award is subject to confirmation in the United States pursuant to the New York Convention, as codified in the Federal Arbitration Act. The underlying case involved a contract dispute over drilling equipment and services located in waters off the Nigerian coast culminating in an arbitration before the London Court of International Arbitration.

The parties ultimately agreed to resolve their dispute prior to final hearing and asked the arbitrator to enter a consent award (as well as a partial award on costs that was not challenged). After the respondent failed to pay pursuant the terms of the award, the claimants sought to confirm the award in the Houston district court. The respondent moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the contention that consent awards are not subject to New York Convention because the Convention is silent on the treatment of settlement awards. The respondent cited to a 2016 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Secretariat Guide on the Convention which noted the silence of the New York Convention as well as the absence of any treatment in case law. The respondent also argued that the LCIA rules, absent other agreement of the parties, require the issuance of a reasoned award. Because the consent award lacked reasons, the respondent contended that it did not constitute an “award.”

However, prior to the court’s decision, an intervening decision by a New York district court addressed a similar argument which it handily rejected. In Albtelecom SH.A v. UNIFI Communs., Inc., Case No. 16 Civ. 9001, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82154 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017), the court confirmed a consent award arising from an ICC proceeding. The Texas district court therefore relied on Albtelecom and held that “[n]o binding or persuasive statutory language or case law requires a court to hold that a tribunal must reach its own conclusions, separate from the parties’ agreement, to make a valid, binding award subject to the Convention” and that such a rule “would dissuade parties from seeking arbitration in the first place or benefitting from the efficiencies it is meant to provide.”

The court also noted the rationale discussed in Albtelecom that the parties could have simply resolved their dispute by private settlement agreement but instead elected to request a consent award. As the remedies for breach of a settlement agreement culminating from an arbitration proceeding are generally more cumbersome than confirmation of a consent award, both decisions highlight the advantages of taking this further step to memorialize settlement agreements through issuance of a consent award when feasible.

Albtelecom further underscores the complications of enforcing a settlement agreement arising from international arbitration proceedings. In that case, the petitioner sought to confirm a consent award issued by an arbitrator from an ICC proceeding. Even more, the petitioner sought damages for breach of the award pursuant to its terms. The respondent sought to dismiss or stay the case, first arguing that the consent award was issued outside of the arbitration and not subject to confirmation under the New York Convention.

The court rejected that argument stressing that the parties requested that the arbitrator enter the award, reviewed and commented on a draft form of the award, and otherwise operated within the context of the arbitration. The court confirmed the consent award as within the scope of the New York Convention.

The next issue was more problematic. In addition to seeking confirmation of the award, the petitioner sought damages for its breach. The consent award included a clause that, if breached, the petitioner was entitled to recover a greater amount, and also provided that disputes unrelated to payment required resolution through arbitration in Switzerland. The respondent next argued that factual circumstances had changed following issuance of the award that excused payment and advised the court that it had instituted an ICC arbitration in Switzerland to resolve those issues.

The court decided it lacked a sufficient record to resolve the damages claim and asked the parties to provide further briefing in the event that the petitioner decided to pursue the claim in the district court. The court also asked the parties to provide briefing as to the proper forum to resolve the pending damages issues.

Albtelecom and Transocean Offshore appear to resolve whether consent awards are subject to confirmation pursuant to the New York Convention in the United States. In doing so, they not only demonstrate the advantage of memorializing a settlement agreement into a consent award when the tribunal is inclined to do so, they also highlight issues that may arise post settlement. Despite the agreement of the parties, these cases demonstrate the care required in fashioning consent awards and details for subsequent proceedings in the event of breach.

More from our authors: International Arbitration and the Rule of Law
by Andrea Menaker
€ 240


The post U.S. District Courts Rule Consent Awards Fall Within New York Convention appeared first on Kluwer Arbitration Blog.

Ohio State Moritz College of Law program wins prestigious Problem Solver Award - The Ohio State University News

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-04-05 10:06

The Ohio State University News

Ohio State Moritz College of Law program wins prestigious Problem Solver Award
The Ohio State University News
This award reaffirms that while many persons of various backgrounds, skills and talents importantly contribute to strengthening civility and understanding among community residents, those of us privileged to be trained as lawyers – in traditions for ...

