The newly
published Singapore International
Dispute Resolution Academy (SIDRA) International
Dispute Resolution Survey: 2020 Final
Report comments on the issue of standards in international mediation.
Article 5(1)(e) of the Singapore Convention sets forth that enforcement may be refused if there was a serious breach by the mediator of standards applicable to the mediator or mediation, without which the settlement agreement would not have been signed. Further, Article 5(1)(f) specifies that enforcement may be refused if the mediator failed to disclose information that gives rise to justifiable doubts regarding the mediator’s impartiality or independence and had the mediator disclosed such information, the parties would not have signed the settlement agreement.
The Singapore Convention neither contains substantive ethical obligations applicable to mediators nor does it make any reference as to how to determine such standards. (P. 66) Available at: http://mediationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/08/16/what-users-say-about-technology-in-mediation-2020-sidra-survey-part-3/
This is the same issue that Ana Goncalves, Francois Bogacz, and I highlighted at the roll-out of the Singapore Convention, in Singapore earlier this year, and again in an article in the International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution (IJODR), and again in the recent Seven Keys book published by Mediate.com.
The Standards work being done by the Singapore International
Mediation Institute (SIMI), the International Mediation Institute (IMI), the US
American Bar Association (ABA), the National Center for Technology and Dispute
Resolution (NCTDR), and the International Council for Online Dispute Resolution
(ICODR) all bear similarities and even have some crossover – some of my
colleagues and I are involved in all of the above efforts.
At the risk of flogging a dead issue, the approach that Ana,
Francois, and I have suggested is the creation of a code of disclosure for
mediators, domestically and internationally.
For years mediation scholars and practitioners have commented on the fractured
nature of mediation around the world.
Given this reality, it would be a long, uphill, Sisyphean struggle to
create a universal code of conduct or set of standards for international
mediation. However, creating a set of categories that would
constitute an adequate disclosure of process and approach that parties could
understand and accept is not so daunting.
We should, as a “field,” get on with it.