[Imc-communication] "Mediation" RE Germany's Belgium proposal
andycleimc at earthlink.net
Sat May 28 11:04:10 PDT 2005
I would like to make sure we all "on the same page" (have the same
understanding) here. My understanding of "mediation" is based on usage
from the US based on a Labor Union context. It is:
"Mediation" is a process where a mutually agreed mediator goes through
a process to bring the 2 sides to agreement. The mediator does not
make a decision about what the agreement should be. If the two sides
do not reach an agreement, all the mediator does is announce that no
agreement has been reached, without casting blame on either or both
"Arbitration", on the other hand, is a process where the arbitrator,
goes through a fact finding process with regards to the rules (laws,
principles, precedents), and the facts (history) of the matter in
question and reaches a decision. The content of the decision does not
depend on the assent of either or both the principal parties. If it is
"binding arbitration" the parties have to abide by the decision, if
not, the arbitrator announces their decision (publicly) and compliance
is up to the will of each of the principal parties.
I would like to know if this is consistent with European usage.
I am bringing this up because I am worried that some people may
believe that a mediator is going to come in and act like a judge and
settle the issues. That is not what will happen.
There is also the thorny question of what happens to the URL in regards
to the Germany proposal if the mediator is unsuccessful in bringing the
parties to an agreement. Since the "neutralization" is supposed to be
only for the purpose of facilitating the mediation, in that event the
URL would revert to its previous condition. Is this correct?
More information about the IMC-communication