proconsensus

International political mediation in the Israel-Palestine Conflict

2009-01-15T07:32:00.000-08:00

read for more

terminology and definitions

2008-12-19T06:43:00.000-08:00

alternative dispute resolution and mediation are definitely on the move. preaching to the choir of supporters, there is no doubt about the difference in terminology and use. however, over 72% of user's still don't know about the characteristics of adr, mediation and other tools of constructive conflict resolution.
for a fresh start into 2009, here is a concise glossary of terms and definitions.

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)
Refers to dispute resolution procedures utilized outside of court, cost effective litigation management and litigation prevention techniques

BRAINSTORMING
The process of inventing options and developing alternatives towards achieving a settlement. This is an open forum where neither party is obligated with respect to the ideas generated

CONFIDENTIALITY
Private matters discussed and held in confidence by the neutral third party

FACILITATE
To make easy or easier...to lighten the work of; assist; help [Webster's New World Dictionary]

FACT FINDING
Informal process whereby a neutral third party investigates the question in issue and submits a report or testifies in court.

INTERESTS
Concerns, desires, wants. What caused people to take a position

NEUTRAL
Impartial Third Party; a disinterested party with no "connection" to the matter

POSITIONS
What people in a dispute want; something decided upon

WIN - WIN
A proposition in which both sides of a dispute have had an opportunity to explore positions, interests and options for resolution, and ultimately structure an agreement that has "appeal" to both.

A. Mediation
DEFINITION
A private, voluntary process in which an impartial person facilitates communication between parties to promote settlement

NEUTRAL
Impartial third party selected by parties to assist in identification and clarification of issues, generation of options, and facilitation of a mutually acceptable agreement

ROLE OF LAWYERS
May present case, although parties usually communicate directly; may assist client regarding clarification of legal issues; drafts agreement

ROLE OF PARTIES
Able to ventilate feelings, tell their story and negotiate directly; participate in creative problem-solving

SCOPE OF PROCESS
Flexible; voluntary; no rules of evidence; private; confidential

OUTCOME
Mutually satisfactory resolution; relationship maintained; Ideally: Win-Win result for all parties. Often: Acceptable compromise

B. Arbitration
DEFINITION
Adversarial system of justice designed to present civil case to a neutral third party for decision

NEUTRAL
Usually retired judge or lawyer who serves as a professional third party neutral; sometimes non-lawyers act as neutrals particularly in labor disputes

ROLE OF LAWYERS
Advocate positions of client

ROLE OF PARTIES
Discuss case strategy with lawyer; be available to respond to discovery; answer questions

SCOPE OF PROCESS
Similar to lawsuit; discovery commenced, experts consulted; preparation for hearing; adversarial proceeding

OUTCOME
Win-Lose; costly; often time consuming

C. Negotiation
DEFINITION
Voluntary, informal, unstructured process used by disputants to reach a mutually acceptable agreement

NEUTRAL None

ROLE OF LAWYERS
May or may not be appointed by disputants to represent them in negotiating

ROLE OF PARTIES
May represent themselves in direct conversations with opposing side; high personal involvement; normal communication problems

SCOPE OF PROCESS Unstructured, voluntary and non-binding; position based

OUTCOME
Ideally: a mutually acceptable agreement based on shared interests; Realistically: Varies from Win-Win to Lose-Lose

D. Litigation
DEFINITION
Adversarial system of justice designed to present civil case to a court for decision

NEUTRAL
Judge employed by county to issue binding decision; jury selected from geographic area

ROLE OF LAWYERS
Advocate positions of client

ROLE OF PARTIES
Discuss case strategy with lawyer; be available to respond to discovery; answer questions

SCOPE OF PROCESS
Lawsuit filed and answered; discovery commenced, experts consulted; trial preparation; trial

OUTCOME
Win-Lose; costly; time consuming

E. Mini-Trial
DEFINITION
Abbreviated, informal presentation of case by the parties to a senior claims or business representative intended as a prelude to settlement discussions. Primarily used in large, complex, or multi-party cases

NEUTRAL
Impartial third party may be selected by parties, but not always, to preside over
presentations and assist the parties in eliciting information

ROLE OF LAWYERS
Summary presentation of case in adversarial manner

ROLE OF PARTIES
Observe, listen to case from both sides, ask and answer questions; make an informed evaluation; engage in settlement discussions

SCOPE OF PROCESS
Loose structure, flexible; agreement of parties; non-binding; confidential

OUTCOME
Negotiated settlement based on the full range of needs and objective of the parties.

F. Hybrids
HYBRID PROCEDURES/ COMBINED PROCESSES FACT FINDING
Process used in conjunction with other ADR procedures by which facts relevant to a controversy are determined.

MEDIATION/ ARBITRATION (MED/ARB)
Parties agree to mediate with stipulation that any issues not settled will be resolved by binding arbitration.

MULTI-STEP ADR
Progressive series of ADR processes utilized by parties to an agreement or dispute designed to give the parties an opportunity for achieving a resolution through the most effective forum. The process begins with low cost and informal procedures and moves towards more formal and costly methods. For example, if negotiations fail, mediation occurs; if that is unsuccessful, arbitration takes place.

TWO TRACK APPROACH
ADR processes or traditional settlement negotiations used simultaneously with litigation. Settlement discussions are often conducted by persons not involved in the litigation.

DAY BASEBALL
The parties give the neutral, at the end of the hearing, their last, best offer/demand. Having reviewed the evidence and listened to the testimony, the neutral picks one figure or the other as the award. This process encourages both sides to be as reasonable as possible in presenting their final positions.

NIGHT BASEBALL This option is similar to Day Baseball, except the parties seal their last, best offers instead of giving them to the neutral. After the neutral renders a decision, the party whose number is mathematically closer to the neutral's award prevails.

TELEMEDIATION Similar to Confidential Listener, except that an ADR Provider staff person works with each party to explore the respective merits of the party's case and attempts to mediate a resolution over the phone.

G. The Listener (Doctor-Patient-Model)
DEFINITION
A neutral third party appointed by the disputants to obtain a proposed final settlement offer from each party. Without disclosing the content, the Confidential Listener advises the parties if their offers are within a specified range. The range usually is agreed upon by the parties in advance, along with a mechanism for dividing the difference in the event that the offers overlap. If the offers are outside the specified range, the Confidential Listener may assist the parties in bridging the gap
and achieving a final settlement

NEUTRAL
Impartial third person selected by parties to listen to offers and facilitate settlement negotiations

ROLE OF LAWYERS
Can provide offer to listener and engage in settlement negotiations

ROLE OF PARTIES
Can provide offer to listener and engage in settlement negotiations

SCOPE OF PROCESS
Pursuant to agreement of parties; sometimes occurs during mediation as a means of closure; somewhat structured to ensure confidentiality

OUTCOME Negotiated settlement; Win - Win

H. Settlement
DEFINITION
Neutral individual, often a retired judge or professional attorney/mediator, listens to abbreviated presentation of case and renders an advisory opinion on factual or legal issues, as well as damages

NEUTRAL
Selected by parties or court to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of case; assists parties to reach settlement

ROLE OF LAWYERS
Summary presentation of case in best possible light; prepare client for negotiating

ROLE OF PARTIES
Available to answer questions, hear the other side's case; engage in settlement discussions

SCOPE OF PROCESS
Voluntary or court ordered; loose structure; non-binding; no witnesses; private; confidential

OUTCOME
Advisory evaluation designed to narrow issues and assist parties in settlement negotiations

I. Check-List for Conflict Management
Step 1: Identify The Issues In Dispute

* Coverage
* Personality Related
* Liability
* Evidence
* Damages
* Credibility

Step 2: What's At Stake?

What are the Insurer's Interests?
What are the Claimant's Interests?
What are the Plaintiff Attorney's Interests?
What are the Insured's Interests?
Are there any Critical or Key Controlling Interests?
What does each Party See as their Best Option?
What are the Realities vs. the Perceptions?

Step 3: Critical Information Analysis

What Information do We Need to Evaluate our exposure?
What Information do We Need to affect the Outcome?
What Information do They Need?
What Will it Cost to Get That Information?
Does "What's at Stake" Justify Getting the Information?

Step 4: Possible ADR Outcomes

Given the Issues, Stakes, Critical Information, etc.:
What are the Pros and Cons of each Process?
Are we Ready to Present?
Select our Preferred ADR Process.
Look to See if We Need an ADR "Plan B."

Step 5: Potential Proposals

What are the Proposals which Could be Made?
What Proposals Appear to be in Our Best Interest?
What Proposals do We think They will Consider?
What is Our Preferred Proposal?
What Objections can we Expect?

Step 6: Implement The Plan

Prepare our "Proposal" Conversation, Including:

* The Issues In Dispute - Get Confirmation!
* The Other Options We Considered and Dismissed
* The Mutual Benefits of Our Proposal
* Make our Proposal
* Handle Questions and Objections - Negotiate
* Get an Agreement on What will be Done

Mediation in Unternehmen

2008-04-27T06:54:00.000-07:00

Mediation wird in Unternehmen als Konfliktlösungssystem langsam aber sicher anerkannt. Leider ist die Akzeptanz nicht so verbreitet, dass sich dadurch ein Schwerpunkt erkennen liesse. Der Trend ist dennoch da und er wird noch weiterhin anhalten und in einen Prozess umwanden. Dieser Prozess wird weniger durch Erkenntnis der Teilnehmer als mehr durch realitätsbedingte Einsicht entstehen, dass Kosten und Ressourcen durch Mediation erheblich eingespart bzw. anders frei gesetzt werden könnten. Eine diesseits geführte Studie legt folgende Resultate vor:

· Konflikte verursachen hohe Kosten.
Mit durchschnittlich geschätzten 17 % der Arbeitszeit ist die Bewältigung von Konflikten ein
enormer Kostenfaktor in Unternehmen. Es lohnt sich daher, sich intensiv und systematisch mit
dem Umgang mit Konflikten im Unternehmen zu beschäftigen. Dennoch:

· Eine solche systematische Beschäftigung ist selten. Nur drei von 51 Antwortenden berichten
von einer Betriebsvereinbarung zum Umgang mit Konflikten. Und:

· Die Zufriedenheit mit dem praktizierten Konfliktmanagement liegt nur im mittleren Bereich.
Eher positive und eher negative Antworten halten sich beinahe die Waage.

· Mit Abstand die meisten Konflikte innerhalb von Unternehmen werden offenbar immer noch
per Vorgesetztenentscheidung gelöst.

· Nutzen für alle Beteiligten, Vertraulichkeit, Zukunftsorientierung und Beteiligung der Parteien
an der Lösungsgestaltung sind den Teilnehmern die wichtigsten Kriterien für eine gute Konfliktlösungsstrategie
innerhalb des Unternehmens – vier Forderungen, die Mediation in hohem Maße erfüllen kann.

· Mediation ist als Konfliktlösungsinstrument weithin bekannt.
Presse und trainierende/moderierende Zunft haben für große Verbreitung gesorgt.

· Mediation ist als Konfliktlösungsinstrument verbal akzeptiert
Die Teilnehmer halten Mediation für ein geeignetes Vorgehen in den von ihnen identifizierten
Haupt-Konfliktfeldern. Insbesondere sehen sie viele Anwendungsmöglichkeiten für Konflikte
innerhalb des Unternehmens und in privaten Fällen.

