mediation as the preferred method to solve international business

Transcription

MEDIATION AS THE PREFERRED METHOD TO SOLVE
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DISPUTES? A LOOK INTO
THE FUTURE
LA MEDIATION : MOYEN PREFERE DE RESOUDRE LES LITIGES
COMMERCIAUX INTERNATIONAUX ? UN REGARD TOURNE VERS L’AVENIR
Markus PETSCHE
Commercial arbitration; Litigation; Mediation
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
The use of mediation as a means to settle international
business disputes has been a subject of academic discussion for at least 25 years.1 Scholars and practitioners agree,
however, that this dispute settlement mechanism is not yet
widely used.2 Still, its advantages—especially when compared to arbitration—are emphasised by numerous writers
and seem difficult to deny.3 As a result, recourse to mediation is advocated by a large number of authors4 and its
potential to develop into a ‘‘real’’ alternative to arbitration or
litigation is widely affirmed.5 In light of this general enthusiasm, it may be appropriate to ask whether mediation may,
at some point in the future, become the preferred means of
solving international business disputes.
Depuis plus d’un quart de siècle, le recours à la
médiation comme mécanisme de résolution des litiges
commerciaux internationaux fait l’objet de débats
académiques. Cependant, universitaires et praticiens
s’accordent pour constater que ce mode de résolution
des litiges n’est pas encore utilisé fréquemment en
pratique. Ses avantages — plus particulièrement en
comparaison avec l’arbitrage — mis en exergue par de
nombreux auteurs sont, toutefois, difficile à nier. Le
recours à la médiation est, en effet, préconisé par un
grand nombre de commentateurs et son potentiel de
devenir une « réelle » alternative à l’arbitrage ou au
contentieux judiciaire est reconnu par une partie non
négligeable de la doctrine. A la lumière de cet
enthousiasme généralisée, il est permis de se
demander si la médiation pourrait, à l’avenir, devenir
le mode préféré de résolution des litiges économiques
internationaux.
This article constitutes an attempt to answer this question. It
first discusses the reasons underlying the attractiveness of
mediation, i.e. its comparative advantages over litigation and
especially arbitration. It then explores a range of factors
limiting the effectiveness of mediation and thus its overall
appeal. Building on these observations, the article examines
the means to overcome the limitations of mediation, and
singles out a specific external factor containing the growth of
mediation, namely the reluctance of powerful segments of
the legal community to support and promote its use. Finally,
the article puts the question of the increased recourse to
mediation into a broader perspective by asking whether
generalised substitution of mediation for arbitration/litigation
may not adversely affect the administration of justice.
Le présent article tente d’apporter une réponse à cette
question. Il examine, tout d’abord, les raisons de
l’intérêt que suscite le recours à la médiation, c’est-àdire les avantages qui caractérisent cette dernière par
rapport au contentieux judiciaire et à l’arbitrage.
Deuxièmement, cette contribution passe en revue un
certain nombre de facteurs qui, à l’heure actuelle,
limitent encore l’efficacité et donc l’intérêt de la
médiation. Sur le fondement de ces observations, le
présent article expose, dans une troisième partie, les
moyens qui permettraient d’accroı̂tre l’efficacité de la
médiation. Quatrièmement, il examine de plus près
l’un des facteurs freinant la croissance de la médiation,
à savoir la réticence d’une partie de la communauté
juridique à soutenir et promouvoir son utilisation.
Finalement, l’article analyse la question d’un recours
plus systématique à la médiation dans un contexte
plus large et s’interroge sur les éventuels effets nocifs
que la substitution de la médiation au contentieux
judiciaire et à l’arbitrage pourrait produire sur
l’administration de la justice.
RDAI/IBLJ, No4, 2013
c 2013 Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited and Contributors
*
251
MEDIATION AS THE PREFERRED METHOD TO SOLVE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DISPUTES?
L’INTERET DE LA MEDIATION : SES AVANTAGES
COMPARATIFS
THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF MEDIATION: COMPARATIVE
ADVANTAGES OF MEDIATION
La médiation offre un nombre d’avantages par rapport
à d’autres modes de résolution des litiges et, plus
particulièrement, par rapport au contentieux judiciaire
et à l’arbitrage. Certains de ces avantages sont
inhérents à la nature non judiciaire de la médiation
(rapidité, coût amoindri). D’autres ne sont que
potentiels ; leur réalisation dépend des circonstances
spécifiques du litige en question (aboutissement à des
situations appelées « gagnant/gagnant » ; possibilité
d’éviter toute détérioration de la relation d’affaires
établie entre les parties). Dans cette partie, les
avantages de la médiation seront évalués par
référence à l’arbitrage dans la mesure où ce dernier
constitue le mode de résolution des litiges le plus
répandu dans le commerce international.
Mediation offers a number of advantages over other methods of dispute resolution, especially litigation and arbitration.
Some of those advantages are inherent in the non-judicial
nature of mediation as a process (expeditiousness and
reduced cost). Others are merely potential and may depend
on the specific circumstances of a particular dispute
(achievement of win/win situations, avoidance of adverse
impact on business relationship). In this section, the
advantages of mediation are assessed by reference to
arbitration, since arbitration constitutes the generally
accepted mechanism to solve international business
disputes.6
Rapidité et coût amoindri
Expeditiousness and reduced cost
On peut difficilement nier le fait que la médiation est
plus rapide et moins onéreuse que l’arbitrage. Cela est
dû à une différence fondamentale entre la nature de la
médiation et celle de l’arbitrage. Tandis que l’arbitrage
donne lieu à la reddition d’une décision obligatoire
dans le cadre d’une procédure quasi-judiciaire, la
médiation n’est — au fond — qu’une forme de
négociation dans l’optique d’un règlement amiable à
laquelle participe(nt) un ou plusieurs médiateurs.
L’arbitrage — du moins sous sa forme actuelle —
nécessite le respect de procédures formelles ainsi que
l’intervention de conseils juridiques ; la médiation, en
revanche, n’obéit pas à des règles particulières et ne
requiert pas nécessairement le concours d’avocats.
The fact that mediation is faster and less expensive than
arbitration can hardly be questioned. It is largely due to the
fundamental difference in nature between the mediation and
the arbitral processes. While arbitration involves the rendering of a binding decision by a third party within the framework of a quasi-judicial procedure, mediation is
essentially a form of settlement negotiations involving the
assistance of one or several mediators.7 Arbitration—at least
in its current form—involves observance of formal procedures and participation of lawyers; mediation does not need
to follow specific rules, nor necessarily require the involvement of legal counsel.
L’écart considérable entre l’arbitrage et la médiation en
ce qui concerne la durée et le coût est d’autant plus
prononcé que l’arbitrage est sujet à une
« juridicisation » croissante. Ce terme désigne l’idée
selon laquelle l’arbitrage, dans la mesure où il tend à
se rapprocher de la procédure contentieuse classique,
n’est plus caractérisé par sa souplesse, sa rapidité et
son coût raisonnable. Une explication possible de ce
phénomène réside dans le constat que l’arbitrage
international est administré par des juristes
spécialisés, plutôt que par des hommes d’affaires et
qu’en conséquence, la procédure arbitrale repose sur
l’échange de mémoires volumineux et complexes. Il en
résulte que l’arbitrage ne peut plus être considéré
comme plus expéditif que le contentieux judiciaire. De
même, l’arbitrage est souvent plus onéreux,
notamment parce que les arbitres — contrairement
aux juges — doivent être rémunérés par les parties.
The discrepancy between the time and cost associated with
arbitration, on the one hand, and mediation, on the other,
has become particularly striking in the contemporary era of
‘‘judicialisation’’8 of international arbitration. This term refers
to the idea that arbitration has evolved from a flexible,
expedited, and less costly means of dispute settlement to a
mechanism that mirrors the traditional judicial process.9 One
of the possible explanations for this phenomenon lies in the
fact that international arbitration is administered by (highly
specialised) lawyers, rather than businessmen and that, as a
consequence, the arbitral process focuses on—lengthy—
exchanges of legal arguments. As a result, arbitration is no
longer faster than litigation.10 Also, considering that arbitrators are, unlike judges, remunerated by the parties, arbitration is frequently more expensive than litigation.11
En pratique, une médiation type peut durer une ou
plusieurs semaines — s’agissant de litiges complexes,
parfois quelques mois. Bühring-Uhle et Kirchhoff
affirment
qu’une
médiation
commerciale
internationale s’étend sur une période de deux à six
jours. Le Professeur Wälde, quant à lui, fournit
l’exemple d’une médiation internationale complexe
impliquant des compagnies électriques détenues par
l’Etat qui s’étala sur une période de 75 jours. Un
arbitrage moyen, en revanche, dure généralement
In practice, a typical mediation may last one or several
weeks or, in relation to complex matters, a few months,
including all stages of the mediation process. Bühring-Uhle
and Kirchhoff maintain that an average international business mediation typically extends over a period of two to six
days.12 Professor Wälde provides an example of a complex
international mediation involving state-owned electricity
companies which lasted 75 days.13 A typical arbitration, on
252
*
the other side, will generally extend over two or several
years,14 with subsequent enforcement or setting aside proceedings possibly adding significant additional time.
deux ou plusieurs années, sans compter les
éventuelles procédures d’exécution forcée ou
d’annulation qui allongent considérablement la
procédure.
