Mediation, Conciliation and Arbitration in Conflict Management

These mediation proceedings are not conducted under oath, do not follow traditional rules of evidence and are not limited to developing the facts. Mediators are expected to draw out the parties' perceptions and feelings about the events that have brought them into conflict. It also encourages parties to acknowledge

The mediation method enlists a neutral third party called a mediator to assist the disputing parties to reach a settlement. Unlike an arbitrator, however, a mediator does not make a decision or an award. The parties in the case of AMF v. Brunswick also could have used this option. However, since mediators cannot decide a dispute, it is more beneficial to use

Conflict resolution exist in every society. Conflict more often than not occurs due to a clash in interest in the relationship between, groups,

A special research field in the mediation literature intends to shed light on the question, how influential the impact of mediator’s characteristics and motivations on the mediation process is. Concerning the state of research, the studies of this debate show a divergent picture. There are scientists who have queried the significance of mediator’s impartiality (Bercovitch/Houston 1996; Kydd 2003, Touval 1982; Zartmann/Touval 1996). Scholars like Saadia Touval have underpinned that mediators are often biased and can perform their tasks just as well if not better as impartial mediators. Additionally, Touval and Zartmann stated in their study that mediation is an exercise in power politics: “leverage is the ticket to mediation” (Touval/Zartmann 1989: 129). In 2003, Kydd finds that mediators use their leverage to one of the two conflicting parties and therefore constraint concessions. Thus, the mediator must be biased to be effective. This means that merely a mediator who is biased towards one side can credibility tell them that the opponent will not make peace without the concession. Carnevale and Arad (1996) also remarked the importance of bias. Nevertheless, they suggest that impartiality should not be underestimated and therefore be taken in to consideration.

Traditional approaches to mediation assume that a conflict’s parties and a mediator share one compelling reason for initiating mediation: a desire to reduce,abate,or resolve a conflict.To this end,both sides may invest personnel,time,and resources in the mediation.This shared humanititarian interest maybe the only genuine reason in a few instances of mediation,but normally even this interest intertwines with other, less altruistic,

A mediator has no legal authority to impose a settlement on the parties thus functions more as an invited guest who can be required to leave if one or both bargaining parties no longer desire the mediators continued involvement in the bargaining process (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012). A mediator 's primary function is to identify issues, explore possible bases for agreement, discuss the consequences of reaching impasse, and encourage each party to accommodate the interests of other parties through negotiation. However, unlike arbitrators, mediators lack

“A mediator is a third party who assists interested parties in negotiating a conflict. A mediator controls the mediation process but does not have authority to decide the outcome for the parties” (Barsky, 2007). A mediator, in a given situation, helps to dissolve the conflict and looks to the best interest

Fells (2016, p. 211) wrote “ just as a doctor works to bring a person back to health, so too a mediator works to bring a deadlocked negotiation back to a situation where the parties can reach agreement”. This essay discusses this statement with reference to contemporary research on dispute resolution. In order to comprehend how this is achieved, we must consider the essence of mediation, the different types of mediation and what mediators do. Negotiation and mediation are process used to resolve opposing preferences between parties. Negotiation is defined in Fells (2016, p. 3) as “a process by which two parties with differences that they need to resolve try to reach agreement through

Incorporation of advocacy and mediation in human services advances conflict resolution through advocacy and mediation. Professionals in the human service field acknowledge the advantages of alternative conflict resolution applied in mediation promoting shared change. A mediator is a neutral third party who assists to resolve a disagreement or conflict by exploring crucial issues, resolve misunderstandings, look at solutions, and discuss a jointly favorable outcome. Mediators set up guiding principles throughout the mediation process. In addition, mediators help better the communication among disagreeing

Mediation is a different process to reach a resolution for parties that find themselves in a family court matter. Mediation is a part of the process ran by the courts by individuals that are unbiased and yet knowledgably about family law matters and the law. The courts want couples to give mediation a try before taking the matter before the judge in case some issues can be worked out beforehand. Attorneys are not included in this process. What happens in mediation is all parties will work on the issues at hand as peaceful as possible and in a manner to hopefully reach amicable outcomes, with a third party to help oversee this process and help negotiate their issues. These issues that can be heard in mediation are many and can be a wide variety of needs from the parties. These issues can be negotiation of assets, debts, child and spousal support, and visitation and custody matters of any children involved in the case.

Mediation is a one form of intervention, where parties' representatives may sit on the table and discuss about their issues. Mediator has to be neutral and acceptable for all the parties in the conflict. When I take a role as a mediator in Ferguson conflict, I have to look at the marginalized people. Definitely, the Black community is one of the disadvantaged group throughout the years. Mediator should be aware about the scenario, so I emphasize on the study of past incidents, structural setting of institutions, current initiatives, and possible future actions. This process

“A power usually brings about a reduction of other parties’ options by limiting the moves they can make, eliminating a possible resolution to the conflict, or restricting their ability to employ countervailing power” (Folger, Poole, Stutman, 1997). Fredrik and Michael are both overly emotionally and mentally involved in the situation where it prevents them from having the ability to think objectively. As they become more aggressive and engaged, they tend to fall under the high-conflicting people category and emphasize on the person instead of the conflicting issue itself. This is when mediator and third party come into play. “Third parties enter a conflict relationship in which the disputants have different expectations, goals, coasts, and rewards, and where they experience pressures and stresses stemming from an uncertain situation” (Bercovitch; 1984). Instead of helping Fredrik and Michael resolve their conflict, this mediator helps facilitate and soothe the relationship by generating discussion for the two of them, in the hope of conciliating the conflict. Fredrik and Michael, in this case, may hire a lawyer or a mutual friend of theirs. “It is the triad for a third party to cause others to act differently” (Bercovitch; 1984). A mutual friend of Fredrik and Michael definitely does the job in serving as a neutral and unbiased position. According to Thompson and Nadler, they argue that cognitive biases and different levels of perception people have on a conflict often intervene with whether or not they can come up with a resolution. “Negotiators are often unaware of such biases, instead blaming blocked resolutions processes on party intransigence or self-interest” (Deutsch; 2000). Coming from a neutral and outsider perspective, this mutual friend of theirs is able to find a middle ground in simplifying the conflict situation as he sees the whole situation

Mediation is usually initiated when parties can no longer handle the conflict on their own and when the only means of resolution appears to involve impartial third-party assistance.

A problem that may be associated with mediation is power imbalance. Unfortunately, the mediator is only a third party which is present to assist the disputants with their communication to ensure it does not break down and help them reach a decision; however “the parties are in ultimate control, the mediator should not intervene even if one party has more bargaining power than the other” . This can in some cases result in an unfair agreement. Another adverse side of mediation is that; “basically anyone can hang out a sign and practice mediation” - meaning that mediators do not need to undergo a long period of study to ensure their professionalism and knowledge of dispute resolution. This can be harmful to the system and may result in cases being handled by unprofessional personals.

This paper will cover the difference in the negotiation process and the mediation process and explore some of the barriers that hinder the processes. There is a distinct difference between the negotiation process and the mediation process. Negotiation as defined in Essentials of Negotiation is a process by which two or more parties attempt to resolve their opposing interests (Lewicki, Saunders, and Barry, ) The Negotiation process happens when individuals disagree about a situation and there’s no mutual solution that can be attain by the two parties. The disagreement leads to a conflict which involves misinterpretation, miscommunication and hurt feelings. Because the parties cannot reach a mutual agreement on how to resolve their