· Die Erwartungen an Mediatoren sind hoch: Nicht nur Neutralität und Sachlichkeit sind
wichtig, gefordert werden hohe soziale Kompetenz, persönliche Ausstrahlung, Erfahrung im
Umgang mit Konfliktparteien, Führungsstärke und Fairness bei der Leitung der Mediationssitzungen.

· Mediation kommt immer noch selten zur Anwendung
Nur 12 Teilnehmer kennen Mediationsfälle aus eigener Anschauung, nur vier gaben an,
dass Mediation im Unternehmen zum Einsatz kommt. Erst wenn mehr Menschen in den Unternehmen
den Sprung zur Anwendung wagen, können die positiven Erfahrungen bewirken,
dass sich das Verfahren auch in breiteren Kreisen durchsetzt.

Für Einzelheiten der Studie stehe ich unter intermediares@mac.com zur Verfügung.

Mediating Multi-Party Disputes

2008-04-27T06:29:00.000-07:00

When addressing conflictive issues, mediators are often confronted with multi-party disputes, conflicts involving more than two opposing parties.
Although the strategies discussed elsewhere on this site are helpful in these cases, several special considerations should be kept in mind:

- Spend extra time in pre-negotiation and needs assessment. This helps gain a sincere commitment to the process from all participants. It also clarifies how the issues are perceived from the various vantage points of the parties, minimizing surprise factors at the point of discussion.

- Use opening statements by participants as an opportunity for each person to share initial positions and be understood. An extra "restating ground rule" may be appropriate, where participants are asked to restate the previous person's viewpoint before presenting their own. Don't rush past initial statements, despite pressure to get on with business.

- Actively seek common ground early, not to minimize areas of difference, but to clarify them. By identifying issues that can be resolved in light of these areas of agreement, support can be built for continued dialogue.

- Recognize that several levels of negotiation need to occur. Cross-group discussion is the primary focus of substantive negotiation, but within-group communication is important to psychological and procedural needs in conflict. Try to allow time for dialogue within smaller groups, while keeping large group discussions focused on the explicit tasks of the group.

- Whenever possible, have subgroups form that break down old coalitions. This may offer participants the chance to shift from adversarial to solution-oriented relationships. If the group has multiple meetings, they provide excellent opportunities to establish task forces, project teams and information gathering groups, which rearrange traditional alliances.

- Be sensitive to the tension between being (social cohesiveness) and doing (task effectiveness) within the group. Managing this inevitable tension requires great skill on the part of the mediator. Disputants often have a profound experience in "knowing the enemy." This is valuable for its own sake, aside from substantive progress, and could translate into goodwill that is valuable in other settings. The mediator needs to constantly check with the group to be sure that any urge to be solution-oriented is a focus they continue to share, and help members realistically comprehend consequences of their decisions.

- Be especially sensitive to the role of moderates and extremists within the meeting. Moderates are defined here as those who demonstrate flexibility in negotiation. This includes a willingness to consider a variety of options and a desire to attend to others' needs in negotiation. Extremists in this context are those who rigidly hold on to a minority position. They narrowly define the agenda and often sabotage efforts by others (even in their own camp) to negotiate. In such multi-party disputes, it is critical to empower the moderates to "find their voices," and be sure their views are clearly expressed. Extremists tend to dominate such discussions, fearing that their concerns will lose if they don't argue forcefully: They need to be able to express their concerns and have them acknowledged, but this must occur within a context that allows all views to be represented with integrity at the table.

- Continue to be vigilant regarding your neutrality throughout the process. Major issues raised by ad hoc subgroups should be brought back to the larger group for resolution. Watch for possibly biased responses to extremists within the group; since they may be exhibiting attitudes you do not share, biases may lurk just beneath the surface of the meeting and emerge in subtle language or non-verbal behaviors. You may find it beneficial to "de-brief" during such experiences with a colleague as a reality check for your neutrality in the dispute.

(adapted from Harry Webne-Behrman, The Practice of Facilitation, Quantum Books, 1998. Used with permission of the author. All rights reserved.)

International Mediation

2008-03-24T09:52:00.000-07:00

From a technical point of view, intercultural mediation is nothing more than a composition of the principles of mediation and the intercultural components of the parties or the cultural location of the conflict. Nevertheless, the methodology for a mediator in intercultural relations is quite different than the regular intra-cultural conflict. Today’s intercultural conflict resolution is framed by the effects of migration, globalization and internet. This paper/workshop will start by briefly recalling the basic principles and phases of mediation in order to provide the starting point for the intercultural take. This refresher will lead into a basic framework of terminology leading the interculturally active mediator into his dispute resolution design, such as the definition of conflict resolution, active listening, etc. The second part of the presentation will present two practical examples on international mediation. At first, international mediation in African civil wars will be used to develop a framework of 6 principles of mediation in intra-state conflict, such as: mediators must not be partisan; the parties must consent to the mediation and the appointment of the mediator; conflict cannot be resolved quickly or easily; the parties must own the settlement; mediators must be flexible; and mediators must not apply punitive measures. Hence, this development focuses on the mediator’s strategy and tactics as variables that enhance or diminish the prospect of success. Both substantive and emotional dimensions need to be addressed if the conflict is to be resolved.
For more, please visit the American Conflict Resolution Annual Conference in New York City from June 26th - 27th, 2008, http://www.acrnet.org

A Framework of Dispute Resolution

2008-03-23T15:31:00.000-07:00

While preparing the conflict resolution design, the mediator has to master his knowledge of legal issues, psychology, human geography, communication styles and methodology of mediation. To help him build up a concept of operations, here is a litte overview of the most important topics for a dispute settlement design:

Conflict and violence are not the same thing
Conflict can be defined as a state of disharmony between persons, ideas, or interests, and is used to denote both a process and a state of being. Violence is commonly defined as the aggressive use of force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or coercing, as well as an abusive or unjust exercise of power. Whereas conflict is not inherently negative or damaging, and can in fact produce positive outcomes, violence always results in injury and destruction.

Adversarial versus cooperative approaches to conflict
Adversarial approaches to dispute settlement occur when parties in conflict perceive themselves as opponents competing for mutually incompatible outcomes in which one side wins and the other loses. Typically, issues in dispute become polarized, feelings and perceptions become hostile, options are narrowed, communication between parties is restricted or non-existent, and disputants strive for all-or-nothing solutions. By contrast, the cooperative or problem-solving approach involves both sides collaborating - merging resources to seek solutions that address everyone's interests and are mutually beneficial. This approach to dealing with conflict is characterized by the use of joint problem-solving techniques, respectful communication and the pursuit of win-win solutions.

Advocating for common ground
"Understand the differences, act on the commonalities." Today's problems - whether ethnic, environmental, or economic - are too complex and interconnected to be resolved on an adversarial basis. It is our assumption that everyone's interests are best served by reframing the issues in a non-adversarial way, and advocating for a process that can maximize the gain of all those with a stake in the outcome. While ethnic, cultural and religious disparities may seem insurmountable in difficult conflict situations, common ground between parties can be found where interests overlap, and mutually beneficial solutions can come to the fore.

Impartiality versus neutrality You can be impartial, if not completely neutral. Being partial means defending one side or the other. Being impartial is working with people on both sides - our hearts might go out to those we feel have been wronged, naturally - however, our work is to bring people to the table to talk, to get them into dialogue about what they can do to improve the situation. We are not advocates for either side, but for finding common ground: it is not about justice for one but justice for all.

Reframing
Reframing, or creating a new context, is a technique of shifting the perception of a situation or problem to give it a different and/or more constructive interpretation. In mediation and negotiation, this method is used to recast a conflict in neutral terms to break deadlocks or stalemates and make further progress in attaining a joint resolution. In popular management literature, it is often referred to as causing a paradigm shift.

Conflict management versus conflict resolution
For those unfamiliar with the terminology of this field, there can be great confusion about these two concepts. Conflict management generally involves taking action to keep a conflict from escalating further - it implies the ability to control the intensity of a conflict and its effects through negotiation, intervention, institutional mechanisms and other traditional diplomatic methods. It usually does not address the deep-rooted issues that may be at the cause of the conflict or attempt to bring about a solution. Conflict resolution, by contrast, seeks to resolve the incompatibilities of interests and behaviours that constitute the conflict by recognizing and addressing the underlying issues, finding a mutually acceptable process and establishing relatively harmonious relationships and outcomes.

Choosing between hope and despair
It is human nature to experience feelings of despair, hopelessness and depression in destructive or intractable situations. We make the assertion that despair is a choice that hinders action. The people we work with on a daily basis are courageously choosing the alternative - hope - and are working through the personal anguish that arises in conflict situations to accomplish something constructive. The world is becoming more and more diverse, and its potential - both negative and positive - has never been greater. We believe it is critical to choose to work together creatively to turn that diversity into progress.

Breakdowns to breakthroughs
Often a breakdown in the functioning of a community, organization or government is considered a disastrous event with dire consequences. By shifting our perception, such occurrences can also be viewed as opportunities to step back and analyze problems, relationships and miscommunications. When the underlying causes of breakdowns are illuminated and addressed in this way it can lead to a breakthrough in cooperation and productivity. Learning from past difficulties is the surest way to avoid future mistakes and prevent conflicts from reoccurring.

Positions versus interests
Positions are points of view that are generally more specific and narrower in scope than interests, which typically underlie (and can include many) positions. Interests tend to be fundamental needs, while a position is often a statement of opinion about how to achieve that need. A position is much more easily altered than an interest. There are always places where parties' interests overlap in a conflict, whereas positions may appear mutually exclusive. The more intense the dispute, the farther apart positions tend to be from each other.

Attack problems, respect people
Transforming conflict can be as simple as reframing a situation - creating a new context in which people attack problems, rather than each other. The perception of a situation can be shifted so that both sides are working together on a common problem, rather than seeing each other as the problem. To address the problem in a cooperative problem-solving manner, it is important to discover mutual interests, generate options and develop agreements as steps for maintaining harmonious relations while dealing with problems directly.

Active listening
When two parties in conflict are speaking with each other, one or both sides are often more concerned with formulating a response and winning the argument than listening attentively. Active listening is a structured form of communication that focuses the attention on the speaker in order to improve mutual understanding and facilitate problem solving. The listener must attend fully to the speaker, and then reflect back what he or she has heard; enabling both parties to find out if the message was fully understood. This process serves to reduce misunderstandings, encourage positive exchanges, and deepen mental and emotional understanding of each side's concerns to create a relationship conducive to mutual problem-solving.

Active speaking
Active speaking is a communication process whereby a speaker appeals to another individual's higher self - the deepest level of humanity within each individual where dignity, integrity and compassion resonate the strongest. Often the key to achieving this is for the speaker to come from a place of respect, compassion and understanding. Active speaking is a courageous, creative act that usually requires the speaker to rise above their fears and concerns and speak from their own highest sense of self.

Perceptions versus reality
From the conflict resolution perspective, the absolute reality of a conflict situation is often less important than what each party's perception of that situation is. For example, while there may be no actual stated threat of violence between groups, the simple perception of a threat may be enough to bring one or both disputants to action. It is necessary to consider perceptions objectively and without value judgments, in an attempt to determine how such perceptions can create misunderstandings, limit options and hinder communication.

