Mediation is a process through which two or more parties come to an agreeable resolution via a third person’s help. If you're new to this term and don't know how to go about it this article will help you figure out. In this article first we will talk about mediation and its features, then we will describe why choose mediation over any other arbitration processes; next we will talk about the role of the mediator; then we will etch out the process by following which you can successfully go through mediation and reach an agreeable solution; and finally we will discuss its uses in various forms. Let's begin with what mediation is and the features of mediation. Mediation & its characteristics Mediation is a simple process where two or more …show more content…
This is unique because mediation definitely takes help from a third party but both parties become willing participants of this process. So, things become much easier. • Empathy: In case of mediation, the primary concern is empathy for each other instead of having rift between parties. Even if in the beginning of the mediation process, there may be little or no empathy; but once the mediator takes things in his/her own hands, things improve. And instead of fighting over their concerns, each party tries to understand each other and puts effort to come to a mutual solution. • Facilitation: Most of the negotiation processes involve command or coercion. But in case of mediation, it's not so. Mediator doesn't command or direct the parties to a solution u rather facilitates the process. It's much smarter as due to facilitation the parties can understand each other well, comes together and instead of fighting against each other, they work together to find a solution. So it can be said that mediation is much smarter approach than any other negotiation …show more content…
If a business wants to increase profits its emphasis should always be on cost reduction. In case of personal life, no one would like to spend a lot of money to find a solution which is not solvable among parties. Then what's the alternative? Simply you should go for mediation. Yes, in mediation you need to pay a fee to the professional mediator but if you combine all the costs you need to bear in other negotiation processes, then without any doubt, mediation is the most cost effective way to ensure a desired solution for each party. Imagine going to the court, paying the fees of advocates for each session and other ancillary charges for things to move on and combine the expenses and compare with the cost of the mediation. You would understand the significant difference in cost. • Confidentiality: How would you feel when your private affairs are discussed in court or elsewhere and you are a silent audience in the crowd? You won't like it. But what's the solution? Mediation is the solution. It would keep your confidentiality intact and only people who would know about the issue will be the parties involved in the resolution process and a only a mediator who will facilitate the whole thing. Which is better? If you would like to have confidentiality, then you must pick mediation, not other ways of arbitration
In considering the probable benefits of mediation, Ridley-Duff & Bennett (2011) argues it would be helpful to consider various critical underlying theoretical questions: What is the reasons the negotiation failed? What are the barriers of effective resolution conflict by negotiation? Mediation saves time, money, promotes communication and cooperation, provides an environment to voluntarily resolve disputes, private and confidential, can reduce hostility and encourage healthy relationships, stress, can result in a win-win solution (Clarkson, Cross, Jentz & Miller,
A good mediator steers the couple away from arguments and name-calling and makes the process as businesslike as possible. Mediation eliminates much of the rancor found in divorce court. The mediation process focuses on the real-life issues occurring at the end of a marriage instead of rehashing past ill will. A mediator doesn’t advise either partner, but helps them arrive at the best decisions possible through discussion and compromise.
Ott, Marvin C. "Mediation as a Method of Conflict Resolution: Two Cases." International Organization 26.04 (1972): 595-618. JSTOR. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
There are a few different reasons that one party may try to hold out for a court proceeding instead of agreeing to arbitration. One of the primary reasons of this occurring involves the financial situation of one of the involved parties (Allison, 1990). Depending on the perception of the strength of the case, a financially desperate party may either decide to agree to arbitration or hold out for litigation. A party that is struggling financially and views their case as strong may be willing to hold out for a larger potential payoff in the event of litigation. A party that is struggling financially that views the other party’s argument as strong may also prefer the lengthy time involved in litigation as it may delay a potential ruling that further strains resources (Allison, 1990).
...e personality clashes or warring egos, I believe it is important to act as a mediator that actively listens, when using confrontation techniques. Managing the conflict is about finding a mutual solution that is amicable to all parties concerned. For the mediator it is most important to have the ability to define the problem while acting as an intercessor and look for alternatives in its resolution while diffusing the conflict.
