The Negative Impact of Attorneys on Mediation Outcomes: A Myth or a Reality?

Mediators often do not welcome the presence of attorneys at the mediation table. Because of the apparent contradictions between both professions, many mediators believe that the presence of attorneys is prejudicial to the mediation process. Using empirical data collected from workplace mediation cases, we have explored the actual impact of the presence of attorneys. Our results indicate that the presence of an attorney does not significantly affect the outcome of a mediation, with two exceptions. First, the presence of attorneys in a mediation process reduces the parties' level of satisfaction with the mediator. Second, the presence of an attorney would appear to hinder the level of reconciliation possible between the parties.     

Coming to Terms with Separatist Insurgencies

Although insurgencies may begin their rebellions with expressed desires for outcomes unacceptable to opposing governments, the desired insurgent outcomes sometimes undergo modification, creating conditions that can make governments more amenable to external mediation. In certain separatist conflicts, the likelihood of external mediation increases when the political redefinition of the state insisted upon by the insurgents undergoes a revision, from secession to self‐determination, understood as a variant of autonomy. In the same vein, although it may not happen concurrently, insurgent movements become more amenable to external mediation if and when opposing governments revise the preferred conflict outcome from a military defeat of the insurgents to a containment of the movement. These two developments can serve as objective referents helping external parties to identify a ripe moment in the conflict and initiate mediation. But the implementation of an agreement ending separatist conflict may not occur if the government fails to submit the proposed territorial bounds of autonomy to prior review by constituents. Potential spoilers among government constituents should be identified and recruited to participate in the negotiations so that the likelihood of agreement rejection is reduced. In some states, however, the legal mechanisms and political opportunities for constituents to act as spoilers do not exist.     

Superpower and Small-State Mediation in the Qatar Gulf Crisis

ABSTRACT

The Qatar Gulf crisis of 2017 saw a number of mediation initiatives, including those of the United States and Kuwait. However, the two countries present two substantially distinct models of third-party intervention: superpower mediation (the United States) and small-state mediation (Kuwait). Comparing the two types of intervention in this crisis in terms of their ability to de-escalate tension and effectively resolve the Gulf crisis with respect to three variables – timing of mediation, leverage of the mediator (hard power versus legitimacy) and interest of the mediator – it would seem that small-state mediation has been more effective in crisis de-escalation, while superpower mediation has further exacerbated the crisis.     

Secrecy and Self-Interest: When Mediators Act Deceitfully

3rd party intervention in interstate conflict is a common strategy for mitigating conflict and obtaining a final agreement. However, not all mediations are successful, leading to the development of a rich literature on the mechanisms which decrease the probability of failure in a 3rd-party intervention. Within this literature, some studies examine how a mediator’ behavior and incentives affect the result of the mediation. Virtually all these studies assume that the mediator is virtuous such that peace is the most desired outcome of a conflict for her. However, this study challenges this assumption and contends that a mediator can gain benefit from the conflict between disputants. If this benefit is adequately large to overcome the benefits of peace, then the mediator has enough incentive not to conduct the mediation toward a peaceful outcome. We develop a signaling game model to study this issue formally and test the proposed hypothesis empirically.     

强制调解模式研究

通过搭建“强制调解的主导者”和“强制调解的适用阶段”两个维度所形成的框架,可以对强制调解进行类型化分析并提炼出四种模式。一国或地区选择何种强制调解模式,要受到程序正义理念、传统法律程序等因素的综合影响。基于我国实际,未来有必要引入司法性诉前强制调解模式,实现从程序保障提高、调解人适格和制裁措施到位三方面确保诉前强制调解优势的发挥,同时有必要对我国原有的司法性诉中强制调解模式进行改造,实现调解者与审判者身份的分离和调解程序与审判程序时空的分离,并在立法中明确赋予法官动态裁量调解启动的权力以及启动调解时应当考虑的基准。     