Transforming stereotypes
Typically in protracted conflicts, extremely negative stereotypes of opposing parties form based on their group identities. This can lead to dangerous assumptions that can devolve to the point where adversaries become dehumanized, opening the door to violence and genocide. One of our main goals in working with identity-based conflicts is to shift such negative perceptions, re-humanizing combatants in each other's eyes and paving the way for cooperative problem-solving. Methods for transforming stereotypes include facilitating inter-group contact, conducting workshops and activities that help to build social cohesion, and providing information via mass media that reduces the fear and misunderstanding.

Expanding identity
Often in violent, intractable conflicts, group identity is the central dividing factor around which a dispute revolves. Such a partition of identity creates an "us versus them" mentality, which inhibits communication and diminishes peaceful resolution options. In order to remove these barriers, an overarching level of identification that includes both parties must be developed, thereby creating a new category, which places disputants in a better position to work toward a common future. A successful example of expanding identity is South Africa's transformation from the divisive apartheid system of Blacks versus Whites into the inclusive Rainbow Nation.

Reference: Yarn, D., 1999, Dictionary of Conflict Resolution. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.

Mediation Services by Professionals

2008-02-29T07:25:00.000-08:00

Professional Mediation Services

Richard E. Lutringer

Richard E. Lutringer concentrates his practice in international business and finance. He is experienced in legal problems of mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, licensing, distribution, alternative dispute resolution and corporate finance.

Mr. Lutringer has published several articles concerning foreign investment and related topics, and he frequently speaks at seminars across the country and in Germany on legal issues relating to investing and doing business in the United States.

Contact:
900 3rd Avenue 23rd Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212 745 0820, Email: rlutringer@mac.com

Seven Principles for Moving Forward Negotiations

2008-02-29T07:18:00.000-08:00

Like it or Not, the United States and Iran are Partners: Seven Principles for Moving Forward Negotiations
by Bill Lincoln, Robert Benjamin, Polly Davis and Seth Kane

There is a point to be made and not to be forgotten: Conflict adversaries such as the United States and Iran are indeed the partners which each other needs and seeks if they are to prevent, manage and resolve dysfunctional conflict. While the nuclear issue is seemingly the focal point of the conflict, in reality it is the overall US-Iranian relationship that must be addressed if stability and real security is to be achieved in the region.

Within the certainty and fair provisions of international law, Iran – as do all nations – has the right to develop nuclear capabilities solely for peaceful purposes yet subject to the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Similarly, the United States – as do all nations – has the right to be actively concerned about its own security and those of its allies. The principles of self-sufficiency of one nation and the security of another are apparent competing principles.

The International Coalition of Concerned Mediators (ICCM), a project of The Conflict Resolution, Research and Resource Institute (CRI) , respectfully submits that to date an intelligent, muscular, and realistic negotiation effort has not been undertaken by the United States and Iran to resolve their differences.

We are an organization of professional conflict management professionals whose daily work concerns the negotiated settlement of complex, difficult, and often intractable issues and disputes that many think insoluble – from matters of business, to geo-political and major public policy matters. Our careers have been dedicated to the study and development of practical expertise in preventing, managing and resolving conflicts. Our job as impartial players is to actively work to bring adversaries together, and to keep them engaged so that dysfunctional conflict can be addressed more effectively as well as equitably and efficiently.

We are deeply concerned that such professional attitudes and attention are not being exhibited in this situation. We strongly believe that action must be taken to effectively prevent what appears to be the very real prospect of war. Too many times in history the leaders of nations have proceeded to war without first sufficiently pursuing honest and productive negotiations free of threats and ultimatums.

Several nations within the European Union as well as Russia are proactive in attempting to ward off military confrontation. Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is assertively fulfilling its mandate to objectively monitor and ensure Iranian compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nonetheless, the broader international community is well aware that resolving the nuclear issue is unlikely if the animosity between the USA and Iran is not directly and effectively addressed -- and soon.

We fully acknowledge that negotiations involving the USA and Iran will not be easy. However, as seasoned and realistic conflict management professionals we also know that necessary channels for direct negotiations must be opened and engaged immediately.

Both Iran and the United States have rich cultures and histories, both have contributed to betterment of the world, and both are worthy of respect. However, both countries have also engaged in demonizing the other in ways that are all-too-typical in conflict escalation.

We are not interested in picking sides, casting blame or commenting on the substantive issues of contention. Based on our collective professional experience as impartial practitioners we would like to offer our insights on how the process of talks can be improved and advanced so that violent conflict can be avoided.

AS PROFESSIONAL CONFLICT MANAGERS WE PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING STEPS BE UNDERTAKEN IMMEDIATELY:

First, a key myth about negotiations must be dispelled, namely, that one can never negotiate with any other entity that it doesn’t trust.

To dispel such a hypothesis we only have to ask how much did North Korea and the United States trust each other in the cease-fire talks in 1952-1953? At first, absolutely zero. And how much trust existed between Israel and Egypt in the September 1978 Camp David Talks to end dysfunctional conflict between the two nations? Again, none. All through the cold war how much did the United States and the Soviet Union trust each other in disarmament talks? Not at all. And, of course, the current ongoing North Korea six party talks that have produced tangible benefits proceed with a distinct lack of trust. The key is can the disputing parties develop a process that they trust, a process that monitors the agreement and contains an enforceable future dispute resolution clause to address infractions, alleged breaches and unanticipated variables.

Countless historical examples demonstrate that negotiations have a chance for success despite past failures. Numerous and tireless efforts for peace were required in the case of Northern Ireland to finally achieve the levels of stability and cooperation that we witness today. Indeed, every successful peace settlement or rapprochement has succeeded in the face of skeptics arguing that talks were useless by citing past failures as evidence .

Second, negotiations cannot begin with “first, fair and final offers” particularly when such stances represent the insisted upon final results of a process that has yet to begin. Demands to accept certain specific substantive proposals as a pre-condition for talks are typically ‘non-starters’, and too easily can close down the possibility of negotiation before they even begin. Productive negotiations are comprised of bargaining ranges, not ultimatums.

Third, both the United States and Iran must stop focusing upon proposals that are non-inclusive of the other nation’s legitimate principles, i.e., “interests.” In so doing, the United States and Iran have to give more attention to their own as well as each other’s principles, and how such can be satisfied in equitable, practical and durable ways.

Both nations and all related entities must remember that conflict is rooted in a sense of competing principles such as a nation’s subjectively defined and valued notions of its sovereignty, its independence, its national culture and character, its security, its international political credibility and stability, its economic health, its functional amicability with other nations and so forth. It is such principles that “are at stake”, i.e., thus emphasizing the disputants as “legitimate stakeholders” in contrast to being merely arrogant or intransigent opponents. In doing so, one must be aware that the different histories, cultures, emotions, values and beliefs held by conflicting parties often play havoc with others’ definitions of rationality.

It follows then that conflict resolution occurs when disputing parties no longer sense that their respective principles are in dysfunctional competition with one another. Therefore both Iran and the United States must identify, discuss and clearly understand their own as well as the other’s principles, and to be ever mindful of them throughout negotiations. In fact, every proposal put forth must contain three components: (i) articulation of one’s own principles, (ii) verifiable case merits, and (iii) rational as to why the other side would even be seriously interested in considering the proposal, i.e., what principles/interests of theirs would be satisfied.

Fourth, procedural agreements are a vital stepping-stone to achieving substantive agreements.

Too often parties, “in the interest of time”, discount the importance of developing procedural agreements as mere preliminaries that can be rushed or even ignored. Procedural agreements are not “preliminaries”, but are prerequisites: A process of negotiations does not exist without them. Contesting parties negotiate procedural agreements that become the framework through which the causes will be discussed, issue items will be addressed and proposals will be negotiated. Below are some of the key functions, purposes and benefits of developing procedural agreements:

- Experience indicates that conflicting parties tend to negotiate procedural matters in the same way they intend to negotiate substantive matters, thus this initial step serves as a kind of dress rehearsal as to what to expect and what to do to enhance civility and productivity.

- By mutually determining who the primary stakeholders will be in the process an arena is formed that helps manage the conflict.

- By agreeing upon both internal and external behaviors as well as communication guidelines that will be permitted during the negotiations a framework for productive exchanges and conflict management is established.

- Procedural agreements can monitor substantive negotiations. After all, if a party cannot keep little agreements then what is the likelihood that they can keep big agreements – if a party cannot keep procedural agreements what is the likelihood that they can or will maintain substantive agreements?

- The conflicting parties become equal architects of the process in which they will collectively engage, thus developing senses of procedural equity and procedural ownership that contribute much to “procedural satisfaction” which is a central component for developing and maintaining durable agreements.

- While the contesting sides may have doubted that they could ever agree on anything, the process of procedural development has them working together, agreeing together, and getting into a “yes” habit.

- Procedural agreements can be used to specify various timelines thus hindering either side from using the pretext of negotiations as a stalling tactic.

Fifth, any productive negotiations involving the United States and Iran cannot constitute a “one issue agenda.” It must be acknowledged that both nations have several issues to be addressed with related proposals to be negotiated. Moreover, having multiple issues on the agenda increases the likelihood that quid pro quos will be identified and utilized successfully towards building a final agreement.

Not one, but both the United States and Iran are rightfully concerned for their need to strive for their own energy self sufficiency, free from dependency on other nations’ resources and commercial interests. Not one, but both nations are concerned about secure protection from nuclear threats within the region and to themselves. Not one, but both nations are concerned with what they deem and profess are their rights and needs to be influential players within the region.

The United States and Iran as well as the United Nations, and the European Union must accept that other items are linked to the issue of nuclear enhancement including matters pertaining to Israel, Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan. Clearly the menu is vast and complicated yet it can be fractionated in ways that permit all issues to be addressed systematically and thoroughly. Agenda development is the right and responsibility of both primary parties, not just one.

Sixth, serious conflicts seldom can be solved immediately or by force. The integration of patience and persistence draw adversaries into the process of productive negotiations.

Many times it is more fruitful to commence substantive negotiations by addressing items that are less pressing than main menu items in order to develop an incremental pattern of progress that can carry over to address the more difficult and complex matters. While at times tedious and exhausting, this is where, when and how the real muscles of negotiation can be exercised. Indeed, the shortest distance between the points of origin of any conflict and its possible settlement outcomes is rarely a straight line.

Perhaps within and between some Western cultures it is expected that problems or conflicts should be solved directly and immediately, and that professional diplomacy is little more than endless and ineffectual talk that leads nowhere. However, the study of history and conflicts suggests otherwise. For example, the US-Cuba missile crisis of 1962 was ultimately resolved diplomatically whereby the US removed its missiles from Turkey in exchange for Russia first removing its missiles from Cuba.

Seventh, a moral issue is at stake: If negotiations are perceived to be merely perfunctory and as a pretext to military action then the future credibility of international negotiations by any nation for any purpose will be greatly diminished. If the United States or Iran takes military actions without having pursued a strenuous and good faith effort to negotiate then that war will be perceived as having been avoidable, and the lives lost and blood spilled a horrible and unnecessary waste. No one in good conscience, certainly and especially the leaders of the United States or Iran, should tolerate that prospect.

In conclusion, the world expects both nations to act toward one another in mature, responsible and productive ways in order that the United States, the region, and the world at large will benefit by their fair, functional and durable agreements.