Also, and largely as a result of the considerably longer
duration of arbitration, mediation is almost always significantly less expensive.15 Parties to an arbitration incur
lawyers’ fees that cover the services of teams of lawyers
working over periods of several years. Unsurprisingly, then,
those fees may amount to several million US dollars for a
given case. For the same reason, mediator fees are considerably lower than the fees of arbitrators and, in addition,
most mediations are conducted by one mediator only (while
complex arbitrations are generally submitted to panels of
three arbitrators). Importantly, the use of mediation also
allows the parties to minimise their ‘‘internal’’ costs, i.e.
essentially the time spent by their executives, employees,
etc. dealing with a particular dispute.16
La médiation est également presque toujours
beaucoup
moins
chère
que
l’arbitrage,
principalement en raison de sa durée nettement plus
courte. Les parties à un arbitrage doivent supporter
des honoraires d’avocats correspondant aux services
qu’équipes entières rendent sur une période de
plusieurs années. Il n’est donc pas surprenant que
ces honoraires puissent s’élever à plusieurs millions
de dollars américains par litige. Pour la même raison,
les honoraires d’un médiateur sont nettement plus bas
que ceux d’un arbitre et, en outre, la plupart des
médiations sont conduites par un seul médiateur, alors
que la grande majorité des arbitrages un peu plus
complexes sont soumis à un tribunal composé de trois
arbitres. Il est également à noter que le recours à la
médiation permet de réduire à un minimum les coûts
« internes » de l’organisation, et notamment le temps
que ses dirigeants et employés doivent consacrer au
suivi du dossier.
Achievement of win/win situations
Aboutissement à des situations « gagnant/
gagnant »
Recourse to arbitration is frequently considered to lead to
outcomes that can be described as ‘‘win/lose’’ situations.17
An image that is sometimes offered as an example is that of
the pie. In an arbitration, the parties are dividing a pie. The
larger the slice obtained by one party, the smaller the one
obtained by the other. Arbitration necessarily implies that
one of the parties will prevail, while the other will lose
(although it is of course possible that a party only prevails in
part). Some authors view the arbitral process as resulting not
in win/lose, but in lose/lose outcomes.18 Such a view is
based on the fact that both parties (winning and losing)
necessarily incur significant costs. It also rests on the idea
that the arbitral process damages or puts an end to their
presumably profitable business relationship.
Mediation, on the other hand, is considered as enabling
‘‘win/win’’ situations, i.e. situations in which both parties are
ultimately better off.19 This notably implies that even the
party that would have prevailed in the arbitration proceedings may benefit from recourse to mediation. An example
provided by Richard Hill to illustrate this advantage of
mediation is the case of the orange.20 The parties’ dispute
pertains to an orange, and both parties claim that they have
a right to the entire orange. In an arbitration, there are two
possible outcomes: either one party receives the entire
orange (and the other party is left with nothing), or the parties split the orange.21 In a mediation, where the negotiations
focus on the parties’ interests, rather than rights, those
negotiations may reveal that one party intends to use the
rind of the orange to make perfume, while the other intends
to use the pulp to make orange juice. Mediation may thus
allow the parties to divide the orange in a mutually beneficial
way.22
Le recours à l’arbitrage est souvent considéré comme
produisant des résultats qui peuvent être décrits
comme des situations « gagnant/perdant ». L’image
qui est parfois fournie en tant qu’illustration est celle
d’un gâteau. L’idée est que, dans un arbitrage, les
parties se partagent un gâteau. Plus la part obtenue
par l’une des parties est grande, plus celle obtenue par
l’autre est réduite. Lorsqu’un litige est résolu par la voie
de l’arbitrage, il y a nécessairement un perdant et un
gagnant (même s’il est bien évidemment possible
qu’une partie ne prévaut que sur certains points de sa
demande). Certains auteurs vont même jusqu’à
affirmer que l’arbitrage conduit à des résultats que
l’on peut qualifier de « perdant/perdant », plutôt que
de « gagnant/perdant ». Une telle vision repose sur
l’observation selon laquelle les deux parties (celle qui
prévaut et celle qui succombe) nécessairement
encourent des frais importants et que le recours à
l’arbitrage met fin aux relations d’affaires (présumées
profitables) établies entre les parties.
La médiation, au contraire, est perçue comme
permettant des situations « gagnant/gagnant », c’està-dire des solutions qui sont avantageuses par les
deux parties. Cela implique notamment que même la
partie qui aurait prévalu dans un arbitrage peut trouver
un règlement plus favorable à l’issue d’une médiation.
L’exemple de l’orange, emprunté à Richard Hill, illustre
cet aspect de la médiation. Dans cet exemple, l’objet
du litige est une orange, et les deux parties
revendiquent l’intégralité de l’orange. Dans un
arbitrage, il y a deux solutions possibles : ou bien
une partie reçoit l’orange entière (et l’autre repart les
mains vides) ou bien les parties se partagent l’orange.
Dans une médiation, les négociations entre les parties
se focalisent sur les intérêts, plutôt que sur les droits,
des parties, et ces négociations peuvent révéler
qu’une des parties a l’intention d’utiliser l’écorce de
l’orange pour faire du parfum, tandis que l’autre
souhaite utiliser la pulpe pour faire du jus. La
médiation peut donc permettre aux parties de diviser
l’orange de manière mutuellement bénéfique.
*
253
S’il est difficile de déterminer avec précision dans
quelle mesure l’exemple de l’orange reflète la réalité
d’un litige commercial type, il est indéniable que la
médiation peut conduire à des résultats plus souples
et créatifs que ceux auxquels aboutit la procédure
contentieuse ou arbitrale. En effet, lorsque les parties
négocient — avec l’aide du médiateur — les termes
d’un règlement amiable, elles ne sont pas limitées par
les contraintes judiciaires en matières de remèdes.
Comme le suggère l’exemple de l’orange, l’échange
d’informations au cours de la procédure de médiation
peut permettre aux parties d’identifier des solutions
mutuellement avantageuses. C’est précisément
l’accent mis sur les intérêts respectifs des parties,
plutôt que sur leurs droits (juridiques), qui facilite de
telles issues.
While it is difficult to determine to what extent the example of
the orange accurately reflects typical business disputes, it is
undeniable that mediation may lead to results that are more
flexible and creative than those achieved through the judicial
or arbitral processes. In fact, when negotiating a settlement
agreement (with the help of the mediator), the parties are
obviously not bound by any judicial constraints in terms of
available remedies.23 As the example of the orange illustrates, the exchange of information during the mediation
process may enable the parties to identify outcomes that
benefit their mutual interests. It is precisely this emphasis on
the parties’ respective interests, rather than on their legal
rights, that facilitates such solutions.
Possibilité d’éviter tout impact défavorable sur la
relation d’affaires entre les parties
Avoidance of adverse impact on business relationship
On peut difficilement nier que l’introduction d’une
procédure arbitrale a un effet négatif sur la relation
d’affaires entre les parties. Le simple fait qu’une des
parties a initié une procédure arbitrale signifie qu’il
existe un désaccord et que les parties n’ont pas été en
mesure de trouver une solution à leur problème.
L’arbitrage, même si probablement dans une
moindre mesure que le contentieux classique, est
essentiellement une procédure de confrontation
conduite dans un climat d’hostilité. Il en résulte que,
dans la mesure où cela est matériellement possible,
les parties décident souvent de suspendre ou de
mettre un terme à leur relation dans ce contexte
conflictuel. Ces relations ne reprennent que rarement à
l’issue de la procédure.
It can hardly be doubted that the initiation and conduct of
arbitration proceedings has an adverse effect on the parties’
business relationship. The mere fact that one of the parties
has brought arbitration proceedings means that disagreement or conflict has arisen and that the parties have been
unable to find a solution to their problem. Arbitration, though
possibly to a lesser extent than traditional litigation, is
essentially a confrontational process conducted in a climate
of hostility. As a result, where practicable, business relationships are generally suspended or terminated after the
initiation of arbitration proceedings and rarely resume after
the tribunal has rendered its award.24
La procédure de médiation, en revanche, est de nature
non conflictuelle. Elle est fondée sur la commune
volonté des parties de résoudre leur litige, et son
succès dépend de leur aptitude à coopérer en vue de
déterminer des issues mutuellement bénéfiques ou, à
tout
le
moins,
mutuellement
acceptables.
Contrairement à l’arbitrage, la médiation est
essentiellement tournée vers l’avenir et, en ce sens,
animée par le désir de permettre la continuation de la
relation d’affaires établies entre les parties. En effet,
lorsque les parties réussissent à trouver un règlement
amiable par voie de médiation, elles mettent rarement
fin à leur relation d’affaires.
Mediation, on the other hand, constitutes an inherently nonconfrontational and non-adversarial process. It is based on
the parties’ willingness to settle their dispute and its success
depends on the parties’ ability to cooperate in determining
mutually beneficial, or at least acceptable, outcomes. Contrary to arbitration, mediation is inherently forward-looking
and, in this sense, directly concerned with the continuation
of the parties’ business dealings.25 Thus, where parties
reach a settlement agreement via mediation, they rarely put
an end to their existing business relationships.
LIMITATIONS DE LA MEDIATION
LIMITATIONS OF MEDIATION
Incertitude quant à l’issue
Uncertainty of success
Lorsque les parties conviennent de soumettre un litige
à l’arbitrage, la procédure va aboutir à la reddition
d’une sentence arbitrale obligatoire entre les parties
(sauf si, bien évidemment, le demandeur retire sa
demande ou si les parties s’accordent pour suspendre
l’instance). La « réussite » de la procédure arbitrale,
c’est-à-dire la reddition de la sentence, est dans une
large mesure indépendante de la coopération et de la
bonne volonté des parties. En effet, même si une des
parties choisit de ne pas participer à l’instance
arbitrale, cela n’empêche pas l’arbitre ou le tribunal
arbitral de prononcer sa sentence. En ce qui concerne
la médiation, en revanche, la situation est très
différente.
Where parties to a dispute validly agree to resort to arbitration, the process will lead to the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal
issuing a legally binding award (unless, of course, the claimant withdraws its claim or the parties agree to suspend or
terminate the proceedings). The successful completion of
the arbitral process (the issuing of an award) does not
depend on the parties’ cooperation or goodwill. Even a
party’s failure to participate in the proceedings does not
prevent the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal from rendering an
award. With regard to mediation, however, the situation is
entirely different.