Sector primed for new era of collaboration? - Project Scotland

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-04-05 07:07

Project Scotland

Sector primed for new era of collaboration?
Project Scotland
Martin added, “ICE and RICS both have influential brand identities but, working together, we'd make a much bigger impact. Before we knew it, we'd formed an informal coalition that grew momentum. The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) came on ...

Joint Fact Finding

ADR Prof Blog - Thu, 2018-04-05 06:40
An interesting blog post from CBI (Consensus Building Institute) about joint fact finding processes in science-heavy public policy contexts. Per Pat Field: The traditional ways of generating information in stovepipes – via the academy, industry, government, or NGOs – are not meeting the three-pronged test of useable science and technical studies:  credible, legitimate, and salient. … Continue reading Joint Fact Finding →

Alma Forgó (Airbus): “It is becoming increasingly difficult for big-firm lawyers to sit as arbitrators" - Leaders League (press release)

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-04-05 05:51

Leaders League (press release)

Alma Forgó (Airbus): “It is becoming increasingly difficult for big-firm lawyers to sit as arbitrators"
Leaders League (press release)
The current, mostly institution-driven, push towards leaner, faster dispute settlement, is certainly the right answer to this phenomenon and to what generally is perceived as the most detrimental feature of international arbitration: unnecessary length ...

A Preview of the Forthcoming ICCA-Queen Mary Report on Third-Party Funding

Kluwer Arbitration Blog - Thu, 2018-04-05 04:05

William (Rusty) Park, Stavros Brekoulakis and Catherine A. Rogers

As the three co-chairs of the ICCA-Queen Mary Task Force on Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration, we are pleased to announce that the final Report will be launched at the ICCA Congress in Sydney with an extraordinary group of experts, including Donald Donovan, Ania Farren, Jean-Christophe Honlet, Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Julian Lew, Audley Sheppard, and Lawrence Teh. We provide below a brief overview of the Report.

The Task Force was a joint effort established in 2013 between ICCA and the Institute for Regulation and Ethics, School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London. With over 50 members representing over 20 jurisdictions from around the world, the Task Force includes arbitrators, in-house and external counsel, individuals who work for various governments, academics, and third-party funders. Since its inception, the Task Force undertaken sustained study and discussion of the key issues arising from third-party funding of arbitration.

The work of the Task Force and its Report also benefitted from extensive consultations, individual comments, and numerous roundtable discussions and public symposia. During a public comment period that extended from 1 September through 31 October 2017, the Task Force received over sixty written submissions from individuals, law firms, and organizations. It also benefitted from many additional comments both at the roundtables and symposia organized by the Task Force co-chairs, and several other events at which the draft was discussed.

It is important to note at the outside that, in light of how rapidly international arbitration practice and funding models are evolving, the ICCA-Queen Mary Report does not aim to be either definitive or permanent. Changes in the field and considerations that arise within in particular regulatory contexts may require reconsideration of its contents and analysis. While this Report will not be the last word on issues relating to third-party funding, we believe it develops an important set of conceptual frameworks and analysis that are much needed. It also articulates clear Principles that the Task Force hopes will provide concrete guidance now and a foundation for future work in the area.

In terms of substance and organization, the Report has 8 chapters. The first three chapters provide introductory and background material. The Introductory Chapter 1 explains the background on the Task Force and its work. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the market and mechanics of third-party funding. It examines the reasons parties seek funding, and the process third-party funders use to evaluate whether to fund a dispute. It then provides a descriptive overview of the range of means for financing disputes, including both modern case-specific non-recourse funding and a range of other sources that serve similar functions.

Building on Chapter 2’s overview of the forms of funding, Chapter 3 examines the definition of third-party funders and third-party funding, and issues relating to definitions. Specifically, Chapter 3 provides broad Working Definitions of “third-party funding” and “third-party funders” that underlie the Task Force’s deliberations. The chapter also examines the reasons for particular language in different possible definitions, surveys the range of definitions that have been adopted by various other sources, and analyses the functional features of different means of dispute financing that relate to how they are definitionally categorized.

Despite adopting a broad Working Definition for the purposes of its overall analysis, the Task Force recognized that addressing particular sub-issues required more narrow definitions that focus attention on the target of specific inquiries. For example, not all types of funding that are relevant to an assessment of potential conflicts of interest may be relevant for an assessment of a request for security for costs, and vice versa. For this reason, Chapter 3 concludes by examining how different definitions affect analysis of particular issues addressed in subsequent chapters.