The International Coalition of Concerned Mediators is committed to bringing to bear on this and other conflicts the best practices of professional negotiators and mediators. While not every dispute can be settled, many can be. And, everyone is well aware that to increase the likelihood of a settlement a realistic, persistent and good faith effort is required. To date that effort has not been either sincerely or effectively pursued.

Biography
The International Coalition of Concerned Mediators (ICCM) is comprised of over 1000 leading professional mediators and conflict management professionals from forty-seven countries. ICCM’s website is www.concernedmediators.org.

The Conflict Resolution Research and Resource Institute (CRI) is a non-governmental non-profit organization specializing in preventing, resolving and managing conflicts in the United States and around the world. CRI’s website is www.cri.cc.

The Mediation Room

2008-02-26T14:54:00.000-08:00

Mediation is a voluntary, non-binding process during which an impartial third-party, called a "mediator" or a "neutral," facilitates negotiations between the parties and assists them to make pragmatic, informed decisions to resolve the issues before them.
The mediator does not render any decisions on the merits of the dispute; instead, mediation helps the parties:
assess the perceived strengths and weaknesses of their position;
examine their needs and interests;
discuss settlement options; and
finalize a settlement agreement, if settlement is reached.

Because the parties themselves control the outcome, any resolution will be voluntary and mutually agreeable to all. The mediation process therefore often results in unique and creative solutions that allow each party to walk away believing that their objectives have been met.

Why Choose Mediation?
Mediation often offers several significant advantages over the traditional litigation process:
Control - Mediation affords the parties their only real chance to control the outcome of the litigation. The parties are only required to negotiate in good faith and only reach a resolution when all sides voluntarily agree to any proposed settlement. Because they are not formally bound by the strictures of the law, the parties are also free to discuss, and agree to, creative solutions and remedies that a court would not be able to grant. After reaching a settlement at mediation, each party should leave with the belief that they worked out a satisfactory solution. At a trial or arbitration, the judge, jury or arbitrator will ultimately make a decision as to the merits of each side's position, and render only such judgment and award as the law will allow. More often than not, a judicial award leaves one party feeling completely dissatisfied.
Confidentiality - Mediation is a strictly confidential process. This has two benefits to the parties. First, the matters discussed in a mediation, cannot be introduced as evidence or otherwise used in any subsequent legal proceeding. Free from the concern that their willingness to compromise might be used against them later, the parties can discuss candidly the strengths and weaknesses of their position, their underlying interests, and options for settlement. Second, the confidentiality of the process is especially useful if the subject matter of the suit is particularly sensitive. During litigation, the matters revealed in depositions, hearings and at trial, are typically a matter of public record.
Communication - A significant number of disputes involve parties with a preexisting and sometimes on-going relationship - whether personal or business. Litigation tends to polarize the parties, entrenching their positions and shutting down the communication process. With the guidance of the mediator, the parties are encouraged to communicate in a more effective manner. This may lessen the tension and misunderstanding that previously impeded negotiations between the parties.
Cost - The professional fees charged by the mediator are considerably less than the direct and indirect costs incurred during an average civil case. In addition to direct costs such as legal fees, witness fees, travel and document reproduction costs (which typically total in the tens of thousands of dollars), the parties will also incur the indirect costs caused by the interruption of their business (or personal lives) while they or their employees attend depositions, hearings or meetings with their attorneys. The U.S. Attorney's study found that attorneys that mediated their cases saved 89 hours in attorney and paralegal time and over $10,000 in costs compared to taking the matter to conclusion at trial.
Time - A successful mediation results in a much shorter process than litigation. A five-year study on the use of mediation by the U.S. Attorney's office showed that the average mediation lasted only seven hours, and resulted in a settlement in 63% of all cases. By comparison, it will likely take over two years for the average general civil litigation case to reach a conclusion at trial. Mediation provides an opportunity for the litigants to resolve their dispute in a timelier manner, allowing them to get on with their personal or business lives.
Flexibility - In the event the parties do not reach a solution during the mediation, they are free to continue the dialogue at a later date, or continue forward with the litigation process. The process is only binding if the parties reach an agreement.

Because the parties themselves control the outcome, any resolution will be voluntary and mutually agreeable to all. The mediation process therefore often results in unique and creative solutions that allow each party to walk away believing that their objectives have been met.

What Makes a Successful Mediation?
It is difficult to determine whether a mediation is "successful" merely by results. Most would consider a mediation that results in a settlement successful. Sometimes, however, the parties may decide that the legal issues involved are best left to the court to decide. That does not mean the mediation was "unsuccessful." What makes both scenarios examples of successful mediation is that the parties engaged in meaningful discussions, undertook some critical analysis of both sides of the dispute and reached an informed decision as to how they wished to proceed.

Parties that want to maximize their chances for a "successful" result should come prepared to do the following:
Engage in candid, honest discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of their case - Often, after living with a dispute for so long, parties (and their counsel) become increasingly convinced of the strength of their case. The parties must be willing to think critically about their position, and view their case as though looking at it through the eyes of the other party or the jury.
Remain flexible and consider alternative solutions to the dispute - In most cases, a court of law is only able to award monetary damages. At mediation, the parties can craft original, creative, and imaginative solutions that meet their needs and interests, but would otherwise be outside the court’s range of legal remedies.
Set aside sufficient time for the mediation and remain patient - While mediation is considerably faster relative to the months or years a case may take to come to trial, the process may take several hours. The parties should set aside a full day to participate in the mediation and remain patient while the mediator facilitates the discussions.
Bring someone with full authority to settle the matter - It is very important that all of the persons with decision-making authority attend the mediation. Not having a necessary decision maker at the table limits the chance of settlement. It may also appear that that party is not negotiating in good faith.

Mediation may not be right for every case and requires both parties to make a commitment to the process of mediation and display a willingness to compromise to be successful.

Thank to CKAMediation to provide this valuable insight into the basics of mediation.
Be sure to be following these series of minute briefings.
The upcoming topic will be dealing with intercultural mediation ... right here .... on this blog!

The Location of Intercultural Mediation

2007-11-30T15:10:00.000-08:00

Intercultural Mediation takes place in a space of interferences between different settings and types of aculturation, culture and behavior. Each and every party comes into the mediation space with its own "bag", comprised of thoughts, beliefs, fears, and expectations. The mediation has the task to build up a space of credibility and trust between the parties, leveling the power inbalances andsupport the parties on their way to the ownership of their own decisions.

couleur cafe

2007-05-15T09:33:00.000-07:00

it is again time for some nice and fresh world music, and certainly one of the best international music festival is going to be in brussels, from june 29th-july 1st, 2007, hosting a humonguous amount of stars, like sean paul, gotan project, manu dibango, ziggy marley, live from buena vista, ismael lo, horace andy, and many, many, manymanymany more. please do not sit back a dn relax but go to find out more on prices and the concert schedule at http://www.couleurcafe.be or http://www.myspace.com/festivalcouleurcafe

conflict management systems

2006-08-21T14:28:00.000-07:00

being asked about my occupation, my activities, my job, i once replied in a dry manner: "i am a mediator". this caused my discussion partner to be dazzled and you could tell from his eyes and his frown that there was certain kind of connection, of linkage to something, but he couldn't tell right away what it was. it was at the same instant when another member of the group explained what it really means. the other partner hit himself on the forehead, turned to me with a smile, and said: "i thought you were a medium, getting in touch with the deads and such!". i must admit, it was the first time i recall the word causing such a connection.
other definition weren't that far off of this previous example: some comments suggest that i would sit down on a rug, hold my clients by the hand, and mediTate.
without getting to deep into the subject and the issue that though mediation as such has already gotten through the popular channels of internet and media in general, it is still a very unknown tool to many of the people.

i have been working in the field of mediation for quite a while and i have seen the struggling of establishing a definition which automatically leads to certain assumptions and understanding on the meaning and purpose of this communication tool. because it is basically about communication.

trying to place the mediation process in the general world of conflict resolution, it can be said that it is the sole tool which is structured and led by a neutral third party, asking for interests and emotions and working towards a sustainable agreement.

in the field of intercultural mediation, proconsensus has established a conflict management systems for the corporate world but which can nevertheless be extended to several areas. based on the principles of organisation theories, systemic theories, social constructivism, cosmopolitanism and the well-known bible of negotiations, the harvard-principles, the conflict management system according to proconensus serves a wide range of clients at the same level of effectivity. the primary objective of this type of conflict management system is not to act in regard of the specific situatioin in a patchy way, but to recognize, understand and analyze conflicts at the earliest possible stages and to effectively solve it with the respective dispute resolution tool or with a synergy of tools.

proconsensus combines all the types of the dispute resolution models and tools to a powerful system that serves the client at the fullest extent.
if you want to find out more about this topic, please do not hesitate to drop a mail at proconsensus@proconsensus.org and request more information.

by jose pascal da rocha, intercommadvisor@mac.com

Mediation: Effective alternative to dispute resolution

2006-02-08T08:41:00.000-08:00

Mediation is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as ``a private, informal dispute resolution process in which a neutral third party, the mediator, helps disputing parties to reach an agreement.''

In contrast, arbitration is a formal, quasi-judicial process where a neutral third party, `the arbitrator' renders a binding award on the basis of material placed before him. Arbitration proceedings closely mirror proceedings in a court of law.

In a voluntary effort, the mediator facilitates communication between parties and encourages settlement. There is, unlike in arbitration, considerable latitude available to the mediator, as he can privately discuss the merits of a dispute with each party individually -- unthinkable in the adversarial arbitration process.

In this context, there seems to be a considerable lack of clarity as to the scope of the words `mediation' and `conciliation'. There is, for example, no consistency in the use of these terms worldwide, and a number of ADR systems perceive them to be synonymous. The US and Australia use the term `mediation' while `conciliation' is commonly used in China, Japan, Thailand and Singapore.

Black's Law Dictionary also fails to resolve this distinction, if any, by defining the word `conciliation' as ``the adjustment and settlement of a dispute in a friendly, unantagonistic manner, used in courts with a view to avoiding trial and in labour disputes before arbitration.''

It is interesting that the United Nations Commission on International Trade Laws (UNCITRAL) has rules for conciliation and not for mediation, while the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has rules for mediation but none for conciliation. Even the CPC (Amendment) Act incorporates, for the purposes of mediation and conciliation, the language used in the UNCITRAL Rules for Conciliation, thus perpetuating this verbal ambiguity. One is also, of course, tempted to ask why a reference to both conciliation and mediation is made in the CPC (Amendment) Act, if both are the same.

As the French arbitrator Professor Charles Jarrosson says, there is a subtle difference between mediation and conciliation -- one of degree rather than nature. Mediation is a more proactive form of conciliation, the latter being more passive in the sense that the conciliator has an evaluative role as opposed to the facilitative role of the mediator. Unlike a mediator, who has to be active and see that justice is done, the conciliator is a withdrawn neutral.

Why mediate?

The primary reason for mediation is always that litigation is time-consuming and expensive, and a litigant typically has little control over the litigation and the final orders passed. Mediation, by comparison, has certain inherent advantages that are particularly useful to a financial institution (FI).