254
*
As has been pointed out, mediation constitutes a particular
form of settlement negotiations. The outcome of the mediation process is thus inherently uncertain as settlement
negotiations may or may not succeed. It is true that the
assistance of the mediator is likely to improve the probability
of a settlement agreement because skilled mediators apply
a number of useful tools and strategies in order to allow the
parties to identify possible solutions.26 However, failure of
mediation attempts is a possible, sometimes even likely,
occurrence.27
Comme il a été observé, la médiation constitue une
forme particulière de négociations en vue d’un
règlement amiable. Il en découle que l’issue de la
procédure de médiation est fondamentalement
incertaine dans la mesure où ces négociations
peuvent ne pas aboutir. Il est vrai que l’assistance du
médiateur améliore la probabilité d’un règlement
amiable, étant donné qu’un médiateur habile
applique un nombre de techniques et stratégies
permettant aux parties d’identifier de possibles
solutions. L’absence de succès d’une tentative de
médiation est néanmoins possible, et parfois même
probable.
One of the reasons why mediation attempts may fail consists
of the fact that parties frequently have a slightly distorted and
overly optimistic perception of the likely outcome of litigation
or arbitration. In a scenario where each party believes it
would prevail in litigation or arbitration, the likelihood of an
assisted settlement through mediation is low. Unreasonably
optimistic views of the strength of a party’s position may
sometimes be caused, or at least reinforced, by legal
counsel. Also, parties sometimes agree to attempt mediation
without being genuinely willing to make concessions, which
is a necessary prerequisite for successful settlement.
Une des raisons pour lesquelles une tentative de
médiation peut échouer consiste dans le fait que les
parties ont parfois des visions tronquées et
excessivement optimistes de l’issue probable d’une
procédure contentieuse ou arbitrale. En conséquence,
si les deux parties estiment qu’elles prévaudraient si
leur litige était soumis à un tribunal étatique ou arbitral,
la probabilité d’un règlement amiable facilité par un
médiateur est réduite. Des attentes déraisonnablement
optimistes sont parfois causées, ou du moins
renforcées, par les avocats des parties. Aussi, les
parties acceptent parfois d’avoir recours à la médiation
sans être véritablement prêtes à faire des concessions,
ce qui constitue pourtant une condition nécessaire afin
que la médiation puisse aboutir.
Uncertainty of success constitutes probably the most significant weakness of mediation. It implies that the time and
money invested in the process may eventually be without
any immediate return. However, this drawback must be put
into perspective. In fact, the money and time spent in the
context of mediation are generally negligible when compared to the typical cost of arbitration. Also, and even more
importantly, the work undertaken by each party in relation to
the failed mediation can generally be used, directly or
indirectly, in the subsequent arbitration proceedings.
L’incertitude quant au succès de la médiation constitue
probablement son plus important défaut. Elle implique,
en effet, que le temps et l’argent investis dans la
procédure peuvent, en fin de compte, être sans aucun
retour immédiat. Cela étant, cette faiblesse de la
médiation doit être nuancée. En effet, les ressources
qu’implique le déroulement d’une procédure de
médiation sont généralement négligeables en
comparaison avec celles que nécessite un arbitrage
moyen. De surcroı̂t, le travail accompli par les parties
au cours de la tentative de médiation (qui a échoué)
s’avère généralement utile pour la conduite de
l’instance arbitrale.
Unsuitability for specific types of disputes
Inadaptation pour certaines catégories de litiges
It is sometimes argued that only specific types of disputes
are suitable for resolution by mediation.28 First, some
authors imply that mediation only suits particular ‘‘subject
matters’’, such as family law or employment. Under such a
view, business disputes, especially international business
disputes, do not lend themselves to mediation.29 While it is
true that, at the present stage, mediation is more frequently
resorted to in relation to domestic family or employment
matters than in connection with international business disputes, this does not mean that the latter are not ‘‘suitable’’ for
mediation. It merely suggests that there may be specific
reasons why mediation is particularly desirable with regard
to the above-mentioned categories of disputes (e.g. limited
amount in dispute, importance of agreed outcomes).
Il est parfois affirmé que seules certaines catégories de
litiges se prêtent à être résolues par la voie de la
médiation. Tout d’abord, certains auteurs sousentendent que la médiation ne convient qu’à
certaines « matières » telles que le droit de la famille
ou du travail. Selon une telle approche, les litiges
économiques, et plus particulièrement ceux à
dimension internationale, ne peuvent pas utilement
être résolus par le biais d’une médiation. S’il est vrai
que, sur le plan de la pratique, les litiges dans les
domaines du droit de la famille et du droit du travail
font plus souvent l’objet de médiations que les
disputes commerciales internationales, cela ne veut
pas nécessairement dire que ces dernières ne se
« prêtent » pas à la médiation. Cette réalité reflète tout
simplement
l’idée
que
la
médiation
est
particulièrement désirable s’agissant des catégories
de litiges précitées (notamment en raison des faibles
montants en jeu et de l’importance d’une résolution
consensuelle).
Secondly, a number of commentators take the view that
mediation is not suitable where the parties’ respective
positions are irreconcilable or where the relationship
between the parties has deteriorated in such way as to
En deuxième lieu, un nombre de commentateurs
considèrent que la médiation n’est pas appropriée
lorsque les positions respectives des parties sont
irréconciliables ou lorsque la relation entre les parties
s’est détériorée à un point qui rend tout dialogue
*
255
constructif impossible. Dans ces cas, la médiation ne
serait plus une option. En réalité, ceci n’est que
partiellement vrai. En effet, il appartient précisément
au médiateur d’établir ou, en cas de besoin, de
réinstaurer un climat propice à la coopération et à un
règlement amiable.
preclude any constructive dialogue.30 In those cases, it is
said, mediation is no longer an option. However, in reality,
this is only partly true. In fact, it is precisely the role of the
mediator to create or, where necessary, restore a climate in
which the parties can cooperate with a view to reaching an
amicable settlement.
Enfin, on rencontre parfois l’argument selon lequel la
médiation serait inadaptée à la résolution de litiges
impliquant un Etat ou une entité publique. Ces parties
seraient fréquemment, pour des raisons politiques,
réticentes à accepter le recours à la médiation. Plus
particulièrement, la conclusion d’un protocole
transactionnel par le moyen d’une médiation
susciterait parfois des allégations de corruption. Il est
rapporté que certaines entités préfèrent perdre à un
arbitrage (et investir un temps et des ressources
financières considérables), plutôt que de consentir à
un règlement amiable bien plus favorable qu’une
médiation aurait pu permettre. Même si ces
problèmes sont réels en pratique, une telle
résistance à la médiation n’est pas rationnelle et ne
devrait pas l’emporter sur le bon jugement
commercial.
Finally, one occasionally encounters the argument according to which mediation may be problematic in relation to
disputes involving a State or State-owned party.31 Arguably,
those parties may be reluctant to accept recourse to mediation for ‘‘political’’ reasons, e.g. they may face allegations
of corruption when entering into a mediated settlement,
rather than submitting a case to arbitration. Reportedly,
those entities sometimes prefer losing a case and spending
considerable amounts of time and money over entering into
a more favourable, and much less expensive, mediated
settlement. Again, while those problems may be real, political resistance to mediation is not rational and should not
prevail over sound business decisions.
En réalité, il ne semble pas y avoir de raisons
convaincantes pour conclure que certains types de
litiges (que ce soit en termes de matière, de statu quo
de la relation entre les parties ou d’identité de celles-ci)
ne seraient pas adaptés à une résolution par voie de
médiation. Le présent auteur partage donc largement
le point de vue de Gerald Aksen qui observe que
« n’importe quel litige, qu’il soit international ou pas,
est susceptible d’être résolu par voie de médiation ».
Les avantages potentiels de la médiation examinés cidessus (et notamment, les économies en termes de
durée et de coût) ne sont pas, en effet, limités à
certains types ou certaines catégories de litiges.
In reality, there appear to be no compelling reasons why
specific types of disputes (whether in terms of subject matter, status quo of the relationship between the parties, or
identity of the parties) should not be suitable for resolution
by mediation. This author, therefore, largely agrees with
Gerald Aksen when he states that ‘‘[a]ny dispute, international or not, is well suited for mediation.’’32 The potential
benefits of mediation discussed above (and notably the
considerably more limited duration and cost) are, in fact, not
confined to particular types or categories of disputes.
Efficacité limitée du règlement amiable
Limited effectiveness of settlement agreement
Une sentence arbitrale est juridiquement obligatoire.
Dans son pays de reddition, son exécution forcée peut
être obtenue sans délai et avec une interférence
judicaire minimum. L’exécution forcée à l’étranger ne
pose pas non plus, dans la plupart des cas, de
problèmes particuliers. Elle est notamment facilitée par
la Convention de New York de 1958, laquelle rend
l’exécution de sentences arbitrales plus faciles que
celle de jugements ordinaires. Une sentence arbitrale
est donc généralement un instrument très « efficace ».
Arbitration awards are legally binding and enforceable.
Domestically, they can be enforced in an expedited manner
with generally minimal court review. The same can be said
about enforcement abroad, which is greatly facilitated by the
1958 New York Convention. As a result, enforcement abroad
of arbitral awards is frequently easier and faster than enforcement of domestic court judgments. Arbitral awards are
thus highly ‘‘effective’’ instruments.
Un règlement amiable conclu à l’issue d’une
procédure de médiation est, en revanche, beaucoup
moins efficace. En effet, un tel règlement constitue un
contrat et possède donc la valeur juridique de celui-ci.