After the chapter on definitions, the Report turns to three substantive chapters on each of the following topics: Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest (Chapter 4), Privilege (Chapter 5), and Costs and Security for Costs (Chapter 6). Debate existed on the Task Force about what form any work product should take. On the one hand, there was a desire to avoid contributing to what some regard as an overcrowding of rules and guidelines. Ultimately, it was decided that the essential conclusions of each chapter, particularly given the length of the overall long report, should be easy to reference. For that reason, each of these chapters begins with a distilled set of Principles, which serve to summarize the essential conclusions of the relevant chapter.

The body of each of these substantive chapters both identifies relevant sources and articulates competing viewpoints the Task Force considered in reaching these Principles. They also explain the reasons why particular viewpoints were eventually incorporated into the Principles instead of others.

Chapter 4 addresses the issue of disclosure and potential arbitrator conflicts of interest. Consistent with other recent sources, the principle it articulates requires disclosure of the existence and identity of third-party funders to facilitate analysis of potential conflicts, but not (for the purposes of conflicts analysis) any other provisions of the funding agreement. It both proposes systemic disclosure by parties and counsel to arbitrators to facilitate assessment of potential conflicts, and confirms that arbitrators have the power to request disclosure of the presence and identity of any funder. The chapter does not, however, provide any new standards for assessing conflicts, but instead refers such issues to existing law, rules, and guidelines. In its analysis the chapter provides a detailed survey and analysis of other disclosure obligations.

Chapter 5 addresses confidentiality and privilege. It examines international standards for evaluating privilege, and provides a survey of national differences regarding privilege, particularly the contrasting treatment by common law and civil law jurisdictions of information and communications provided to third-party funders for the purpose of obtaining funding or performing under a funding agreement. The analysis in the chapter is supported by an online Appendix, which collects national reports indicating how different jurisdictions treat issues of privilege with respect to third-party funding. Specifically, the chapter recommends that, despite national variances, tribunals generally treat information shared with a third-party funder as protected against disclosure.

Chapter 6 takes up the issue of costs and security for costs. It analyses existing standards for allocating costs and for granting security for costs, based largely on investment arbitration case law. It concludes that the existence of funding is not generally relevant to such determinations, but examines exceptions that may exist.

Chapter 7 collects the Principles articulated in other chapters, and provides a summary of best practices in funding arrangements. Task Force members generally agreed that most aspects of funding arrangements were dealt with in the private agreements between funders and a funded party. Consequently, it was decided that a statement of existing best practices would be the most useful means of providing guidance to new parties seeking funding, new third-party funders entering the market, and the increasing number of arbitrators and counsel that are encountering funding for the first time. The chapter concludes with a checklist of considerations that provide additional guidance for the due diligence process.

Finally, Chapter 8 examines third-party funding in investment arbitration. The analysis in each of the foregoing chapters also addresses issues and sources regarding third-party funding in investment arbitration, but those chapters focus on analysis of the current state of the law. Chapter 8, instead, seeks to examine some of the broader policy issues that may affect how the Principles of this Report are applied in investment arbitration, and a limited range of specialized issues that have arisen with respect to funding in investment arbitration.

This Chapter does not seek to offer concrete answers on these policy questions, but instead proposes areas for future research and consideration. Even with more modest goals, the process of drafting this Chapter presented many unique challenges. One of the primary challenges was linguistic. The language used by different stakeholders in debates about investment arbitration can be particularly stark. Terminology that is part of the basic lexicon of one group of stakeholders is often regarded by those with competing views as inherently biased or unduly inflammatory. Despite these challenges, this Chapter aims to provide a fair-minded and full-throated presentation of competing viewpoints in a manner that respects particular stakeholders’ frame of reference, but also facilitates meaningful discussion. Importantly, this final Chapter was produced in consultation with several individuals that work with or represent States, as well as numerous representatives from civil society and other interest groups.

As co-chairs of the Task Force, beyond the initial launch, it is our hope that parties, counsel and arbitrators will find the Principles and analysis in the Report helpful in addressing issues that arise in the course of an arbitration, in entering into a funding agreement, and in continued discussions and debates regarding third-party funding.

To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates on the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, please subscribe here.

More from our authors: International Arbitration and the Rule of Law
by Andrea Menaker
€ 240


The post A Preview of the Forthcoming ICCA-Queen Mary Report on Third-Party Funding appeared first on Kluwer Arbitration Blog.