First, the process can be slotted into a specific time period, as the FIs and banks may deem fit. Second, the conduct of a borrower in the mediation process is a good indicator of his conduct in future dealings. A promoter's reluctance to participate and co-operate in the mediation process or to repay dues, and his actions in the course of mediation, are indicative of his actions in future litigation and thus help chart the institution's future strategy, such as the timing of its recovery actions.

Moreover, the institution typically blocks up a portion of its resources to grant reliefs and concessions to its borrowers. Reschedulement of loans; waivers of compound interest and liquidated damages; and reduction in the rates of interest are extended to most defaulting borrowers. The conduct of the promoters in mediation helps identify the promoter/company to whom such concessions should justifiably be extended.

When to seek it

Ideally, mediation should be resorted to before litigation, when positions are more flexible and before substantial sums have been spent. Typically, there is a time difference between an account becoming irregular and recovery suits being filed against a company. It is in this period that mediation may be resorted to by companies between whom channels of communication have broken down.

It could be a handy tool to assess the promoters' commitment, preparedness to meet eventualities, capacity to bring in additional contribution or enhance security, before the company slips further and finally becomes a non-performing asset (NPA) or before a hostile atmosphere sets in.

Every FI has a certain component of defaulters whose businesses have failed or who are in distress on account of legitimate reasons. There is yet another class of wilful defaulters, who typically render their businesses sick after siphoning off funds from the company. Financial distress in these companies is induced. In both types of cases comes a stage when entreaties asking the companies to pay up no longer generates a satisfactory response. It is at this stage when the institution could consider inviting both sides to try mediation.

Mediation also proves useful when it is used to help sides take positions in complex financing arrangements. While negotiating structured financial deals, there could be times when mediators are required to assist the parties analyse competing positions. Given the fact that every representative can at best appreciate his own position, a mediator sometimes helps one side perceive the inherent logic in the opposite point of view.

Effectiveness

The success of mediation always depends on goodwill and a willingness to resolve disputes. Its voluntary and informal nature allows parties to evaluate the progress made in resolving their dispute and offers them the option to exit an unfruitful exercise; such freedom is not available to those involved in litigation or arbitration.

Despite the factors limiting the efficacy of mediation, it undoubtedly remains as a strong tool in the hands of participating institutions, to devise a mutually acceptable and workable reschedulement of debt in potentially stressful cases. By and large, mediation tends to succeed, and personal commitment and involvement in finding solutions could be more effective than Court orders.

Some Case studies

The Microsoft anti-trust case is a fascinating study of the mediation process (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,68407,00.asp, accessed Febr. 8th, 2006, 3:30 p.m. GMT, and for more on the case: http://www.mywiseowl.com/articles/Microsoft_antitrust_case, accessed Febr. 8th, 2006, 2:30 p.m. GMT).

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson hearing the matter referred it for voluntary mediation to Justice Richard A. Posner, a sitting Federal US Judge, in November 1999. The entire process of mediation took four months as opposed to two- to three-year period it was likely to take in the courts. Expressing his disappointment at the failure of the process, Judge Posner made certain observations about the criticality of success in such matters and how the success of mediation would have been in national interest.

According to Justice Posner, almost twenty drafts of the consent decree were prepared in the matter, but disagreements, between the parties concerning the likely course, the outcome and consequences of continued litigation as well as the implications and ramifications of alternative terms of settlement, were too deep seated to be bridged (see: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cyberspace/jan-june00/posner_4-3.html, accessed Febr. 8th, 2006, 5:20 p.m. GMT)

The last word about the mediation came from Bill Gates himself who, while insisting that the details of the mediation were confidential, pointed out that ``it was unfortunate that a settlement wasn't possible. Microsoft had offered concessions beyond what a court would have requested, and mediation failed because of the difficulty in finding a common ground among so many parties.''

In 1999, Afro-American farmers filed what became the largest civil rights class action lawsuit in US history (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/1299/ijde/pitts.htm, accessed Febr. 8th, 2006, 2:00 p.m.).

The suit, namely, Black farmers v. The Department of Agriculture, alleged discrimination by US Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) in delaying or denying loans and withholding technical assistance crucial to the farmers' livelihoods. The parties agreed to mediation pending litigation, with the USDA taking the lead. Though in the early stages eight attempts failed, mediation finally succeeded, making it the largest recovery in a civil rights case in the history of the country and set a precedent, avoiding long and costly court proceedings in future civil cases. Asked why the Government agreed to such a large settlement, an official responded saying that as the USDA decided it could not win the suit in a court -- as there had been discrimination -- they thought it best to arrive at a settlement through mediation rather than pay the huge damages which a court order would have entailed.

by jose pascal da rocha, josepascal.darocha@proconsensus.org

zeitliche ereignisabfolge des karikaturenstreits (englisch)

2006-02-07T14:07:00.000-08:00

here is the time line in question for the actual clashes over the
cartoons in a danish magazine:

30 Sept 2005: Danish paper publishes cartoons
20 Oct: Muslim ambassadors complain to Danish PM
10 Jan 2006: Norwegian publication reprints cartoons
26 Jan: Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador
30 Jan: Gunmen raid EU's Gaza office demanding apology
31 Jan: Danish paper apologises
1 Feb: Papers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain reprint cartoons
4 Feb: Syrians attack Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus
5 Feb: Protesters sack Danish embassy in Beirut

by jose pascal da rocha

intercultural competence

2006-01-30T16:20:00.000-08:00

Zur interkulturellen Kompetenz:

Vor dem Hintergrund kulturell spezifischer Wissensbestände, die der Kommunikation als selbstverständlich zugrunde liegen, erscheint Kommunikation zwischen Menschen mit unterschiedlichen Wissensbeständen als besonders zerbrechlich. Karlfried Knapp folgert daraus, dass die Gefahr von MissverstŠndnissen in derartigen Situationen stark ansteigt. Missverständnisse können zunächst bei einer unterschiedlichen Interpretation der propositionalen Ebene einer Aussage auftreten (Sach- bzw. Inhaltskommunikation nach Watzlawick). Als schwerwiegender und gleichzeitig häufiger auftretend stuft Knapp jedoch Missverständnisse aufgrund unterschiedlicher Interpretationen der metakommunikativen, sozialen Bedeutung einer Aussage ein(Beziehungskommunikation nach Watzlawick). Knapp definiert eine so genannte intercultural conflict competence, eine interkulturelle Konfliktfähigkeit, die es Interaktionspartnern ermöglichen soll, Konflikte in interkulturellen Situationen vorherzusehen, ihnen vorzubeugen, und im "Ernstfall" kooperativ mit ihnen umzugehen. Innerhalb der Sozialpsychologie werden derartige Fähigkeiten häufig mit folgenden englischsprachigen Schlagworten und Eigenschaften umrissen: - display of respect: die Fähigkeit gegenüber anderen Personen Respekt sowie eine positive Einschätzung des Gegenübers auszudrücken,- interaction posture: die Fähigkeit, anderen Personen ohne Vorurteile entgegenzutreten- empathy: Empathie, die Fähigkeit, sich in andere Personen hineinzuversetzen- tolerance for ambiguity: Ambiguitätstoleranz bezeichnet die Fähigkeit, unbekannte und unsichere Situationen ohne sichtliches Unbehagen oder Irritation zu meistern.
Knapp 1998 und Knapp-Pothoff 1997 haben interkulturelle kommunikative Kompetenz auch aus linguistischer Sicht definiert. Sie verstehen dabei unter dieser Kompetenz die Fähigkeit eines Sprechers, in interkulturellen Kontaktsituationen Verstehen und Verständigung auf die gleiche Weise und mit der gleichen Qualität herzustellen wie in intrakulturellen Situationen. Konkret sprechen sie von der Fähigkeit, normalerweise unvorhersehbare Probleme in der Kommunikation, die
aufgrund von Fremdheit auftreten, zu antizipieren und zu kompensieren. Drei Komponenten erscheinen den Autoren besonders wichtig: 1. besondere Kenntnisse der kommunikativen Handlungsmuster
sowie die Fähigkeit, diese vor dem Hintergrund sowohl der eigenen als auch der Fremdkultur angemessen zu interpretieren,2. allgemeines Wissen über die Art des Verhältnisses zwischen

Kultur und Kommunikation (insbesondere die Abhängigkeit menschlichen Denkens und Handelns von kulturspezifischen kognitiven Schemata). ein
Vorrat an interaktionsstabilisierenden Strategien (z. B. um eine gemeinsame Basis auf der Beziehungsebene zu entwickeln oder um Irrtümer auf metakommunikativer Ebene wiedergutzumachen.
Nicht nur international agierende Wirtschaftsunternehmen, sondern auch immer mehr gemeinnützige Organisationen, Bildungseinrichtungen, etc. werden sich zunehmend der Problematik interkultureller Kommunikation bewusst und über eine wachsende Nachfrage von Maßnahmen, die ihren Mitarbeitern dazu verhelfen, eine höhere interkulturelle kommunikative Kompetenz zu erlangen. Den Wissenschaften fällt dabei die Aufgabe zu, ihre gewonnenen Kenntnisse in didaktische Materialien zu transferieren und umzusetzen. Dies geschieht derzeit größtenteils in Form von Implementierungen in
Lehrbücher im Fremdsprachenunterricht sowie in Form von meist mehrtätigen interkulturellen Trainingsseminaren. Knapp 1998 zitiert dabei drei unterschiedliche Trainingsansätze aus Landis/Brislin 1983:
- Informationsorientierte Trainings vermitteln Allgemeinwissen über die Kultur und kommunikative Eigenheiten eines einzelnen, ausgewählten Ziellandes.
- Trainings zur interkulturellen Sensibilisierung simulieren konkrete Kontaktsituationen. Die Teilnehmer werden Schritt für Schritt fremd anmutenden Situationen ausgesetzt, die als charakteristisch für die jeweilige Zielkultur erachtet werden. Die Teilnehmer müssen dabei experimentell unterschiedliche kommunikative Strategien in der Situation
ausprobieren und lernen, deren Erfolgsaussichten zu beobachten.
- Interaktionsorientierte Trainingsbringen Teilnehmer aus unterschiedlichen Kulturen miteinander in realen Kontakt. In diesen Situationen erlernen die Teilnehmer interkulturell kooperatives, kommunikatives Verhalten und internalisieren es gleichzeitig aufgrund
der realen übungssituation.

proconsensus
toronto.boston.cologne.singapore
jose pascal da rocha
p.o. box 301011
d-50780 koeln
germany

About Mediation/Über Mediation (german)

2006-01-29T15:22:00.000-08:00

Über Mediation / Was ist Mediation?

Mediation ist ein außergerichtliches Konfliktlösungsverfahren, in dem die Konfliktpartner selbstbestimmt rechtsverbindliche, zukunftsorientierte Lösungen entwickeln, bei der alle Seiten gewinnen. (Win-Win-Solution). Hierin werden sie von einem neutralen, fundiert ausgebildeten Dritten, dem Mediator, unterstützt. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, mit geeigneten Kommunikations- und Verhandlungstechniken den Verständigungsprozess der Beteiligten zu fördern, zu führen und eine Klärung der Streitpunkte durch die Konfliktpartner herbeizuführen. Ziel der Mediation ist eine konfliktlösende Vereinbarung mit Bestand für die Zukunft.

Was kennzeichnet die Mediation?