Poitras, J. (2007). The Paradox of Accepting One's Share of Responsibility in Mediation. Negotiation Journal, 23(3), 267-282. Retrieved January 23, 2012, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1313496891).
Comparing and contrasting, these two mediation processes has been interesting. We can clearly see some major similarities, as well as some major differences. I find the context of international mediation to be pretty interesting and exciting; to be honest,more so than domestic mediation.This obviously do in part to my international relations background.It seems that mediation within the international createst a context,which works to create a balance of power that works to maintain peace and security,there for sustaining humanity and a better tomorrow.
First, the counselor is able to develop a strong counselor client relationship because the client does not feel judged, which makes the client feel safe, as well as understood and heard. Also, empathy gives the counselor an opportunity to have genuine feeling towards what the client is saying, which helps them better understand their client and what they are experiencing. In addition, empathy can be used in all three different stages of counseling which makes is a very useful skill. For example, Clark explains how silence and reflection are ways to demonstrate empathy, which are skills that can be used throughout the exploration stage, insight stage, and actions stage. Despite all of the strengths in this technique, there are also some limitations.
Empathy is expressed when a counselor can put his or herself into the client’s perspective and gain a true understanding of what it would be like to walk in a client’s shoes. This often involves the counselor using active listening techniques and expression to show true understanding of a client’s feelings, experiences, and struggles without judgement. The counselor must keep the client in a positive regard. There are two stages of empathy. There is the primary stage, which is defined as accurately articulating
“Mediator personalities are true idealists, always looking for the hint of good in even the worst of people and events, searching for ways to make things better. While they may be perceived as calm, reserved, or even shy, Mediators have an inner flame and passion that can truly shine. Comprising just 4% of the population, the risk of feeling
Although functions of mediators and arbitrators have several characteristics in common, there are significant instrumental differences that make them distinct from one another. Firstly, whereas the arbitration process is similar to litigation in its adversarial nature, in which parties have the objective to win the dispute, the fundamental goal of mediation is to bring the disputants to settlement through compromise and cooperation without finding a guilty party. In arbitration, parties compete against each other in “win-lose” situation. During mediation, parties work on mutually acceptable conditions with the assistance of a facilitator. In this process, mediators do not have power to make decisions, they work to reconcile the competing needs and interests of involved parties. The mediator’s tasks are to assist disputants to identify, understand, and articulate their needs and interests to each other (Christopher W. Moore,
In this first chapter, I will deal with arbitration in general and international commercial arbitration, starting with its definition and how it was in the past and its advantages and disadvantages considering the two types of arbitration. Additionally I will review some of the major conventions related to this dispute resolution process such as the 1958 New York Convention, and other conventions related to arbitration. It is interesting to know how the arbitration was developed; so that, we can comprehend the significance of arbitration and its current rules.
...sfied with the outcome and resolution from the mediation session, the parties are given liberties to engage with a court procedure.
Mediation is a flexible process and is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution. It has many advantages, such as allowing parties to improve communication, and assisting in decision-making and problem-solving by the parties themselves. It is also a beneficial form of dispute resolution as it is intended to be an empowering process, founded on respect, the need to recognise parties’ emotions, and to allow for exploration of ideas between the parties. It is an impartial, non-judgemental, and confidential process where the parties work together alongside a mediator to come to a voluntary settlement. This encourages the parties to cooperate with one another to reach a mutual agreement, rather than to attend court and have a decision made for them,
Simply, from their (i.e., states) point of view, the method of mediation has several advantages. The first, this intervention (i.e., mediation) is non-coercive, non-violent, and ultimately non-binding for the states in conflict; as J.G. Merrills puts, “it has the advantage of allowing them [i.e., states] to retain control of the dispute,” in particular if a matter is of vital national interest (Bercovitch 2004; Merrills 2011, 27-28). The second, mediation is a voluntary form of conflict management; consequently, the parties in conflict may choose: to begin or continue mediation, retain the control over the outcome to accept or reject any agreement, and finally, the states have a control over the proceedings (Bercovitch 2004). Such a freedom of action and confidentiality allow the states to go into a face-saving compromise and make some concessions, which otherwise would never do in a direct negotiation (Merrills 2011, 28). The third, the states in conflict have a freedom to