Comes Now NDR v.2

ADR Prof Blog - Wed, 2018-04-04 10:29
I am thrilled to be part of the highly anticipated second edition of The Negotiator’s Desk Reference, recently published by Mitchell Hamline’s DRI Press. The NDR comprises two volumes and brings together articles from numerous scholars (including our bloggers!) across a wide variety of disciplines. Five years ago, I attended a conference at Marquette to … Continue reading Comes Now NDR v.2 →

The Act is not the entire story: How to make sense of the U.S. Arbitration Act

Kluwer Arbitration Blog - Tue, 2018-04-03 22:22

Ylli Dautaj

The central point of this note is that the U.S. law of arbitration is not clear from the text of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The FAA is archaic and in need of updating. The FAA is the oldest – but still functioning – arbitration statute in the world. Case law has rewritten much of its content, so that the statute’s true content is buried in federal decisional law. Foreign-trained lawyers or scholars especially are unlikely to understand the U.S. law of arbitration through the statute.

The U.S. Supreme Court has played an important role in developing international commercial arbitration (ICA), which in turn has played a huge role in developing and recrafting the U.S. law of arbitration. The Supreme Court early on distinguished international and domestic agreements in order to broaden the subject-matter arbitrability of the former. This would account for, among other things, global realities and international comity. For example, securities and antitrust disputes came to fall within the ambit of arbitrability in ICA.

The Supreme Court later relied on the precedents established in ICA related cases in order to justify the creation of, for example, securities arbitration in domestic arbitration (see Shearson/Am. Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987) and Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989)). This author thinks that the U.S. Supreme Court has justified the widening of subject-matter arbitrability in a domestic setting on the basis of (1) being pro-arbitration, and (2) on precedent that was initially based on the distinction between international and domestic agreements.

This note will highlight three cases that demonstrate the importance of judge-made law in U.S. arbitration: The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972); Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, reh’g denied, 419 U.S. 885 (1974); and Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Playmouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985). In Arbitration Law in a Nutshell, Professor Carbonneau describes this “trilogy” as one of four pillars of U.S. arbitration. It represents the fourth pillar – the international one. As Professor Carbonneau writes, the case law has established that: (1) arbitration is vital to the resolution of labor and management disputes; (2) the FAA can preempt contrary state laws on arbitration; (3) arbitrators have substantial authority to resolve matters of arbitral procedure; and (4) some of the international arbitration cases have “played a decisive role in crafting the general domestic doctrine on arbitration [and] […] [given] rise to another string of cases on subject-matter or statutory arbitrability.” This note will discuss part of the fourth – international – pillar, only.

Case Analysis

In Scherk, the parties agreed to arbitrate in Paris. Alberto-Culver alleged that Scherk’s breach violated the 1933 Securities Act and the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Could that issue of regulatory law be resolved by arbitrators? The court in Scherk held that:

A parochial refusal by the courts of one country to enforce an international arbitration agreement would not only frustrate these purposes, but would invite unseemly and mutually destructive jockeying by the parties to secure tactical litigation advantages.

[…]

For all these reasons, we hold that the agreement of the parties in this case to arbitrate any dispute arising out of their international commercial transaction is to be respected and enforced by the federal courts in accord with the explicit provisions of the [FAA].

With this decision, the Supreme Court of the United States took a leadership position in the elaboration of the legal doctrine on ICA. It concluded that contracts for arbitration were vital to both global commerce and international contracting. The ruling in favor of “international comity” was followed by the Court’s decision in Mitsubishi. There, the Court cited Scherk with approval and determined that there was a virtually irrebuttable presumption favoring enforcing freely-negotiated transborder contracts. It decided that antitrust disputes arising from national law were arbitrable as a general matter, and international arbitrators could rule on the application in that particular case.

U.S. courts also favor arbitration and arbitrability at the enforcement stage of the arbitral process. For example, in The Bremen (which involved the enforcement of a forum-selection-clause) the Court stated that international commercial contracts implicate special policy concerns and the “[d]omestic strictures on judicial jurisdiction and the enforceability of contract provisions had to yield to the provisions in the parties’ bargain.” Professor Carbonneau has analyzed this case as follows:

The Court emphasized new global commercial realities and asserted that legal doctrine should be made to respond to them in a nonsectarian fashion. In matters of transborder litigation, the function of domestic courts was not to create legal roadblocks to, or compete with, arbitration for jurisdictional supremacy.