Eigenverantwortung und Autonomie:
Die Konfliktparteien besitzen selbst die größte Kompetenz, ihren Streit zu lösen. Sie erarbeiten in eigener Verantwortung eine für sie maßgeschneiderte Lösung. Der Mediator hat keine eigenen Entscheidungskompetenzen. Er unterstützt den Kommunikationsprozess und ist für die Art und Weise des Vorgehens im Verlaufe der Streitbeilegung verantwortlich. Er leitet die Parteien an, schnelle, flexible und auch kostengünstige Regelungen zu finden, von denen alle Seiten profitieren.

Offenheit und Informiertheit:
Da die Mediation die Eigenverantwortung der Konfliktpartner in den Mittelpunkt stellt, ist es wichtig, dass die Medianten alle Tatsachen offen legen, die für die Lösung des Konflikts in der Mediation erheblich sind. Der Mediator achtet darauf, dass sich die Konfliktpartner zu allen Detailfragen des zu lösenden Konflikts informieren, in dem sie ggf. den Rat eines Fachmanns einholen.

Neutralität und Allparteilichkeit:
Der Mediator setzt sich für die Interessen aller Konfliktpartner ein, er ist nicht nur neutral, sondern allparteilich. Er begibt sich nicht auf die Seite eines Konfliktpartners, sondern nimmt die Sichtweisen der Konfliktpartner gleichwertig und gleichmäßig wahr.

Freiwilligkeit:
Die Mediation ist ein freiwilliges Verfahren. Jede Seite kann sie zu jedem Zeitpunkt ohne Begründung abbrechen.

Vertraulichkeit:
Weil die Mediation ein freiwilliges Verfahren ist, das auch jederzeit von einer Seite beendet werden kann, benötigen die Konfliktparteien Vertrauensschutz. Fakten, die die Medianten im Verlaufe der Mediation offen gelegt haben, dürfen daher nicht Dritten offenbart noch in einem gerichtlichen Verfahren gegen einen der an der Mediation Beteiligten verwendet werden. Mediatoren aus bestimmten Berufsgruppen, wie Rechtsanwälte und Psychologen, sind schon von Gesetzes wegen zur Verschwiegenheit verpflichtet. Die Konfliktpartner selbst vereinbaren zu Beginn einer Mediation vertraglich, die Vertraulichkeit zu wahren und nur gemeinsam den Mediator von seiner Schweigepflicht zu entbinden.

Über Mediation / Mediationsverfahren:

Das Mediationsverfahren unterliegt keinen gesetzlichen Regeln oder Formzwängen. Die Centrale für Mediation hat jedoch eine Verfahrensordnung erlassen, die Grundsätze zur ordentlichen Durchführung eines Mediationsverfahrens aufstellt. Interessenten können sie bei der Centrale für Mediation bestellen.

Das Mediationsverfahren verläuft grundsätzlich in fünf Phasen:

1. Phase: Mediationsvereinbarung:
In dieser Phase erläutert der Mediator den Konfliktpartnern im Einzelnen die Grundlagen der Mediation. Er informiert sie über den Ablauf des Mediationsverfahrens und vereinbart mit ihnen, welche Verfahrensregeln im Einzelnen gelten sollen. Der Mediator prüft außerdem, ob sich das Verfahren für die Beteiligten überhaupt eignet. Im Erstgespräch wird auch die Frage der Honorierung des Mediators besprochen.

2. Phase: Klärung der Konfliktfelder und der Themensammlung:
In dieser Phase wird geklärt, worüber zwischen der Parteien Uneinigkeit und worüber Einigkeit besteht. In einer Bestandsaufnahme werden dabei die klärungsbedürftigen Themen beider Seiten gesammelt. Mit Unterstützung des Mediators wird festgelegt, welche Tatsachen offen zu legen und welche Informationen beizubringen sind.

3. Phase: Bearbeitung der Konfliktfelder:
In dieser Phase spielt das Unterscheiden von Positionen und Interessen eine große Rolle. Der Mediation liegt der Gedanke zugrunde, dass es keine objektive Wahrheit gibt, sondern dass jeder Mensch seine eigene (subjektive) interessenbestimmte Wirklichkeit hat, die es zu erkennen und zu verstehen gilt. Das Aufdecken dieser Interessen mit Hilfe der Erkenntnisse der Kommunikationswissenschaft und bestimmter Fragetechniken fördert das wechselseitige Verständnis und die Akzeptanz der unterschiedlichen Sichtweisen. Das versetzt die Konfliktpartner in die Lage, zukunftsorientierte, wertschöpfende Optionen zu entwickeln.

4. Phase: Einigung:
Sind die Interessen genau herausgearbeitet, ist die Kreativität der Konfliktpartner gefordert. Mittels der Technik des Brainstormings und anderer Kreativitätstechiken werden Lösungsoptionen entwickelt. Anschließend werden die Optionen auf ihre Realisierbarkeit hin überprüft und die Vor- und Nachteile abgewogen. Hier zeigt sich der entscheidende Vorteil der Mediation: Die Abkehr vom Positionendenken hin zu zukunftsorientierten Interessen eröffnet Einigungsalternativen, die vorher gar nicht denkbar waren. Der zu verteilende Kuchen wird vergrößert. Die Parteien können das antagonistische Prinzip des Rechts, in der ein Anspruch entweder besteht oder nicht besteht, überwinden und zu sog. Win-win-Lösungen gelangen. Das Einigungsergebnis wird am Ende dieser Phase mit Hilfe des Mediators zusammengefasst.

5. Phase: Gestaltung und Abschlussvereinbarung:
Die Konfliktpartner beraten, soweit noch nicht geschehen, mit ihren Anwälten das erzielte Ergebnis und überprüfen, ob es gegenüber der Alternative einer Nichteinigung mit der Konsequenz einer gerichtlichen Auseinandersetzung Bestand hat. Die Vereinbarung wird abschließend entweder vom Mediator, wenn dieser Anwalt ist, sonst durch den von den Medianten zu Rate gezogenen Anwalt in die Form eines schriftlichen Vertrages gegossen und gegebenenfalls notariell beurkundet. Sofern es die Konfliktpartner wünschen, kann die Vollstreckbarkeit des Vertrages durch die notarielle Beurkundung, die Gestaltung als Anwaltsvergleich (§ 796 a ZPO) sichergestellt werden. Die Abschlussvereinbarung bietet damit hinsichtlich ihrer Durchsetzbarkeit die gleiche Sicherheit wie ein gerichtliches Urteil. Damit ist die Mediation abgeschlossen.

Über Mediation / Anwendungsbereiche:

Familienmediation:
Die Familienmediation ist in den 70er Jahren in den USA im Zusammenhang mit Sorgerechts- und Besuchsrechtsstreitigkeiten entwickelt worden und wird seitdem erfolgreich in Trennungs- und Scheidungsprozessen eingesetzt. In Deutschland hat sie sich seit Beginn der 80iger Jahre zunehmend etabliert.

Familienmediation betrifft in erster Linie die Regelung der Folgen von Trennung und Scheidung. Zu ihren inhaltichen Anwendungsfeldern gehören

* Umgangs- und Sorgerechtsregelungen
* Regelung von Unterhaltsfragen
* Aufteilung gemeinsamen Vermögens und der Alterssicherung
* Regelung der Verhältnisse an der Ehewohnung
* Aufteilung des Hausrats
* Lösung der Trennungskonflikte nicht verheirateter Paare

Erbmediation:
In fast 90 % aller Erbfälle hat der Erblasser seine Nachfolge weder durch Testament noch durch Erbvertrag geregelt. Folge ist oft heftiger Streit unter den Erben mit großer emotionaler Betroffenheit, der den Familienfrieden für Jahre zerstören kann. Ein anschließendes Gerichtsverfahren – teuer und langwierig - vertieft den Unfrieden.
Erbmediation zeigt als alternative Form der Streitbeilegung neue kreative und einvernehmliche Wege, zu einer interessengerechten Lösung für alle Beteiligten zu gelangen. Dies kann im Zuge der vorweggenommenen Erbfolge geschehen, bei der der Erblasser mit Unterstützung eines Mediators und unter Einbeziehung aller Erben und Vermächtnisnehmer ein von allen getragenes Konzept erarbeitet und damit langwierige Erbstreitigkeiten vermeidet.
Aber auch wenn der Erbfall schon eingetreten ist, können Erbengemeinschaften mit den Mitteln der Erbmediation ein individuell auf sie zugeschnittenes Konzept erarbeiten, in dem alle Interessen gleichermaßen Berücksichtigung finden. Zunehmend wird Mediation auch zur Regelung von familiären Konflikten bei Unternehmensnachfolgen eingesetzt.

Wirtschaftsmediation:
Im Wirtschaftsleben gewinnt die Mediation zunehmend an Bedeutung. Immer mehr Unternehmen nutzen die Mediation als kostengünstiges und effizientes Instrument zur Konfliktbearbeitung. In den USA werden seit über 20 Jahren – insbesondere auch in der Wirtschaft – gute Erfahrungen mit alternativen Konfliktlösungsmethoden wie der Mediation gemacht. Forschungsergebnissen zufolge haben Mediationen eine Erfolgsquote zwischen 70 - 90%, d.h. sie erbringen einen großen betriebswirtschaftlichen Nutzen. Aus diesem Grunde bauen auch immer mehr Firmen Mediation als festen Bestandteil in ihr Konfliktregelungssystem ein.
Die Anwendungsbereiche der Wirtschaftsmediation sind vielfältig und betreffen sowohl den innerbetrieblichen Bereich als auch Konflikte zwischen Unternehmen und mit Dritten:

* Konflikte am Arbeitsplatz, Teamkonflikte, Mobbing
* Umstrukturierungskonflikte
* Mitbestimmungskonflikte
* Tarifkonflikte
* Konflikte auf Managementebene
* Gesellschafterkonflikte
* Konflikte in Familienunternehmen, Unternehmensnachfolge
* Konflikte zwischen Geschäftspartnern und Konkurrenzfirmen
* Fusionen und Firmenübergänge
* Störungen in Kunden/Lieferantenbeziehungen
* Wettbewerbsstreitigkeiten

Mediation im öffentlichen Bereich:
Das Einsatzgebiet der Mediation im öffentlichen Bereich erfasst Auseinandersetzungen im Planungs-, Umwelt- und Bauwesen, etwa bei energie- abfall- oder verkehrspolitischen Vorhaben. Die Streitfälle sind gekennzeichnet durch die Beteiligung einer Vielzahl von Parteien mit divergierenden Interessen und die Komplexität der Konfliktthemen und –Konfliktgegenstände. Mediationen im öffentlichen Bereich finden häufig im Vorfeld von gesetzlich vorgeschriebenen Planungs- und Genehmigungsverfahren statt. Ziel sind die Beschleunigung oder Vermeidung von Verwaltungsverfahren und die Erreichung von allseits akzeptierten Lösungen.

