Neutrality and Impartiality in the Mediation Process
Neutrality And Impartiality In The Mediation Process
Maher Hana
Australian Catholic University
Is it possible to maintain neutrality and impartiality when dealing with conflict in the mediation process? Use examples to support your view. Does the concept of mediator empowerment challenge the concept of mediator neutrality? In your answer distinguish between the concepts of neutrality and impartiality. What are the possible consequences for the mediation process if a mediator takes a minimalist intervention approach or if the mediator actively implements strategies to ensure that imbalances are addressed, that procedural fairness is maintained and fair and just outcomes are encouraged? The mediation process is a delicate situation which has to be handled fairly and without bias. Each of the parties involved show conflicting positions on certain issues, different or similar interests and argue the opposing party to be wrong (Hung, 2002). The mediator, who is an independent, unbiased third party to the dispute, is there to facilitate communication between both parties while also helping to reach a rational solution (Hung, 2002). This is done by identifying and clarifying issues in dispute and considering all options available that can be used to reach a settlement that is equally fair to all parties involved (Hung, 2002). For any resolution to be reached, a mediator must remain neutral and impartial at all times. In order for the mediation process to run smoothly and function efficiently, the mediator must gain the trust and respect of all parties involved in the mediation process. If this does not occur, the parties involved may question the neutrality and impartiality of the mediator (Hung, 2002). As a mediator, to be neutral is to have no direct interest in the outcome of the dispute, to have no prior knowledge of the dispute, not pass judgement on the disputants, not to influence the outcome by using his or her expertise; and to act fairly and without
Maher Hana
Australian Catholic University
Is it possible to maintain neutrality and impartiality when dealing with conflict in the mediation process? Use examples to support your view. Does the concept of mediator empowerment challenge the concept of mediator neutrality? In your answer distinguish between the concepts of neutrality and impartiality. What are the possible consequences for the mediation process if a mediator takes a minimalist intervention approach or if the mediator actively implements strategies to ensure that imbalances are addressed, that procedural fairness is maintained and fair and just outcomes are encouraged? The mediation process is a delicate situation which has to be handled fairly and without bias. Each of the parties involved show conflicting positions on certain issues, different or similar interests and argue the opposing party to be wrong (Hung, 2002). The mediator, who is an independent, unbiased third party to the dispute, is there to facilitate communication between both parties while also helping to reach a rational solution (Hung, 2002). This is done by identifying and clarifying issues in dispute and considering all options available that can be used to reach a settlement that is equally fair to all parties involved (Hung, 2002). For any resolution to be reached, a mediator must remain neutral and impartial at all times. In order for the mediation process to run smoothly and function efficiently, the mediator must gain the trust and respect of all parties involved in the mediation process. If this does not occur, the parties involved may question the neutrality and impartiality of the mediator (Hung, 2002). As a mediator, to be neutral is to have no direct interest in the outcome of the dispute, to have no prior knowledge of the dispute, not pass judgement on the disputants, not to influence the outcome by using his or her expertise; and to act fairly and without
References: Astor, H. (2007). Mediator neutrality: Making sense of theory and practice. Social and Legal Studies, 16, 221-230. doi: 10.1177/0964663907076531 Astor, H., & Chinkin, C Baruch Bush, R., & Folger, J. (1994). The promise of mediation: The transformative approach to conflict. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bogdanoski. T. (2009). The ‘neutral’ mediator 's perennial dilemma: To intervene or not to intervene?. Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal, 9 (2): 26-43. Retrieved from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1552691 Boulle, L Charlton, R., & Dewdney, M. (2004). The mediator 's handbook: Skills and strategies for practitioners (2nd ed.). Sydney, AU: Law Book Co of Australasia. Cobb, S. (1993). Empowerment and mediation: A narrative perspective. Negotiation Journal, 9, 245-261. doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1993.tb00706.x Cobb, S Field, R. (2000). Neutrality and power: Myths and reality. ADR Bulletin, 3 (1), p. 16. Retrieved from: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/adr/vol3/iss1/4 Frenkel, D., & Stark, J Garcia, A. C., Vise, K., & Whitaker, S. P. (2002). Disputing neutrality: A case study of a bias complaint during mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly , 20 (2), 205-230. doi: 10.1002/crq.20 Hung, H McCorkle, S. (2005). The murky world of mediation ethics: Neutrality, impartiality, and conflict of interest in state codes of conduct. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 23 (2), 165-183. doi: 10.1002/crq.131 McCormick, M Rifkin, J., Milin, J., & Cobb, S. (1991). Toward a new discourse for mediation: A critique of neutrality. Mediation Quarterly, 9 (2), 151-164. doi: 10.1002/crq.3900090206 Taylor, A