[…]

The Bremen is the first case in which the Court established a marked boundary between law for domestic and international matters, holding that domestic rules could be unsuitable for application in the international sector and that these rules should be disregarded or modified when such a conflict emerged.

As Professor Carbonneau has written, Scherk and Mitsubishi established that a “special regime emerged for international business contracts “allowing international arbitrators” to rule upon claims based upon U.S. regulatory law.” The Court blurred the distinction between domestic and international arbitration in relation to subject-mattter arbitrability and “made universal subject-matter arbitrability an integral part of U.S. domestic law.” The Court was willing to facilitate arbitration and protect and implement its “purposes.” Through the Court’s doctrine, the U.S. legal system had taken a business efficient and effective pro-arbitration stance. U.S. courts would enforce international dispute resolution clauses providing for arbitration that may not have been enforceable domestically. The Court had established a federal policy favoring international commerce and arbitration.

In both McMahon and Rodriguez de Quijas the Supreme Court interpreted Mitsubishi and Scherk to support its reasoning in order to discredit  the Wilko Doctrine (see Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 (1953)). These two cases led to the creation of what Professor Carbonneau calls “securities arbitration.” This author is of the view that the Supreme Court failed to mention that the international aspects in the above-mentioned trilogy was crucial for those holdings.

Concluding Remarks

The pro-arbitration stance has led to the growing scope of arbitrability in ICA and subsequently in domestic arbitration, too. Possibly, a growing scope of arbitrability might lead to “judicialization” of arbitration. “Judicialization” of arbitration might be a good thing, but it can also be the opposite. This author wants to remind the reader of two crucial distinctions; that is, (1) there is a significant difference between domestic and international arbitration, and (2) the “pros” of arbitration—confidentiality, flexibility, speed, costs, etc.—might slowly diminish with a “judicialization” of arbitration. However, the growing scope of arbitrable cases may help in reducing the back-log of courts in civil matters and provide for further expertise to the dispute, and therefore the pro-arbitration stance might sit well with judges and the business community. Notwithstanding this, cases including, among other things, issues of antitrust and securities might have a public importance that trumps the pro-arbitration stance in domestic arbitration. While public interest may trump pro-arbitration sentiments domestically, it could be decided that it does not trump the growing scope of arbitrable cases in ICA. This is because of “international comity” and the need for a predictable ICA system. With that said, the U.S. courts will still have the enforcement stage available to ensure that their securities and antitrust laws have been properly enforced. The New York Convention guarantees the public policy exception to enforcement or recognition of arbitral awards.

While these cases do not paint the entire picture of U.S. arbitration law, they indicate the origins of its evolution. For purposes of informing oneself on the content of U.S. arbitration law, the case law on the FAA is vital. This author has benefited extensively from – and would take this opportunity to recommend – Professor Thomas Carbonneau’s 4th edition on “Arbitration Law in a Nutshell.”

To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates on the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, please subscribe here.

More from our authors: International Arbitration and the Rule of Law
by Andrea Menaker
€ 240


The post The Act is not the entire story: How to make sense of the U.S. Arbitration Act appeared first on Kluwer Arbitration Blog.

South Africa – Stepping onto the International Arbitration stage in 2018 - JD Supra (press release)

Google International ADR News - Tue, 2018-04-03 15:36

JD Supra (press release)

South Africa – Stepping onto the International Arbitration stage in 2018
JD Supra (press release)
Alternative dispute resolution procedures ("ADR") are the commonly used first step in dispute resolution for construction disputes, and commercial arbitration is more often than not the dispute resolution mechanism of choice in infrastructure ...

and more »

Kluwer Mediation Blog – March Digest

Kluwer Arbitration Blog - Tue, 2018-04-03 03:13

Anna Howard

“It turns out that the “little things” are in fact the “big things”. Forget to focus on them, and we are doomed to fail. Forget to value them, and we will find ourselves chasing shadows and permanently dissatisfied.” Bill Marsh

This wonderfully wise advice from Bill Marsh’s latest post on the daily work of the mediator has much wider resonance beyond the context of mediation. A summary of Bill’s post and all the other posts on the blog last month appears below. We hope you enjoy the wide range of topics addressed on the blog last month.