Dans l’hypothèse dans laquelle une des parties à la
transaction ne respecte pas les termes de cet accord,
l’autre partie doit recourir aux tribunaux ou à l’arbitrage
— en fonction, le cas échéant, de ce que prévoit le
protocole transactionnel. L’efficacité limitée du
règlement
amiable
représente
un
sérieux
inconvénient de la médiation.
By contrast, settlement agreements concluded through
mediation are far less effective. In fact, they are contracts
and therefore possess the legally binding force of private
agreements. In the event that one of the parties to a mediated settlement fails to comply with its obligations under that
agreement, the other party will have to initiate court or
arbitration proceedings, depending on the terms of the settlement, where applicable. This limited effectiveness of settlement agreements thus constitutes a real disadvantage of
mediation.
Toutefois, là encore, ce désavantage n’est pas aussi
lourd qu’il ne paraı̂t à première vue. Contrairement aux
However, again, this drawback is not as significant as it may
appear at first sight. Contrary to an arbitration award which
256
*
may not be complied with spontaneously by the losing party,
there is no reason for parties to a mediated settlement
agreement to fail to perform their obligations under that
agreement. This is particularly true for settlements on simple
terms such as the payment of a specific amount of money
from one party to the other. Complications may arise where
the settlement agreement includes long-term obligations or
modifies the terms of the parties’ business arrangement. In
that case, diverging interpretations may ultimately necessitate recourse to the courts or to arbitration. However, careful
drafting of the settlement agreement will usually allow the
parties to avoid such scenarios.
sentences arbitrales dont la partie perdante refuse
fréquemment d’honorer les termes, il n’y a, a priori,
pas de raison pour une partie à un règlement amiable
de ne pas exécuter les obligations découlant de ce
règlement. Cela est particulièrement vrai pour des
règlements amiables « simples » qui se contentent de
requérir le paiement d’un montant X. Des
complications peuvent surgir lorsque la transaction
établit des obligations à long terme ou lorsqu’elle
modifie les termes de la relation d’affaires entre les
parties. Dans ces cas-là, des interprétations
divergentes peuvent nécessiter le recours aux
tribunaux ou à l’arbitrage. Cela étant, une rédaction
soigneuse du protocole transactionnel permettra
généralement aux parties d’éviter un tel scénario.
IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MEDIATION
L’AMELIORATION DE L’EFFICACITE DE LA
MEDIATION
There are a number of ways to improve the effectiveness of
mediation, i.e. to render it more attractive as an alternative to
arbitration or litigation, to increase the probability of success
of the process, and to ensure the effectiveness of the
resulting settlement agreement. Possible measures to
achieve those objectives notably include efforts to ensure
the quality of mediators and to promote mediation, the
establishment of a supportive legislative framework, and the
combined use of arbitration and mediation.
Il y a plusieurs manières d’améliorer l’efficacité de la
médiation, c’est-à-dire de la rendre plus attrayante en
tant qu’alternative à l’arbitrage ou au contentieux,
d’augmenter la probabilité d’un accord entre les
parties et d’assurer l’efficacité de ce dernier accord.
Les mesures qui permettraient d’atteindre ces objectifs
incluent notamment des efforts visant à garantir la
qualité des médiateurs et à promouvoir la médiation, la
création d’un cadre législatif favorable et l’utilisation
conjointe de l’arbitrage et de la médiation.
Improving the quality of mediators and promoting
mediation
Amélioration de la qualité des médiateurs et la
promotion de la médiation
According to a well-known saying, an arbitration is only as
good as the arbitrator. The same can no doubt be said about
the mediation process. In fact, the success of mediation
ultimately depends on the skills and competence of the
mediator. Recourse to mediation implies that the parties
have been unable to reach a settlement through negotiations, and it is the mediator’s task to help the parties improve
their understanding of the other party’s position and to
identify mutually beneficial or acceptable solutions. The
success of mediation depends on the value that the mediator adds to the process.
Selon une tournure bien connue, l’arbitrage vaut ce
que vaut l’arbitre. La même observation s’applique,
semble-t-il, à la médiation. En effet, le succès d’une
médiation dépend en fin de compte de l’habilité et des
compétences du médiateur. Le recours à la médiation
est un reflet de l’inaptitude des parties de trouver ellesmêmes un règlement amiable et il appartient
précisément au médiateur d’aider les parties à
améliorer la compréhension de la position adverse
afin d’identifier des solutions mutuellement bénéfiques
ou, du moins, mutuellement acceptables. Le succès
de la médiation dépend ainsi de la valeur ajoutée que
le médiateur apporte au processus.
In order to facilitate the success of the mediation, the mediator needs to possess a particular set of skills. Those differ
from the traditional skills of lawyers. Successful conduct of
mediation proceedings not only requires familiarity with the
relevant legal background and issues, but it also necessitates a proper understanding of game-theoretical principles
and knowledge of the fundamental rules of applied psychology, amongst other things. Not all, probably not even
many, lawyers possess those skills.33 To some extent, the
traditional mindset of litigators may actually undermine the
success of attempts to mediate.
Afin de faciliter le succès de la médiation, le médiateur
doit posséder des compétences particulières. Celles-ci
diffèrent des compétences classiques des conseils
juridiques. En effet, mener à bien une procédure de
médiation requiert non seulement un haut degré de
familiarité avec les cadres et questions juridiques
concernés, mais aussi une compréhension adéquate
des principes de la théorie des jeux, ainsi qu’une
bonne connaissance des règles fondamentales de la
psychologie appliquée. Pas tous les avocats, ni même
beaucoup d’entre eux, ne possèdent ces
compétences. Dans une certaine mesure, l’état
d’esprit traditionnel des avocats plaidants est même
un obstacle au succès d’une médiation.
In light of the crucial role played by the mediator, it is vital to
ensure proper training of potential mediators.34 This is particularly important given that, as has just been observed, the
Eu égard au rôle fondamental du médiateur, il est
essentiel d’assurer une formation adéquate des
médiateurs
potentiels.
Cette
nécessité
est
*
257
particulièrement pressante dans la mesure où, comme
il a été observé, les compétences essentielles ne sont
pas celles qui sont acquises à la faculté de droit ou au
cours de la pratique. Il paraı̂t souhaitable d’établir des
institutions de médiation qui offrent des formations et
discernent des certificats et diplômes aux personnes
ayant suivi ces formations. La clientèle visée n’est pas
restreinte aux futurs médiateurs, mais inclut également
tous les professionnels juridiques qui sont amenés à
assister leurs clients dans le cadre d’une procédure de
médiation.
relevant skills are not necessarily acquired at law school or
in the course of legal practice. It may be desirable to
establish mediation institutions that provide basic mediation
training and offer certificates or diplomas to individuals who
have successfully completed the said training. The target
group of such training is not confined to potential mediators,
but it also includes legal practitioners who intend to assist
their clients in the context of mediation proceedings.
En dehors des efforts visant à assurer la qualité des
médiateurs, il est également important de promouvoir
la médiation. Tout d’abord, la médiation doit être
promue auprès de ses utilisateurs, c’est-à-dire auprès
des opérateurs du commerce international. Ces
derniers doivent être à même de saisir les avantages
potentiels que la médiation peut offrir en comparaison
avec l’arbitrage et le contentieux classique.
Deuxièmement, les membres de la communauté
juridique et, plus particulièrement, les avocats du
contentieux, doivent également prendre conscience
de ses avantages et doivent plus systématiquement
suggérer le recours à ce mode de résolution des
litiges, même si le contentieux et l’arbitrage constituent
des alternatives plus lucratives pour eux.
In addition to ensuring that mediators are adequately qualified, it is also important to promote mediation. First, mediation needs to be promoted vis-à-vis its consumers, i.e.
businesses that enter into (international) commercial transactions. They must be made aware of the potential benefits
derived from the use of mediation as an alternative to arbitration or litigation. Secondly, the members of the legal
profession (specifically litigators) similarly need to realise the
potential advantageousness of mediation and need to suggest this possibility to their clients, even though litigation or
arbitration may be more lucrative.
L’établissement d’un cadre législatif favorable
Establishing a supportive legislative framework
Le domaine de la médiation, plus particulièrement
celui de la médiation internationale, est caractérisé par
la quasi-absence d’un cadre législatif. Au niveau
international, les Etats-Unis sont dotés, semble-t-il, de
la législation la plus développée. D’autres pays ont
récemment adopté des lois sur la médiation, et la
directive européenne de 2008 constitue un des rares
exemples d’un instrument international mettant en
place un cadre normatif (quoiqu’assez général). Dans
beaucoup de pays, la médiation ne fait pas l’objet de
règles spécifiques et les procédures de médiation se
déroulent dans une large mesure « en dehors » de la
loi. Ceci est regrettable, sachant que l’adoption d’un
corps normatif approprié permet d’augmenter
l’efficacité de la médiation.
The area of mediation, especially international mediation, is
characterised by a paucity of legislation.35 At the international level, the United States probably has the most developed legislative corpus in place.36 Other countries have
recently enacted legislation, and the 2008 EU Directive37
constitutes a rare example of an international instrument
providing a (very general) legislative framework for mediation. In many jurisdictions, however, mediation is not the
subject of specific rules and mediation proceedings are
largely conducted in the ‘‘shadow’’ of the law. This is
unfortunate since the effectiveness of mediation requires the
adoption of legislation that corrects potential weaknesses of
the mediation process.
Une loi sur la médiation peut, à titre d’exemple,
accroı̂tre l’efficacité de clauses de médiation. En
effet, pour être pleinement efficaces, ces clauses
doivent produire un double effet. D’une part, elles
doivent exclure la possibilité de recourir aux tribunaux
(le tribunal saisi doit décliner sa compétence ou
déclarer la requête inadmissible). D’autre part, ces
clauses doivent permettre à une partie d’obliger l’autre
à tenter de résoudre le litige par la voie de la
médiation. En d’autres termes, une loi sur la
médiation devrait permettre aux clauses de médiation
de produire des effets similaires à ceux que créent les
clauses d’arbitrages.