Anwendungsbereiche können sein:

* Genehmigungsverfahren mit Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung
* Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungen
* Raumordnungsverfahren
* Bauleitplanung
* Industriean- und –umsiedlung
* Rekultivierungsvorhaben

Schulmediation:
Schulmediation ist eine pädagogische Methode zur Konfliktregelung und zur Gewaltprävention zwischen Schülerinnen und Schülern, Lehrkräften und Eltern. Ziel der Schulmediation ist es, den Schülerinnen und Schülern die Möglichkeit zu geben, ihre Konflikte eigenverantwortlich zu regeln. Am Ende dieses Prozesses stehen sozialkompetente und verantwortungsbewusste Menschen sowie die Entlastung von Lehrkräften und Eltern. Am verbreitetsten ist das Modell der Peer-Mediation, die Mediation durch Schülerinnen und Schüler, die an einem Training zum „Streitschlichter“ oder „Konfliktlotsen“ teilgenommen haben und die die Konfliktparteien bei der Regelung und Lösung ihrer Auseinandersetzungen tatkräftig unterstützen.

Ziel der Schulmediation ist es,

* das soziale Klima an der Schule zu verbessern,
* Teil der Gewaltprävention an Schulen zu sein,
* die Lehrkräfte von Alltagskonflikten der Schüler zu entlasten,
* Schülern durch Ausbildung zu Konfliktlotsen soziale Kompetenzen zu vermitteln,
* Toleranz und Konfliktfähigkeit zu fördern.

Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich:
Beim Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich erhalten Opfer und Täter Gelegenheit, ihren Konflikt unter Mitwirkung eines unbeteiligten Dritten – des Mediators – außergerichtlich zu regeln und sich über eine Wiedergutmachung zu verständigen. Er ist seit längerer Zeit schon in Strafprozessordnung und Strafgesetzbuch verankert. Zu kennzeichnenden Elementen des Täter-Opfer-Ausgleichs gehören Schadenswiedergutmachung, und Konfliktausgleich, im günstigsten Fall auch die dauerhafte Versöhnung zwischen den Beteiligten.
Die unmittelbare Gegenüberstellung im Gespräch hilft den Beteiligten, die Straftat aus unterschiedlichen Blickwinkeln zu sehen und die emotionale Seite des Konflikts aufzuarbeiten. Der Täter soll darüber hinaus für die beim Opfer hervorgerufenen Folgen seiner Straftat sensibilisiert werden und von der Begehung weiterer Straftaten abgehalten werden.

Der Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich umfasst regelmäßig:

* Konfliktberatung und/oder –Schlichtung,
* eine Vereinbarung über die Wiedergutmachung,
* die Berücksichtigung der Bemühungen des Täters im Strafprozess.

Über Mediation / Gerichtsnahe Mediation:

Gerichtsnahe Mediation in den Bundesländern:
Die positiven Erfahrungen mit Mediation im außergerichtlichen Bereich haben viele Landesjustizministerien veranlasst, auch bereits laufende gerichtliche Verfahren einer gütlichen Streitbeilegung zuzuführen. Mittlerweile werden in fast allen Bundesländern an einzelnen Gerichten Modellprojekte zur gerichtsnahen Mediation als zusätzliches Verfahrensangebot innerhalb der Justiz durchgeführt. Wir berichteten bereits mehrfach im mediations-report. Die einzelnen Projekte sind hier im Überblick dargestellt.

Baden-Württemberg:
Beim Land- und Amtsgericht Stuttgart läuft der Modellversuch außergerichtliche Konfliktbeilegung für Scheidungssachen, Sorgerechts- und Umgangs- sowie Erbschaftsstreitigkeiten, Schuldenregulierungen, unerlaubte Handlungen, Wohnungseigentumssachen, Nachbarschaftsstreitigkeiten, Räumungsstreitigkeit und andere Zivilprozessangelegenheiten. Zum Einsatz kommen je fünf Richter des Amts- und Landgerichts Stuttgart und bis zu 18 Mediatoren.
Weitere Informationen finden Sie unter Schlichten statt Richten auf der Website des Justizministeriums Baden-Württemberg, www.justiz.baden-wuerttemberg.de

Bayern:
Mit Ablauf des Jahres 2003 hat das Nürnberger Modellprojekt a.be.r – Außergerichtliche Beilegung von Rechtskonflikten – seinen Abschluss gefunden. Ein weiteres Projekt zur gerichtsnahen Mediation mit wissenschaftlicher Begleitung wird in Bayern für 2005 vorbereitet: An den bayerischen Landgerichten München, Augsburg, Bamberg, Nürnberg-Fürth, Landshut und Würzburg startet der Modellversuch „Güterichter“. Informationen zu den Themenbereichen Streitschlichtung und Mediation finden Sie auf der Website des Bayerischen Staatsministeriums der Justiz, http://www2.justiz.bayern.de/_projekte/aber.htm

Berlin:
Das Land Berlin betreut ein Pilotprojekt Gerichtsmediation bei der Berliner Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit. Es handelt sich um ein Pilotprojekt zur Erprobung der Konfliktbewältigung durch Gerichtsmediation. Nähere Informationen erhalten Sie beim Verwaltungsgericht Berlin, VRiVG Prof. Dr. Karsten-Michael Ortloff, Tel.: 030-9014-8633.

Hamburg:
In Hamburg gibt es kein landesweites Projekt. Es besteht aber die Möglichkeit, Mediationsverfahren in familien- und erbrechtlichen Angelegenheiten sowie im Arbeits- und Wirtschaftsrecht bei der Öffentlichen Rechtsauskunft- und Vergleichsstelle Hamburg durchzuführen. Angegliedert ist die Öffentliche Rechtsauskunft- und Vergleichsstelle der Behörde für Soziales und Familie. Sie finden nähere Informationen finden unter ÖRA Hamburg - Mediation, http://fhh.hamburg.de/stadt/Aktuell/behoerden/soziales-familie/oera/mediation/start.html

Hessen:
In Hessen laufen Projekte zur gerichtsnahen Medation in der hessischen Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit an den Verwaltungsgerichten Darmstadt, Frankfurt a.M., Gießen, Kassel, Wiesbaden und beim Hessischen Verwaltungsgerichtshof Kassel. Gegenstand der Mediation können alle anhängigen verwaltungsgerichtlichen Verfahren sein. Verantwortliche vor Ort sind für das Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt RiVG Bangert, RinAG Zundel, für das Verwaltungsgericht Franfurt a.M. RinVG Ottmüller, RiVG Steier, RinVG Vorschulze, für das Verwaltungsgericht Gießen RinVG Deventer, RiVG Dr. Ferner, für das Verwaltungsgericht Kassel RinVG Dr. Lambrecht, für das Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden RinVG Grünewald-Germann, RiVG Häuser und für den Hessischen Verwaltungsgerichtshof RiVGH Dr. Apell.
Auch am Landgericht Frankfurt a.M. ist in diesem Jahr ein Modellprojekt zur gerichtsnahen Mediation begonnen worden, das durch die VriLG Fritz und RiLG Kaiser-Klan geleitet wird.

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern:
Das Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern betreut das Pilotprojekt "Gerichtliche Mediation" in Rostock und Greifswald Das Land- und Oberlandesgericht erproben die gerichtliche Mediation in zivilgerichtlichen Verfahren, das Verwaltungsgericht erprobt die gerichtliche Mediation in verwaltungsgerichtlichen Verfahren erster Instanz. Nähere Informationen erhalten Sie bei Ministerialrat Baukhorn im Justizministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, http://www.jm.mv-regierung.de/

Niedersachsen:
Das Niedersächsische Justizministerium hat am 1. März 2003 damit begonnen, das Modellprojekt "Gerichtsnahe Mediation in Niedersachsen" umzusetzen. Im Rahmen dieses Projekts wird die Mediation neben der gerichtlichen Entscheidung und dem Vergleich als weiteres Angebot der Justiz den Parteien zur Lösung ihres Rechtsstreits zur Verfügung gestellt. An sechs niedersächsischen Gerichten, den Amtsgerichten Oldenburg und Hildesheim, den Landgerichten Hannover und Göttingen sowie am Sozial- und am Verwaltungsgericht Hannover werden drei Jahre lang Chancen und Grenzen der Vermittlung von streitenden Parteien ausgelotet. Die Ergebnisse werden durch eine wissenschaftliche Begleitforschung erfasst und ausgewertet. Weitere Informationen zum Projekt "Gerichtsnahe Mediation in Niedersachsen" finden Sie unter http://www.mediation-in-niedersachsen.de.

Nordrhein-Westfalen:
Nordrhein-Westfalen plant im Rahmen des Projekts "Modellregion Ostwestfalen-Lippe" die Einrichtung einer gerichtsnahen Mediation beim Landgericht Paderborn. Nordrhein-Westfalen will dieses Projekt durch eine begleitende Rechtstatsachenforschung evaluieren. Nähere Informationen erhalten im Justizministerium unter der Telefonnummer 0211-8792-456.Weitergehende Einzelheiten zum Bereich der außergerichtlichen Streitschlichtung in Nordrhein-Westfalen finden Sie unter http://www.justiz.nrw.de/JM/justizpolitik/schwerpunkte/streitschl/index.html

Rheinland-Pfalz:
Unter Federführung des OLG Koblenz testet Rheinland-Pfalz bei fünf Amtsgerichten die in ein gerichtliches Verfahren eingebundene Mediation in Familiensachen. Neben den Fragen, welchen Nutzen die Integrierte Mediation den am Verfahren Beteiligten bringt und wie die Rahmenbedingungen für eine Implementierung der Mediation in das Gerichtsverfahren geschaffen werden können, soll vor allem geklärt werden, mit welchem Aufwand (Personal, Zeit, Kosten) ein solches Verfahren im Vergleich zu einem nach den Prozessordnungen üblicherweise durchzuführenden Gerichtsverfahren beendet wird und ob durch Mediation Folgeprozesse vermieden werden können. Zusätzliche Informationen zum Thema Streitschlichtung finden Sie auf der Website des Ministeriums der Justiz unter http://cms.justiz.rlp.de/justiz

Europäischer Verhaltenskodex für Mediatoren¹

1. Kompetenz und Ernennung von Mediatoren
1.1 Zuständigkeit
Mediatoren sind sachkundig und kompetent in der Mediation. Sie müssen eine einschlägige Ausbildung und kontinuierliche Fortbildung sowie Erfahrungen mit Mediationstätigkeiten auf der Grundlage einschlägiger Standards oder Zulassungsregelungen vorweisen.

1.2 Ernennung
Der Mediator vereinbart mit den Parteien geeignete Termine für das Mediationsverfahren.
Der Mediator vergewissert sich hinreichend, dass er die Voraussetzungen für die Mediationsaufgabe erfüllt und dass seine Kompetenz dafür angemessen ist, bevor er die Ernennung annimmt, und stellt den Parteien auf ihren Antrag Informationen zu seinem Hintergrund und seiner Erfahrung zur Verfügung.

1.3 Bekanntmachung der Dienste des Mediators
Mediatoren können auf professionelle, ehrliche und redliche Art und Weise ihre Tätigkeit bekannt machen.

2. Unabhängigkeit und Unparteilichkeit
2.1 Unabhängigkeit und Objektivität
Der Mediator darf seine Tätigkeit nicht wahrnehmen bzw., wenn er sie bereits aufgenommen hat, nicht fortsetzen, bevor er nicht alle Umstände, die seine Unabhängigkeit beeinträchtigen oder zu Interessenkonflikten führen könnten oder den Anschein eines Interessenkonflikts erwecken könnten, offen gelegt hat. Die Offenlegungspflicht besteht im Mediationsprozess zu jeder Zeit.
Solche Umstände sind
Ø eine persönliche oder geschäftliche Verbindung zu einer Partei,
Ø ein finanzielles oder sonstiges direktes oder indirektes Interesse am Ergebnis der Mediation oder
Ø eine anderweitige Tätigkeit des Mediators oder eines Mitarbeiters seiner Firma für eine der Parteien.
In solchen Fällen darf der Mediator die Mediationstätigkeit nur wahrnehmen bzw. fortsetzen, wenn er sicher ist, dass er die Aufgabe vollkommen unabhängig und objektiv durchführen kann, sodass die vollkommene Unparteilichkeit gewährleistet ist, und wenn die Parteien ausdrücklich zustimmen.