In Dung Beetles and Basics, Bill Marsh identifies the basics that lie at the heart of what mediators do and emphasises the importance of doing these basics well. Bill offers this comprehensive and thoughtful description of the “stuff of mediation”:

“Whilst we may dream about the dramatic moments, real progress and transformation is usually achieved through the little things – the small acts of respect, such as listening to someone who hasn’t been properly heard for a long time, acknowledging people’s right to make their own decisions while feeling able to engage them in a serious discussion about the wisdom of their choices, the odd humorous line, the power of a silence. This is the “stuff” of mediation, the raw material at our disposal. Pretty much all progress is made up of this “stuff”. There are no short-cuts.”

In Turkey: Mandatory Mediation is the new game in town, Idil Elveris provides a comprehensive overview of Turkey’s new mandatory mediation regime for labour disputes. Idil explains the path to the adoption of mandatory mediation and identifies the challenges presented by this development.

In Mediation Inside Out, Andrea Maia draws on a recent talk by Toby Landau QC and an article by Eryn J. Neumann and Maryanne Garry as she considers the nature of false memories and how understanding more about false memories can help mediators to better serve their clients.

In Reasons to Mediate, Constantin-Adi Gavrila identifies a number of insights which he recently gained regarding the various perceptions of mediation of those who are not familiar with mediation. Constantin also challenges some of these perceptions and clarifies why they may be held.

In A Convention on the enforcement of iMSAs… AND a new model law, Nadja Alexander summarises the recent developments at UNCITRAL Working Group II (Dispute Settlement) 68th session in New York and identifies the next steps which are needed before the mediation community gets its own “New York Convention.”

In Dirty Tricks in Mediation, Martin Svatos identifies a number of dirty tricks which he has witnessed in mediation and considers the drawbacks of using such tricks.

In Separate the People from the Problem – or the Person from the Action. Strategy or Compassion? In Theory and in Practice, Greg Bond considers Ury and Fisher’s recommendation to separate the people from the problem and, drawing on the work of Noah Levine, suggests a different approach. Greg suggests separating the people from the action which allows us to finally see the confused human being behind his or her hurtful act.

In Optimising the Use of Joint Sessions in Mediation, John Sturrock questions whether the use of the joint session in mediations is really in demise and draws on a recent mediation to highlight the abundant use by the parties of joint sessions.

More from our authors: International Arbitration and the Rule of Law
by Andrea Menaker
€ 240


The post Kluwer Mediation Blog – March Digest appeared first on Kluwer Arbitration Blog.

Natural Disasters, Stakeholder Engagement and Dispute Resolution

ADR Prof Blog - Mon, 2018-04-02 22:06
The following notice about our upcoming conference at Texas A&M is from  my wonderful colleague, and FOI, Nancy Welsh: Dear Colleagues, On Friday, April 13, 2018, Texas A&M University School of Law will hold a conference entitled Natural Disasters, Stakeholder Engagement and Dispute Resolution. The conference will address how dispute resolution and collaborative processes can … Continue reading Natural Disasters, Stakeholder Engagement and Dispute Resolution →

Business people, April 3, 2018 - Santa Fe New Mexican

Google International ADR News - Mon, 2018-04-02 20:04

Santa Fe New Mexican

Business people, April 3, 2018
Santa Fe New Mexican
Timothy L. Garcia, a former New Mexico Court of Appeals judge, has joined Montgomery & Andrews, P.A., where his law practice will focus on mediation and alternative dispute resolution. Garcia stepped down from his judicial post in February after nearly ...

Looking for Law in All the Right Places

Reproduced below are the Power Point slides that accompanied an oral presentation by Mr. Goldstein to the International Arbitration Club of New York on March 19, 2018. A transcript of the presentation is expected to be available in the week of April 9 and will be uploaded to a revision of this post. *** 1/21 Looking for Law In All the Right Places: A Modern Spin on Jura Novit Arbiter *** 2/21 JNC – US & CANADA JUDICIAL POSITION “The concept of jura novit curia is not directly part of the law of Canada and a search of the usual Canadian...
Read More »

Interim Measures: Another Plea for the International Standards

This post is the text Mr. Goldstein has prepared for an oral presentation in a panel program on provisional relief in aid of arbitration on April 5, 2018 in Washington, D.C. at the annual conference of the American Bar Association’s Section of Dispute Resolution. Mr. Goldstein’s co-panelists are the Hon. Faith Hochberg (Ret.) and the Hon. Bruce E. Meyerson (Ret.).   These remarks about interim measures in international commercial arbitration were prepared for listeners and readers, perhaps many of you, who have become arbitrators in international cases as a rather new phase of an illustrious career spent mainly within US...
Read More »
Syndicate content