国际冲突中调停者的偏向与调停效果

在国际调停领域,人们普遍认为,调停者的公正和中立有利于冲突的解决。然而近期学界有新的观点,认为若调停者偏向冲突中的某一方,将更有利于缓解冲突。对这两种相互对立的说法,作者认为调停者的偏向会影响冲突双方的心理预期,进而影响最终结果。若冲突双方中一方有极度不安全感,且处于收益框架,认为谈判会有收获,此时调停者偏向不安全感强的一方的效果要比不偏不倚的调停效果好。若弱势一方处于损失框架,担心参与调停会危害国家生存,此时调停者偏向不安全感强的一方的调停效果未必更好。在朝核危机六方会谈中,中国偏向朝鲜的立场可以使朝鲜信任中国,进而参与六方会谈,显然中国对六方会谈发挥了重大作用。然而,中国的偏向立场虽然使朝鲜乐意参与谈判,但对朝核危机的彻底解决却难以取得成效,由于中国偏向朝鲜,朝鲜认为中国的支持是不会改变的,反而使朝鲜有恃无恐,美朝双方针锋相对,各不相让,最终致使六方会谈难有进展。因此,调停者的偏向立场有利于推动冲突双方参与谈判,但不一定有利于冲突的最终解决。     

人民调解的关系/事件和行动策略分析

人民调解是个复杂的构成体,它表面上是对个别纠纷的解决,实质上是对社会关系的一次重新梳理。每个纠纷的解决都不是我们表面上所看上去的那么简单,有众多因素在背后影响着人民调解的进行。我们重点从关系/事件的分析角度入手,找出其背后的影响因素和行动策略,进而为人民调解的发展提供一定的建议。     

Rethinking Conflict: Perspectives from the Insight Approach

In this article, the authors present the “insight approach” to conflict as an analytical and methodological framework that addresses the dynamic interactions between conflicting parties. According to the insight approach, conflict is relational, dynamic, and adaptive, generated from the responsive interpretive frameworks that parties use to construct meaning. Conflict arises as a result of parties' experience of what insight theorists call “threat‐to‐cares,” which generates defend–attack patterns of interaction between them. The authors suggest that rethinking the nature of conflict so that it is seen as an interaction embedded in meaning making enables conflict interveners to help parties gain insight into, and articulate, the values that are being generated, advanced, threatened, and realigned within the complex interactions that define us as social beings. In doing so, parties develop abilities to generate new patterns and solutions that can limit and even eliminate the experiences of threat that generate conflict between them.     

试析民初商事公断的法律性质——基于非诉讼纠纷解决的视角

ADR概念来源于美国,原是对20世纪逐步发展起来的各种诉讼外纠纷解决方式的总称,现已引申为对世界各国普遍存在的、民事诉讼制度以外的非诉讼纠纷解决方式或机制的称谓,具有代替性、选择性的特点以及纠纷解决的基本功能。民国初期的商事公断集现代和传统于一身,兼具仲裁和调解的性质特点,任何一种单一的法律性质界定都显得单薄,不能涵盖其全部,而它的这种新旧杂糅的特点都可以纳入"非诉讼纠纷解决机制"这一"模糊"概念之中。     

“当判则判”与“调判结合”——基于实务和操作层面的分析

调解优先的司法政策并不意味着调解万能,其意义在于进一步促进调解在民事诉讼中的作用,并适应社会需求,在刑事、行政领域引进协商性因素。在民事诉讼中,调解优先符合私法自治原则,当事人处分权优先于公共利益考量,除法律明确禁止或限制的情形外,调解与协商和解是当事人的权利,也是法官的义务和责任,一般不能因公共利益而否定或限制调解。我国民事诉讼法的基本原则、制度制约、当事人处分权与法院职权的结合、相应的救济机制等,可以保证调解的正当性和效益。同时,诉讼调解必然以判决作为后盾,调判结合并非选择性安排,而是司法诉讼制度的必然。从实务角度出发,准确把握调判结合的原则和尺度、规避调解风险至关重要。从长远的发展而言,调判结合仍可进一步通过制度创新实现多元功能和价值。