[The following is compiled from Mediation A Psychological Insight into Conflict Resolution
by Dr Freddie Strasser & Paul Randolph (Continuum 2004)]
Introduction
The concept of introducing a ‘third party neutral’ to intercede in
hostile and antagonistic bi-lateral relationships is not new.
Yet unfamiliarity and scepticism in relation to alternative
dispute resolution processes are still widespread.
ADR, as an alternative to litigation, has grown out of an
ever-increasing dissatisfaction with the legal process.
Litigation is almost universally regarded as slow, cumbersome,
costly and inadequate. Statistics show that between 60% and 75%
of successful litigants in personal injury claims
remained dissatisfied with the outcome: (see Law
Commission Survey 1994). Litigants often feel that:
- the award is too little
- the judgment comes too late bearing in mind the time taken to reach court
- the process was too costly
- the whole process was too time-consuming
- the litigation resulted in the end of a previously productive commercial relationship
Mediation can be used by the rich and by the poor. It can be used in
multi-million pound international commercial disputes as readily
as it can be invoked in ‘minor’ neighbour disputes. It is
swift, relatively cheap, and has a reported success rate of up
to 85%.
How Mediation Works In The Legal Environment
Many - including lawyers - still believe mediation is a form of
arbitration. Those members of the general public who
have heard of the word think mediation is little more than a
sophisticated mode of negotiation. Many believe that the
mediator will in some way judge the issues between those
in dispute. Others perceive it simply as an exercise in
‘compromise reaching’. But it is really none of these.
Mediation is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
whereby a ‘third party neutral’ intervenes to facilitate
and assist the disputing parties in reaching a mutually
acceptable settlement. The mediator is neither a judge nor an
arbitrator; he or she is not an adjudicator, nor someone who
imposes a resolution or a settlement upon the parties.
Instead, the mediator acts simply as a ‘midwife, assisting in
the labour and birth of a settlement’. The mediator will help
by seeking to identify common aims and objectives, by re-opening
lines of communication, and by developing mutually acceptable
proposals for settlement. In this way, the mediator can gently
move the parties away from a preoccupation with their
rights and liabilities, and nudge them towards an exploration of
their needs and interests the transition from a
position of conflict to a position where they can form a
‘working alliance’.
Mediation has three fundamental and distinctive elements:
It is consensual
The parties decide whether an agreement can be reached, and
they control the nature and the terms of it. As the mediator
does not impose any resolution or settlement or terms of an
agreement upon the parties, there is not the inevitable
‘win/lose’ situation that accompanies litigation or
arbitration. The parties have absolute control of the outcome.
The parties are in this way removed from the ‘coercive’
atmosphere of litigation whether in the courts or in
arbitration or adjudication. They are entitled to withdraw from
the mediation process at any time, and are not bound by anything
said or agreed until such time as they sign a settlement
agreement. However, once the agreement is signed, the
settlement becomes as legally binding and enforceable as if it
were the subject of a contract or a court order.
It is private and confidential
The mediation is held not in public but in private, and one of
the cornerstones of the process is that it is confidential
and without prejudice. Anything disclosed during the
mediation is disclosed ‘without prejudice’ and cannot be used
outside or in later proceedings should the parties fail to reach
agreement. Moreover, any information shared by one party with
the mediator will be treated in confidence and the mediator
should not pass it on to the other party without specific
permission to do so.
It focuses not on ‘rights and liabilities’, but on ‘needs and interests’
The reason for the failure of many lengthy and protracted
negotiations is that the parties all too readily fall into and
get ‘bogged down’ in entrenched positions, and are unable to
overcome the impasse that results. These
entrenched positions derive from a rights culture a
preoccupation with rights and liabilities, entitlements and
obligations. Unlike litigation, which determines ‘what
happened in the past, why it happened, and whose fault it was’,
mediation looks to the future and encourages parties to
re-evaluate their aims and objectives in the dispute by
re-examining their current and their future needs and
interests.
top