2.2 Unparteilichkeit
Der Mediator hat in seinem Handeln und Auftreten den Parteien gegenüber stets unparteiisch zu sein und ist gehalten, im Mediationsprozess allen Parteien gleichermaßen zu dienen.

3. Mediationsvereinbarung, Verfahren, Mediations-regelung und Vergütung

3.1 Verfahren
Der Mediator vergewissert sich, dass die Parteien des Mediationsverfahrens das Verfahren und die Aufgaben des Mediators und der beteiligten Parteien verstanden haben.
Der Mediator gewährleistet insbesondere, dass die Parteien vor Beginn des Mediationsverfahrens die Voraussetzungen und Bedingungen der Mediationsvereinbarung, darunter insbesondere die einschlägigen Geheimhaltungsbestimmungen für den Mediator und die Parteien, verstanden und sich ausdrücklich damit einverstanden erklärt haben.
Die Mediationsvereinbarung wird auf Antrag der Parteien schriftlich niedergelegt.
Der Mediator leitet das Verfahren in angemessener Weise und berücksichtigt die jeweiligen Umstände des Falls, einschließlich einer ungleichen Machtverteilung und des Rechtsstaatsprinzips, eventueller Wünsche der Parteien und der Notwendigkeit einer raschen Streitbeilegung. Die Parteien können unter Bezugnahme auf vorhandene Regeln oder anderweitig mit dem Mediator das Verfahren vereinbaren, nach dem die Mediation vorgenommen werden soll.
Der Mediator kann die Parteien getrennt anhören, wenn er dies für nützlich erachtet.

3.2 Faires Verfahren
Der Mediator stellt sicher, dass alle Parteien in angemessener Weise in das Verfahren eingebunden sind.
Der Mediator kann das Mediationsverfahren gegebenenfalls beenden und hat die Parteien davon in Kenntnis zu setzen, wenn
Ø er aufgrund der Umstände und seiner einschlägigen Urteilsfähigkeit die vereinbarte Regelung für nicht durchsetzbar oder für vorschriftswidrig hält oder
Ø er der Meinung ist, dass eine Fortsetzung des Verfahrens aller Voraussicht nach nicht zu einer Regelung führen wird.

3.3 Ende des Verfahrens
Der Mediator ergreift alle erforderlichen Maßnahmen, um sicherzustellen, dass eine einvernehmliche Einigung der Parteien in voller Kenntnis der Sachlage erzielt wird und dass alle Parteien die Bedingungen der Regelung verstehen.
Die Parteien können sich jederzeit aus dem Mediationsverfahren zurückziehen, ohne dies begründen zu müssen.
Der Mediator kann auf Antrag der Parteien im Rahmen seiner Kompetenz die Parteien darüber informieren, wie sie die Vereinbarung formalisieren können und welche Voraussetzungen erfüllt sein müssen, damit sie vollstreckbar ist.

3.4 Vergütung
Soweit nicht bereits bekannt, gibt der Mediator den Parteien stets vollständige Auskünfte über die Kostenregelung, die er anzuwenden gedenkt. Er nimmt kein Mediationsverfahren an, bevor nicht die Grundsätze seiner Vergütung durch alle Beteiligten akzeptiert wurden.

4. Vertraulichkeit
Der Mediator wahrt die Vertraulichkeit aller Informationen aus dem Mediationsverfahren oder im Zusammenhang damit und hält die Tatsache geheim, dass die Mediation stattfinden soll oder stattgefunden hat, es sei denn, er ist gesetzlich oder aus Gründen der öffentlichen Ordnung zur Offenlegung gezwungen. Informationen, die eine der Parteien dem Mediator im Vertrauen mitgeteilt hat, dürfen nicht ohne Genehmigung an andere Parteien weitergegeben werden, es sei denn, es besteht eine gesetzliche Pflicht zur Weitergabe.

¹Amtliche Übersetzung des European Code of Conduct for Mediators. Die Originalversion ist abgedruckt in ZKM 4/2004 sowie unter http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/ejn/news/news_adr_code_en.pdf

edited by José Pascal da Rocha, www.proconsensus.org

Fwd: minute briefing - iran

2006-01-23T14:51:00.000-08:00

Country profile: Iran

Iran was one of the first countries to be occupied by the early
Islamic armies which burst out from Arabia in the seventh century.

Persia, as it was, had been one of the greatest empires of the
ancient world, and has long maintained a distinct cultural identity
within the Islamic world by retaining its own language and adhering
to the Shia interpretation of Islam.

OVERVIEW

In 1979 the country became the centre of world attention when the
monarchy was overthrown and a unique Islamic republic was declared,
in which religious clerics - headed by Ayatollah Khomeini - wielded
ultimate political control. There followed an unstable and bloody
period, including an eight-year war with Iraq, in which the country's
oil wealth plummeted from its previous high levels.

Two decades later, Iran appeared to be entering another era of
political and social transformation with the victory of the
liberals over the long-ruling conservative elite in parliamentary
elections in 2000.

Former President Mohammad Khatami's support for greater social and
political freedoms made him popular with the young - an important
factor as around half of the population is under 25. But his
liberal ideas put him at odds with the supreme leader, Ayatollah
Khamenei, and hardliners reluctant to lose sight of established
Islamic traditions.

Iran has come under strong pressure from the US since President
Bush declared it part of an "axis of evil" in 2002. That pressure
intensified after the US-led war against Iraq, with Washington
accusing Tehran of attempting to develop nuclear weapons and of
trying to subvert US efforts in Iraq. Iran says its nuclear
ambitions are peaceful.

With a diplomatic showdown looming over its nuclear programme, Iran
resumed its uranium conversion process in 2005. Months later it
removed seals placed by the UN's nuclear watchdog at some of its
research plants. President Ahmadinejad says Iran has an
"inalienable right" to produce nuclear fuel.

Iran has an abundance of energy resources, with reserves of natural
gas second only to those of Russia and substantial oil reserves.
But it faces the challenge of providing hundreds of thousands of
new jobs for its youthful population.

FACTS

Population: 70.7 million (UN, 2005)
Capital: Tehran
Area: 1.65 million sq km (636,313 sq miles)
Major language: Persian
Major religion: Islam
Life expectancy: 69 years (men), 72 years (women) (UN)
Monetary unit: 10 Iranian rials = 1 toman
Main exports: Petroleum, carpets, agricultural products
GNI per capita: US $2,300 (World Bank, 2005)
Internet domain: .ir
International dialling code: +98

LEADERS

Supreme leader: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

The supreme leader - the highest power in the land - appoints the
head of the judiciary, military leaders, the head of radio and TV
and Friday prayer leaders.
Moreover, he selects six members of the Guardian Council, an
influential body which has to pass all legislation and which is
able to veto would-be election candidates.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was appointed for life in June 1989,
succeeding Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic republic.
He served two consecutive terms as president in the 1980s.
He has intervened on behalf of conservatives, coming into conflict
with former president Mohammad Khatami and other reformists.

President: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Tehran's ultra-conservative mayor, won a run-
off vote in elections in June 2005, defeating his rival, the former
president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, to become Iran's first non-
cleric president for 24 years.
Promising an administration of "peace and moderation", Mr
Ahmadinejad said his government would press on with Iran's
controversial nuclear programme.

Months into his presidency, a furore erupted over Mr Ahmadinejad's
comment at a conference that Israel should be "wiped off the map".
The UN secretary-general rebuked Tehran for the statement.

Born near Tehran in 1956, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a former
provincial governor and Revolutionary Guards officer. He was
actively involved in the Islamic revolution and was a founding
member of the student union that took over the US embassy in Tehran
in 1979. But he denies being one of the hostage-takers.

His predecessor, the reformist Mohammad Khatami, was often
frustrated in his attempts to deliver political and social changes.

Hardline conservatives repeatedly blocked legislation during his
eight years in office and the disqualification of moderates from
parliamentary elections left him politically isolated.
Foreign minister: Manuchehr Mottaki
Interior minister: Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi
Defence minister: Mostafa Mohammad Najjar
Economy minister: Davoud Danesh-Jaafari

MEDIA

The struggle for influence and power in Iran is played out in the media.
The relatively free press, a tangible achievement of former
President Khatami's government, has been targeted by conservatives.
Many pro-reform publications have been closed and reformist writers
and editors jailed. The conservative judiciary has also campaigned
against the liberal media.
There are some 20 major national dailies, but few Iranians buy a
newspaper every day. Sports titles are the biggest sellers.

Broadcasters are more restricted than the press. Despite a ban on
owning dishes, foreign satellite TV channels are widely watched;
this is largely tolerated by the authorities. Stations operated by
exiles in the US were said to have played a role in student
protests in 2003.
State-run IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting) operates
national and provincial networks. Its Jaam-e Jam international TV
channels are available worldwide via satellite. IRIB targets Arabic
speakers in Iraq and the Middle East via the Al-Alam and Sahar TV
networks.

Television is very popular, with more than 80% of Iranians being
regular viewers. The most-watched network is the third state
channel, the youth channel.

IRIB's radio channels include a parliamentary network and Radio
Koran. The Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran (VIRI), an
external radio service, broadcasts via shortwave and the internet.

Around seven million Iranians have access to the internet, which
has been used as a way of circumventing censorship.

Internet service providers are prevented from allowing access to
sites deemed to be pornographic or anti-Islamic, but the web
remains the main forum for dissident voices. Access is easy to
arrange and affordable for middle-class households.
Many foreign broadcasters target listeners in Iran; they include
the Washington-backed Radio Farda, a music-based station aimed at younger audiences.

The press

Tehran Times - English-language daily, published by state-run body
Iran Daily - English-language, published by official news agency
Iran News - English-language
Aftab-e Yazd (Sun of Yazd) - reformist daily
Kayhan (Universe) - conservative daily
Resalat (Message) - conservative daily
Etemaad (Confidence) - reformist daily
Jomhuri-ye-Eslami (Islamic Republic) - conservative daily
Shargh (East) - reformist daily
Jaam-e Jam (Jam's Cup) - large-circulation daily, published by
IRIB, reflects broadcaster's editorial line
Television

IRIB - state-run, operates four national networks, provincial and
international servicesRadio

IRIB - state-run, operates eight national networks, provincial services and an external service

News agencies
Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) - English-language pages
Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA)
Fars News Agency - English-language pages
Iranian Labour News Agency (ILNA)

intercultural mediation

2006-01-20T11:04:00.000-08:00

mediation is on the move.
in the next coming periods, you will find periodicals and short reports about intercultural mediation.
do not hesitate to post your comments or inquiries.
in the meantime, make sure to visit the hub for intercultural mediation, comparative cultural studies and conflict resolution: www.proconsensus.org
by josé pascal da rocha