For example, legislation can ensure the effectiveness of
mediation clauses contained in business contracts.38 In fact,
in order to be fully effective, such clauses need to produce a
twofold legal effect. First, they need to preclude the possibility of a party initiating court proceedings (i.e. the court
seized of the matter should decline jurisdiction or hold that
such a claim is inadmissible). Secondly, such clauses
should enable any party to compel mediation, i.e. the other
party must not be able to escape its obligation to attempt to
settle the dispute through mediation. In other words, mediation legislation should allow mediation clauses to produce
effects similar to those produced by arbitration clauses.
Un autre exemple d’un défaut potentiel de la médiation
qui peut être « réparé » par des dispositions
législatives appropriées concerne l’effet que
l’engagement d’une tentative de médiation produit en
matière de prescription. Il est bien connu que
l’introduction d’une procédure judiciaire (ou
Another example of a potential shortcoming of mediation
that can be remedied by appropriate legislation relates to the
effect that the initiation of mediation proceedings has on
applicable limitation periods.39 As is well known, the introduction of a formal claim in a court of law (or of a request for
258
*
arbitration) generally suspends the applicable limitation
period. However, no equivalent rule exists in relation to
mediation, which, in the absence of specific legislation, does
not legally differ from private settlement negotiations. This
may constitute a disincentive for parties to resort to mediation, especially where the limitation period is comparatively
short. An express legislative enactment providing for the
suspension of limitation periods pending mediation is thus
desirable.
d’arbitrage) suspend le délai de prescription.
Toutefois, il n’existe pas de règle équivalente
lorsqu’une partie recourt à la médiation. En l’absence
de dispositions législatives dans ce sens, une
procédure de médiation ne diffère guère de
négociations conduites dans un cadre strictement
privé, c’est-à-dire sans l’intervention d’un tiers. Cela
peut dissuader les parties d’avoir recours à la
médiation, plus particulièrement lorsque le délai de
prescription pertinent est relativement court ou lorsque
son expiration est proche. L’adoption d’une disposition
législative prévoyant la suspension du délai de
prescription pendant la durée de la médiation est
donc souhaitable.
A number of other potential issues can be effectively
addressed through the adoption of appropriate legislation.
Mediation legislation may notably contain provisions ensuring the confidentiality of the information exchanged during
mediation proceedings,40 provisions promoting the effectiveness of mediated settlement agreements,41 rules relating
to the requirements of independence and impartiality of
mediators, and norms addressing the possibility of combining mediation with arbitration. In the absence of specific
legislation, problems or uncertainties may detrimentally
impact the effectiveness of the mediation process.
Un nombre d’autres difficultés potentielles peuvent
être adéquatement résolues par le biais de
dispositions législatives appropriées. Une loi sur la
médiation peut notamment comporter des normes
garantissant la confidentialité des échanges intervenus
au cours de la médiation, des règles promouvant
l’efficacité des accords transactionnels obtenus, des
dispositions relatives à l’indépendance et à
l’impartialité des médiateurs, ainsi que des
procédures
permettant
l’usage
combiné
de
l’arbitrage et de la médiation. En l’absence de telles
dispositions, les problèmes et incertitudes évoqués cidessus ne peuvent que nuire à l’efficacité de la
procédure de médiation.
Combining mediation and arbitration
Combiner la médiation et l’arbitrage
There are various ways in which mediation can be ‘‘combined’’ with arbitration.42 First of all, mediation and arbitration
may be used consecutively.43 The parties may agree that
they will attempt to solve their disputes through mediation
and that, failing a mediated settlement within a specified time
period, they will resort to arbitration. It may also be possible
for arbitration and mediation to be conducted in parallel,44
and it is even possible for the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal to
act as mediator(s).45 Arbitration and mediation may also be
combined through hybrid forms of ADR, such as Med-Arb,46
for example, where the ‘‘neutral’’ partly acts as an arbitrator,
and partly as a mediator.
Il y a divers moyens permettant de « combiner » la
médiation avec l’arbitrage. Tout d’abord, la médiation
et l’arbitrage peuvent être utilisés de manière
consécutive. Les parties peuvent convenir de tenter
de résoudre tout litige par le biais d’une médiation et
qu’à défaut d’un accord dans un délai spécifié, elles
soumettent leur litige à l’arbitrage. La médiation et
l’arbitrage peuvent aussi se dérouler en parallèle, et il
est même possible que l’arbitre ou le tribunal arbitral
agisse en tant que médiateur. L’arbitrage et la
médiation peuvent également être combinés par des
formes hybrides d’ADR telles que, par exemple, le
« Med-Arb » où le « neutre » agit en partie en tant
qu’arbitre et en partie en tant que médiateur.
At least three different advantages may be gained from a
combined use of mediation and arbitration. First, and most
importantly, the conduct of mediation proceedings within the
framework of, or during, arbitral proceedings may greatly
benefit the effectiveness of the parties’ settlement agreement. In fact, where the parties agree on the terms of a
settlement via mediation, such a settlement can be incorporated by the arbitral tribunal in its final award (a so-called
award by consent). The parties’ settlement agreement will
thus have the force of an arbitral award and will be easily
enforceable, both domestically and abroad.47
L’usage combiné de la médiation et de l’arbitrage offre
au moins trois avantages. Premièrement, la conduite
de la procédure de médiation dans le cadre ou durant
l’arbitrage peut améliorer considérablement l’efficacité
de l’accord transactionnel conclu par les parties. En
effet, lorsque les parties réussissent à trouver un
accord grâce à la médiation, cet accord peut être
incorporé dans la sentence arbitrale. L’accord
transactionnel des parties aura donc la force
juridique d’une sentence arbitrale et pourra être
exécuté aisément, que ce soit au lieu d’arbitrage ou
à l’étranger.
Secondly, initiating arbitral proceedings may allow a party to
put pressure on the other party to accept recourse to mediation. In fact, where a party is faced with the prospect of
considerable expense and lengthy proceedings, it may be
more inclined to attempt to reach a settlement through
mediation.48 Arbitration (or the prospect of arbitration) thus
Deuxièmement, le fait d’initier une procédure arbitrale
peut permettre à une partie de « contraindre » l’autre
d’accepter le recours à la médiation. En effet, lorsque
le défendeur fait face à la perspective d’une procédure
longue et coûteuse, il est plus enclin à accepter une
tentative de médiation. L’arbitrage ou, plus
précisément, la « menace » de l’arbitrage encourage
*
259
le défendeur à accepter la médiation et à engager un
dialogue constructif. Le recours à l’arbitrage permet
ainsi d’augmenter l’efficacité de la médiation.
increases the potential defendant’s willingness to use mediation and to engage in a constructive dialogue. In this case,
the threat of arbitration is used as a tool to increase the
effectiveness of mediation.
Troisièmement, la conduite parallèle des procédures
d’arbitrage et de médiation peut permettre
d’économiser du temps. Plutôt que d’initier la
médiation et de reporter l’arbitrage jusqu’au moment
où la tentative de médiation a échoué, les parties
peuvent engager les deux procédures de manière
simultanée. Dans cette hypothèse, le non
aboutissement de la médiation ne cause pas de
perte de temps dans la mesure où l’instance arbitrale
n’a été ni reportée, ni suspendue. Il est vrai, toutefois,
que le recours consécutif à la médiation et à l’arbitrage
permet aux parties d’éviter les coûts de l’arbitrage, à
supposer — bien évidemment — que la médiation
aboutisse.
Thirdly, the parallel conduct of arbitration and mediation
proceedings may save time. Rather than engaging in preliminary mediation and postponing arbitration proceedings
until such time when the mediation attempts have failed, the
parties may mediate and arbitrate simultaneously. In this
scenario, the failure of mediation does not entail any loss of
time since the arbitration proceedings have not been suspended during the mediation. It is true, however, that a
consecutive combination of mediation and arbitration allows
the parties to avoid the costs incurred in relation to the
arbitration proceedings, provided of course that the mediation is successful.
REFUS DE LA COMMUNAUTE JURIDIQUE
D’ADOPTER LA MEDIATION
RESISTANCE FROM THE LEGAL COMMUNITY TO
EMBRACE MEDIATION
Même si c’est une question controversée, il est
probablement vrai que la communauté juridique est
réticente à accepter ou promouvoir la médiation en
tant qu’alternative réelle à l’arbitrage. Deux facteurs
sont déterminants dans ce contexte. Tout d’abord,
l’arbitrage international constitue une source de
revenus non négligeable pour les cabinets d’avocats
spécialisés dans ce domaine. Comme il a été observé,
un seul dossier est susceptible de générer plusieurs
millions de dollars américains en honoraires, voire
plus. Cela est dû au fait que ces litiges s’étendent sur
plusieurs années et nécessitent le travail d’équipes
entières d’avocats facturant des milliers d’heures. Ses
honoraires considérables sont possibles parce qu’ils
ne représentent, au fond, qu’une fraction des montants
en litige. Le Professeur Wälde estime que
« l’industrie » de l’arbitrage international s’élève à
environ deux à quatre milliards de dollars américains.
Although this is a controversial issue, it is most probably true
that the legal community is reluctant to accept or promote
mediation as a serious alternative to arbitration for the purposes of settling international business disputes. Two factors are relevant in this respect. First of all, international
arbitration constitutes a source of significant income for law
firms specialising in this area. As has been observed, a
single large case may represent several million US dollars in
legal fees, or more. This is notably due to the fact that such
cases last several years and involve teams of lawyers billing
thousands of hours. It is made possible by the fact that such
fees nevertheless only constitute a fraction of the amounts in
dispute. Professor Wälde estimates that the international
arbitration ‘‘industry’’ is worth between two and four billion
US dollars per year.49
La médiation, au contraire, produit des revenus
beaucoup plus faibles, tout simplement parce qu’une
procédure de médiation est généralement beaucoup
plus courte qu’un arbitrage. Si tous les litiges
actuellement résolus par la voie de l’arbitrage
venaient à être résolus par le biais de médiations,
cela causerait une perte substantielle aux cabinets
d’avocats concernés. Cette perte serait d’autant plus
marquée que les parties à une médiation ne retiennent
pas nécessairement de conseils juridiques et que les
médiateurs ne sont pas nécessairement des juristes.
On peut donc aisément comprendre la réticence de
certains cabinets d’avocats d’encourager l’utilisation
de la médiation.
Mediation, in contrast, generates significantly lower income
for law firms, simply because mediation is generally incomparably less time- and work-consuming than a fully-fledged
arbitration. If all cases currently submitted to and resolved
through arbitration were mediated, this would lead to a
considerable loss of income for a number of prominent law
firms specialising in international arbitration. The loss would
be even more substantial in light of the fact that parties do
not necessarily involve legal counsel in mediation proceedings and that mediators may not necessarily have a legal
background. Hence, one can easily understand the reluctance of lawyers and law firms to encourage the use of
mediation.50
Le deuxième facteur causant un certain degré
d’hostilité à l’égard de la médiation est d’ordre
psychologique.
En
effet,
les
avocats
(et
The second factor causing some degree of hostility towards
mediation is psychological. In fact, lawyers, in particular litigators, are trained to strategise, argue, and embrace their
260
*
client’s case. They have a natural inclination towards conflict
and derive satisfaction from the successful completion of a
case (winning).51 They also have an intellectual interest in
obtaining a ruling or decision because they are curious to
know how a neutral third party views the various legal issues
at stake. Party counsel not infrequently experience some
degree of disappointment when they learn that the parties
have settled the case, especially if such settlement occurs at
a relatively advanced stage of the proceedings. This psychological element constitutes another, not negligible,
obstacle to embracing mediation.
particulièrement ceux du contentieux) sont formés
dans l’art de l’argumentation et habitués à épouser la
cause de leurs clients. Ils ont un penchant naturel pour
le conflit et sont animés par le désir de « gagner » un
dossier. Ils ont également un intérêt intellectuel dans
l’obtention d’un jugement de la part d’un tiers
impartial. En conséquence, lorsqu’un dossier est
transigé, ces avocats éprouvent fréquemment un
certain degré d’insatisfaction, surtout si la transaction
intervient à un stade avancé de la procédure. Cet
élément psychologique constitue un deuxième
obstacle – non négligeable – à une reconnaissance
plus large de la médiation.
The above considerations also apply, mutatis mutandis, to
arbitrators. For very similar reasons, they are also likely not
to suggest or recommend mediation to the parties. In fact, if
the case is mediated (whether by the arbitrators themselves
or (an)other individual/s) the arbitrators’ fees will be significantly lower, with the actual loss depending on how far
the arbitration had progressed at the time of settlement.
Also, being lawyers, arbitrators derive some degree of
satisfaction from ‘‘solving’’ disputes and enjoy the responsibility and power that the function of an arbitrator
represents.
Ces considérations s’appliquent, mutatis mutandis,
aux arbitres. Pour des raisons assez proches, ces
derniers sont également susceptibles de ne pas
suggérer ou recommander le recours à la médiation.
En effet, si l’affaire est réglée par voie de médiation
(que ce soit par les arbitres eux-mêmes ou par un ou
plusieurs autres médiateurs), les honoraires des
arbitres seront considérablement amoindris — la
perte dépendra du stade de la procédure auquel la
médiation a été enclenchée. En tant que juristes, les
arbitres eux aussi sont animés par le désir de
« trancher » les litiges qui leur sont soumis ; les
responsabilités et le pouvoir que leur fonction
comporte leur procurent une satisfaction certaine.
In practice, this relative hostility vis-à-vis mediation is hard to
overcome. In fact, the basic problem in this respect is that
the fate of disputes is entirely in the hands of lawyers. Where
a large corporation is faced with a dispute, the latter will be
managed by that corporation’s in-house counsel, i.e. lawyers. They will generally refer the case to a specialised
arbitration law firm which will then handle the dispute in
accordance with its own practices and preferences.52 Management considerations are lost in the process and the
corporation’s interests are ultimately replaced by those of
the law firm.53
En pratique, cette hostilité relative vis-à-vis de la
médiation est difficile à surmonter. En effet, le
problème fondamental à cet égard est que le destin
des litiges est entièrement entre les mains des
avocats. Lorsqu’une société multinationale est
impliquée dans un litige commercial, celui-ci sera
géré par les juristes internes de la société qui auront
généralement recours aux services de cabinets
d’avocats spécialisés en arbitrage international. Ces
cabinets, à leur tour, gèrent les dossiers
conformément à leur propres pratiques et
préférences. Les considérations économiques et
commerciales sont écartées dans ce processus pour
faire place aux intérêts propres des cabinets d’avocats.
Also, attempts to promote mediation face some amount of
resistance from the powerful arbitration ‘‘lobby’’. Arbitration
has become a big business for lawyers, and the main actors
of the arbitration industry have succeeded in selling their
services on the basis of the various advantages that arbitration presents over litigation in the courts. Those efforts
have allowed arbitration to establish itself as the ordinary
means to solve international business disputes. The main
protagonists of the arbitration community have little interest
in having mediation become a competitor to their highly
lucrative services.
De la même manière, les tentatives de promouvoir la
médiation rencontrent une certaine résistance de la
part du puissant « lobby » de l’arbitrage international.
L’arbitrage constitue un « big business » pour les
avocats et les principaux acteurs de l’industrie de
l’arbitrage ont réussi à vendre leurs services sur le
fondement des différents avantages que l’arbitrage
présente par rapport au contentieux classique. Ces
efforts ont permis à l’arbitrage de s’établir en tant que
mode ordinaire de résolution des litiges dans le
domaine
du
commerce
international.
Les
protagonistes de l’arbitrage international n’ont qu’un
intérêt très limité dans le développement de la
médiation qui, encore une fois, fait concurrence à
leurs services particulièrement rémunérateurs.
Understandably, this reality is often denied. This author has
taken part in, and witnessed, numerous conversations
where arbitration lawyers have firmly rejected allegations
that they prefer their own interests over those of their clients.
One frequently hears, in this respect, that law firms have an
interest in encouraging mediation because the resulting
satisfaction of their clients will prompt those clients to retain
On comprend bien que cette réalité est souvent niée.
Cet auteur a participé à (et a témoigné) de
nombreuses conversations au cours desquelles des
avocats ont rejeté des allégations selon lesquelles ils
privilégieraient leurs intérêts par rapport à ceux de
leurs clients. On entend souvent, à ce propos, que les
cabinets d’avocats auraient intérêt à encourager la
médiation dans la mesure où la satisfaction de leurs
clients aurait un effet de fidélisation. Même si cette
*
261
remarque est correcte, cela ne change rien au fait
qu’un transfert de l’arbitrage vers la médiation entraı̂ne
une perte de gains considérable — et cela même si le
cabinet en question réussit à préserver, voire même à
augmenter, sa part dans le marché.
the same lawyers on future occasions. While this may be
true, it is undeniable, however, that a potential shift from
mediation to arbitration entails a significant loss of profits,
even if a law firm manages to maintain or increase its share
in the growing mediation ‘‘market’’.
IMPACT NEGATIF D’UNE UTILISATION
SYSTEMATIQUE DE LA MEDIATION SUR LA
BONNE ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE
ADVERSE IMPACT OF A WIDESPREAD USE OF
MEDIATION ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE?
Les parties à un litige sont parfois réticentes à recourir
à la médiation dans l’hypothèse où elles ont un intérêt
à ce qu’un tribunal rende une décision ayant la force
d’un precedent. Ceci peut notamment résulter du fait
qu’une partie est susceptible de faire face à un grand
nombre de procédures similaires concernant une
même question juridique ou un même événement.
Lorsque la probabilité de litiges similaires est réduite,
la partie concernée (en général, la défenderesse) n’a
pas d’intérêt propre à établir un precedent judiciaire
pour les autres participants du marché.
Parties to a dispute may be reluctant to resort to mediation
when they have an interest in having a court or arbitral tribunal set a precedent on a particular point of law. This may
notably be the case when a party is likely to face a number of
similar lawsuits or disputes involving a particular legal issue.
Where the prospect of similar future disputes is unlikely, a
party will generally have little incentive altruistically to set a
precedent for other corporations or entities.
Comme l’illustre cet exemple, le recours systématique
à la médiation pourrait être considéré comme une
menace au rôle fondamental du processus judiciaire,
au delà des intérêts des parties à un litige particulier.
On peut en effet se poser la question si un recours
généralisé à la médiation ne compromettrait pas
finalement la bonne administration de la justice. Il est
bien connu que la fonction judiciaire remplit un rôle
essentiel d’interprétation et de création du droit, un
rôle que la médiation n’est pas capable d’assumer.
As this example illustrates, the systematic recourse to
mediation could be considered as potentially inadequate to
fulfill certain vital functions of the judicial process, beyond
the level of the specific interests of parties to a given dispute.
It may in fact be asked whether a widespread use of mediation would not ultimately undermine a proper administration of justice. As is well known, the judicial function plays a
significant role in the interpretation and creation of the law, a
role that cannot possibly be assumed by mediation.
Il n’est guère nécessaire de rappeler que la fonction
créatrice de droit est un aspect élémentaire du
processus judiciaire dans les pays de la common
law. Dans ces systèmes juridiques, les juges ne se
contentent pas d’appliquer le droit ; ils le créent. En
vertu de la doctrine du binding precedent, les
décisions judiciaires s’imposent aux tribunaux qui
occupent un rang inférieur dans la hiérarchie des
tribunaux. Ces décisions constituent une source
primaire du droit. Dans les pays de la civil law, même
si cela n’est pas officiellement reconnu, les jugements
des tribunaux possèdent un effet normatif similaire. De
manière générale, il faut observer qu’il n’existe pas de
ligne de démarcation claire entre la fonction
interprétative, d’une part, et la fonction créatrice, de
l’autre.
It hardly needs to be recalled that the law-creating function
of the judicial process is a basic feature of common law
jurisdictions. In those legal systems, judges do not only
apply the law, they also create it. Under the doctrine of the
binding precedent, judicial decisions need to be followed by
lower courts. They constitute a primary source of law. In civil
law jurisdictions, although this may not be officially recognised, judicial pronouncements may similarly have a normative effect. In fact, the act of interpreting legal rules
frequently encompasses a law-generating aspect.
Si le processus judiciaire contribue indéniablement à
l’évolution du droit, on peut bien sûr se demander si
l’arbitrage joue un rôle similaire dans le contexte
spécifique de droit du commerce international. En tant
que tel, il n’existe pas de doctrine du binding
precedent, ni de hiérarchie entre tribunaux arbitraux.
De même, les sentences arbitrales ne sont pas aussi
systématiquement publiées que les décisions
judiciaires. Toutefois, le présent auteur est de l’avis
que très peu de praticiens de l’arbitrage international
affirmeraient qu’une sentence arbitrale n’a d’impact ou
de l’influence que sur le litige particulier qu’elle
tranche. Tout tribunal arbitral examine inévitablement
la manière dont d’autres tribunaux arbitraux (ou
judiciaires) ont interprété certaines normes juridiques,
qu’elles soient de source interne ou internationale. Il
n’est donc pas du tout inapproprié de parler de case
law arbitral.
262
If the judicial process undeniably contributes to the development and evolution of the law, one may question whether
arbitral dispute resolution plays a similar role in the area of
international business and trade. As such, there is no doctrine of binding precedent, nor is there a hierarchy between
arbitral tribunals. Generally, arbitral awards are also less
systematically published than court judgments. However,
this author believes that very few arbitration practitioners
would argue that arbitral rulings do not have a legal impact
or influence beyond the particular dispute they are meant to
resolve. Arbitral tribunals inevitably examine how other
arbitral tribunals have interpreted particular legal provisions,
whether domestic or treaty-based. It is thus not inappropriate to speak of arbitral ‘‘case law’’.
*
In light of the role that arbitral dispute resolution plays in the
development of international commercial law, the prospect
of mediation becoming the new preferred means of international business dispute resolution is not unproblematic.
From a practical point of view, it is of course unrealistic that
mediation should ‘‘replace’’ arbitration and that international
business operators should no longer, or only in exceptional
circumstances, resort to arbitration to solve their disputes.
However, when debating the respective merits of mediation
and arbitration, it is important to bear in mind the vital role
that the latter plays in the development of the law.
Considérant le rôle que le processus arbitral joue dans
le développement du droit du commerce international,
la perspective d’une substitution généralisée de la
médiation à l’arbitrage soulève des interrogations.
D’une point de vue pratique, il est bien sûr peu
probable que la médiation « remplace » l’arbitrage et
le rende désuet. Cela étant, tout débat autour des
mérites respectifs de la médiation et de l’arbitrage doit
prendre en compte le rôle vital que ce dernier joue
dans le développement du droit.
In addition, when discussing whether systematic recourse to
mediation may adversely affect the administration of justice,
one also needs to take into account the psychological
dimension of the latter. In fact, faced with a legal dispute,
parties frequently have a natural ‘‘thirst’’ for a final ruling,
regardless of whether they will prevail or succumb.54 While
the prevailing party will obtain satisfaction from the fact that it
‘‘won’’ the case, the losing party will at least have the certainty that it tried its best to defend its interest. The arbitral
award provides closure.
En outre, l’examen de l’effet qu’un recours
systématique à la médiation aurait sur la bonne
administration de la justice doit prendre en
considération les aspects psychologiques de cette
dernière. En effet, une partie à un litige juridique a
généralement une « soif » de décision, quelle que soit
l’issue de la procédure. Si la partie qui prévaut obtient
satisfaction en raison du simple fait d’avoir obtenu gain
de cause, la partie perdante aura au moins la certitude
d’avoir tout essayé pour défendre ses intérêts. La
sentence arbitrale lui permet « d’aller de l’avant ».
It is not just the final decision that satisfies the parties’ psychological needs, but also the contentious process as such.
In fact, human beings frequently enjoy confrontation and
argument and derive satisfaction and pleasure from the fact
of winning, whether it is an artistic contest, a tennis match or
a lawsuit. Confrontation and conflict (including war) have
always been part of human behavior and interaction. While
such an attitude may be largely irrational from an economic
point of view, it must be borne in mind that decisions
regarding the way in which a particular dispute should be
handled are taken by human beings, and not abstract corporate entities.
Ce n’est pas seulement la décision finale qui satisfait
aux besoins psychologiques des parties, mais aussi le
processus contentieux en tant que tel. En effet, l’être
humain éprouve un besoin naturel de confrontation et
éprouve de la jouissance lorsqu’il est victorieux, que
ce soit à l’occasion d’une compétition artistique, d’un
match de tennis ou d’un procès. La confrontation et le
conflit (y compris la guerre) font depuis toujours partie
du comportement humain et de l’interaction entre
individus. S’il est vrai que la recherche de
confrontation
peut
être
considérée
comme
irrationnelle d’un point de vue économique, il ne faut
pas oublier que les décisions relatives à la manière
dont un litige commercial est géré ne sont pas prises
par des entités abstraites, mais par des êtres humains.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
Mediation as a means to solve international business dispute is doubtlessly on the rise. Its growing popularity stems,
in large part, from the increasing dissatisfaction of the
international business community with the length and
sometimes exorbitant cost of arbitration proceedings. The
appeal of mediation is also a result of efforts to promote this
form of dispute resolution by part of the legal community and
professional mediators. The significant number of professional and academic events (conferences, seminars) devoted to the study of mediation is a testament to those efforts.
La médiation en tant que moyen de résoudre les litiges
économiques internationaux est certainement en train
de prendre de l’ampleur. Son attrait grandissant
résulte, d’une part, de l’insatisfaction croissante de la
communauté des opérateurs économiques avec la
durée et le coût parfois exorbitant de l’arbitrage.
D’autre part, l’intérêt accru pour la médiation découle
des efforts visant à promouvoir ce moyen de résolution
des litiges par une partie de la profession juridique. Le
nombre considérable d’événements professionnels et
académiques
(conférences,
séminaires,
etc.)
consacrés à l’étude de la médiation illustre ces efforts.
While it appears that mediation occupies a growing share of
the international business dispute resolution ‘‘market’’, it is
less clear whether mediation has the potential to replace
arbitration as the preferred mechanism for international
commercial dispute settlement. As has been shown, the
S’il semble bien que la médiation occupe une part
grandissante du marché de la résolution des litiges
commerciaux internationaux, la question de savoir si la
médiation peut à terme remplacer l’arbitrage en tant
que mécanisme préféré des opérateurs économiques
est plus complexe. Comme il a été expliqué, l’avenir de
*
263
la médiation dépendra, dans une large mesure, de la
manière dont le conflit d’intérêt entre cabinets
d’avocats et clients est résolu. Dans un monde idéal,
les intérêts propres de la communauté juridique ne
devraient pas l’emporter sur ceux de ses clients ; il
faudra également identifier les moyens permettant de
surmonter la réticence de certains cabinets d’avocats à
accepter et promouvoir la médiation en tant
qu’alternative potentiellement supérieure à l’arbitrage.
future development of mediation depends, to a large extent,
on how the basic conflict between parties (or management),
on the one side, and legal counsel, on the other, is solved. In
an ideal world, the interests of the legal community should
not prevail over those of its clients, and ways should be
found to overcome the reluctance of corporate law firms to
embrace mediation as a potentially superior alternative to
litigation or arbitration.
Mais il y a un autre aspect à la question. Comme il a
été clarifié, les avantages et inconvénients d’un moyen
de résolution des litiges particulier ne peuvent pas être
déterminés sur le seul fondement de sa rapidité et de
son coût. Une telle analyse serait indûment simpliste et
manquerait de tenir compte non seulement de la
fonction psychologique du processus judiciaire, mais
aussi de son importance en rapport avec la création et
le développement du droit. En fin de compte, on peut
se demander si la médiation ne constitue pas, dans
une certaine mesure, une négation de la nécessité
d’assujettir l’activité humaine à des règles de droit dont
la bonne application est garantie par les tribunaux
étatiques et arbitraux.
But there is another side to the story. As has been explained,
the merits or demerits of a dispute resolution mechanism
cannot be assessed on the basis of speed and cost alone.
Such an economic analysis of law-type approach would be
unduly simplistic since it would fail to take into account not
only the psychological function of judicial dispute settlement, but also its importance for the creation and development of the law. Ultimately, mediation constitutes a negation
of law, i.e. of the necessity to subject human behavior to
rules of law that can be enforced by courts and arbitral
tribunals.
Notes
1. See Klaus Lionnet, ‘‘Arbitration and Mediation – Alternatives or Opposites?’’ (1987) 6(4) J. Int. Arb. 69; Vincent Fischer-Zernin, Abdo Junker,
‘‘Arbitration and Mediation: Synthesis or Antithesis’’ (1988) 7(5) J. Int. Arb. 21. Mediation in public international law disputes has been discussed even
earlier. See, e.g. Arthur J. Goldberg, ‘‘Mediation and Arbitration of International Disputes’’ 1 Hofstra L. Rev. 9 (1973).
2. Michael Mcllwrath, John Savage, International Arbitration and Mediation: A Practical Guide (Kuwer Law International, 2010), p.173; Thomas
W. Wälde, ‘‘Efficient Management of Transnational Disputes: Mutual Gain by Mediation or Joint Loss in Litigation’’ (2006) 22(2) Arb. Int. 205, 206.
3. See above.
4. See, e.g. Richard Hill, ‘‘Adversarial Mediation’’ (1995) 12(4) J. Int. Arb. 135; Richard Hill, ‘‘The Theoretical Basis of Mediation and Other
Forms of ADR: Why They Work’’ (1998) 14(2) Arb. Int. 173, (observing that ‘‘ADR can, in some circumstances, be more effective than litigation’’);
Thomas Wälde, above, note 2.
5. Christian Bühring-Uhle, Lars Kirchhoff and Gabriele Scherer, Arbitration and Mediation in International Business (Kluwer Law International,
2006), p.171; Michael F. Hoellering, ‘‘Comments on the Growing Inter-Action of Arbitration and Mediation’’ in Albert Jan van den Berg (ed.),
International Dispute Resolution: Towards an International Arbitration Culture Vol. 8 (ICCA Congress Series, 1996), p.124 (concluding that mediation is
becoming increasingly popular); Michael Mcllwrath, John Savage, above, note 2, at 173.
6. See, e.g., Eric D. Green, ‘‘International Commercial Dispute Resolution: Courts, Arbitration and Mediation – Introduction’’ 15 B.U. Int’l L. J.
175, 176 (1997).
7. See Klaus Peter Berger, ‘‘Integration of Mediation Elements into Arbitration’’ (2003) 19(3) Arb. Int. 387 at 391.
8. See Jesus Almoguera, ‘‘Arbitration and Mediation Combined. The Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrators’’ in M. A. FernandezBallesteros and David Arias (eds.), Liber Amicorum Bernardo Cremades (La Ley, 2010), at p.105 (citing Catherine Rogers, ‘‘The Vocation of
International Arbitrators’’, 20 American University International Law Review 74 (2005)).
9. Id.
10. See Klaus Lionnet, above, note 1, at 69–70.
11. See Klaus Lionnet, above, note 1.
12. Bühring-Uhle, Kirchhoff and Scherer, above, note 5, at 208.
13. Wälde, above, note 2, at 229.
15. See, e.g., Corinna Klaus and Manuel Liatowitsch, ‘‘Chapter 11 – Mediation’’ in Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler and Blaise Stucki (eds.),
International Arbitration in Switzerland: A Handbook for Practitioners (KLuwer Law International, 2004), pp 223, 232 (stating that ‘‘[m]ediation is by
definition less expensive than court proceedings or arbitration’’).
16. See Bühring-Uhle, Kirchhoff and Scherer, above, note 5, at 208 (referring to those internal costs as indirect costs and observing that such
costs notably include contingency, executive time, other corporate resources and disruption to business).
264
*
17. See, e.g., Green, above, note 6, at 177 (observing that ‘‘(a)rbitration, as with any form of adjudication, is ... productive of ‘‘win/lose’’
outcomes’’).
18. Wälde, above, note 2, at 205 (noting that ‘‘the years of increasingly antagonistic litigation produce lose-lose results for everybody
concerned.’’)
19. See Richard Hill, ‘‘Adversarial Mediation’’ above, note 4, at 135 (stating that, ‘‘(i)n many situations, disputing parties can find negotiated
solutions that benefit each party more than the best possible outcome of litigation’’).
20. Richard Hill, ‘‘The Theoretical Basis of Mediation’’ above, note 4, at 181.
21. Hill, ‘‘The Theoretical Basis of Mediation’’ above, note 4.
22. Hill, ‘‘The Theoretical Basis of Mediation’’ above, note 4.
23. Bühring-Uhle, Kirchhoff and Scherer, above, note 5, at 206 (arguing that ‘‘(n)egotiated settlements can devise creative solutions that no
judge or arbitrator could order’’).
24. See, e.g., Green, above, note 6, at 177 (noting that arbitration is ‘‘often destructive of long-term relationships’’).
25. Green, above, note 6 at 178.
26. See, e.g., Bühring-Uhle, Kirchhoff and Scherer, above, note 5, at 211–222 (discussing mind mapping, litigation risk analysis and brainstorming as three techniques employed by mediators).
27. See, e.g., Richard Hill, ‘‘Adversarial Mediation’’ above, note 4, at 135 (referring to statistical data of the American Arbitration Association
which suggests that only about one third of the cases submitted to mediation have been successfully mediated).
28. See, e.g. Berger, above, note 7, at 402 (stating that most disputes are only suitable either for arbitration or for mediation).
29. Bühring-Uhle, Kirchhoff and Scherer, above, note 5, at 169 (referring to the fact that mediation and conciliation ‘‘traditionally had little
practical relevance for the resolution of commercial disputes.’’); Mcllwrath, Savage, above, note 2, at 180 (noting that in most countries, ‘‘mediation is
either an unknown, niche, or newly introduced practice in the business context’’).
30. Berger, above, note 7, at 402 (observing that where the parties’ positions are ‘‘widely differing’’, recourse to arbitration is more appropriate
than the use of mediation).
31. See Mcllwrath, Savage, above, note 2, at 184 (listing the various factors that cause governments or government-controlled entities to be
reluctant to resort to mediation).
32. Bühring-Uhle, Kirchhoff and Scherer, above, note 5, at 176 (interview conducted by the authors).
33. See Wälde, above, note 2, at 613 (concluding that ‘‘[c]ommercial mediation is therefore something that is rather akin to what professional
deal-makers do – entrepreneurial businessmen, leading investment bankers, diplomats and commercial lawyers – than what judges, arbitrators and
litigators do.’’).
34. See Bettina Knötzl, Evelyn Zach, ‘‘Taking the Best from Mediation Regulations: the EC Mediation Directive and the Austrian Mediation Act’’
(2007) 23(4) Arb. Int. 663, at 666-67 (discussing the issue of ‘‘quality control’’ of mediators).
36. Bühring-Uhle, Kirchhoff and Scherer, above, note 5, at 223 (stating that ‘‘[p]robably the most important body of law, in the form of state
statutes and court decisions, has evolved in the United States’’).
37. Directive 2008/52 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial
matters, [2008] OJ L136/3.
38. See Klaus, Liatowitsch, above, note 15, at 233 (discussing the enforceability of mediation clauses under Swiss law).
39. See Klaus, Liatowitsch, above, note 15, at 235-236 (with particular reference to Swiss law).
40. See Knötzl, Zach, above, note 34, at 673 (with particular reference to the Austrian Mediation Act).
41. Under Austrian law, for example, a mediated settlement agreement can be recorded by a public notary and thereby transformed into an
enforceable notarial act. See Knötzl, Zach, above, note at 674.
42. See Almoguera, above, note 11.
43. See Berger, above, note 7, at 393–96.
44. Berger, above, note 7, at at 396.
45. Shahla F. Ali, « Approaching the Global Arbitration Table: Comparing the Advantages of Arbitration as Seen by Practitioners in East Asia
and the West », 28 Rev. Litig. 791 (2008–2009), at 816 (discussing the combined use of mediation and arbitration by tribunals established under the
auspices of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission).
46. See Hoellering, above, note 5, at 123–124 (discussing Med-Arb with reference to the particular context of the American Arbitration
Association).
47. See Bühring-Uhle, Kirchhoff and Scherer, above, note 5, at 240 (observing that ‘‘[t]he finality and enforceability of any agreement reached
in the ADR procedure can be enhanced by requesting the arbitral tribunal to issue a consent award’’). See also Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Fan Kun,
‘‘Integrating Mediation into Arbitration: Why It Works in China’’, (2008) (4) J. Int. Arb. 479 (2008), at 490-91.
48. See Bühring-Uhle, Kirchhoff and Scherer, above, note 5, at 238 (explaining that the prospect of arbitration constitutes ‘‘an incentive to reach
a fair solution on agreed terms.’’).
*
265
49. Wälde, above, note 2, at 207.
50. See Mcllwrath, Savage, above, note 2, at 182–83 (observing that settlement through mediation ‘‘will deprive the party’s external lawyers of
revenue’’ and that some lawyers may therefore ‘‘find views to discourage settlement in a short-sighted view that litigation is better for their
pocketbooks.’’).
51. Kenji Tashiro, ‘‘Conciliation or Mediation during the Arbitral Process – A Japanese View’’, (1995) 12(2) J. Int. Arb. 119 at 122 (noting that
‘‘[a]ttorneys are inherently obliged to win, or not to lose... they would like to make it clear to their clients that they are right and to encourage their
clients to refer their disputes to litigation or arbitration.’’).
52. See Wälde, above, note 2, at 209.
53. See Wälde, above, note 2, at 206 (noting that ‘‘ownership and control of the legal community over disputes is strong, and [that] based on
close links from corporate counsel to law firm to arbitrators, it is very difficult to win the control over dispute management back for the primarily
commercially minded client’’).
54. See Lionnet, above, note 1, at 73 (arguing that ‘‘[w]hat the parties are looking for is not mediation in order to reach an agreement, but rather
a well-founded and therefore convincing decision made by a court of arbitration’’).
266
*

mediation as the preferred method to solve international business

Transcription

Documents pareils

Revue d`ARbitRAge et de MédiAtion JouRnAl of ARbitRAtion And

CRDP Lorraine : a ressources center for teachers

LA MEDIATION FAMILIALE EN SAONE ET LOIRE :mode d`emploi

L`action sur l`humain, levier majeur pour changer l`image du quartier

Course de Voiture

Transposition de la directive relative au rÃ¨glement des litiges de

Rêves et cauchemars surréalistes Séquence 2de

STEPHAN DEN HARTOG Collaborateur Tél. +33 (0) 1 40 555 100