Leveraging ADRs (5) for Effective Dispute Resolution: Exploring the Drawbacks of Conciliation, the pinky one among the ADR fingers.

The Nuances of Conciliation when Addressing Recurrent Issues.

[Revised Oct 24, 2024]

If you imagine the main ADR tools as fingers on a hand, adjudication would be the index finger, mediation would be the thumb, and conciliation would be the pinky. Now, while I get to the point of this post, I'll let you decide which of the other two fingers better correlates with dispute boards and arbitration functions. Let us know your conclusion in the comments, and we will debate.

Conciliation, like mediation, involves a neutral third party whoby facilitating discussions and suggesting possible solutions. While conciliation shares some similarities with mediation, and I would like to remark on some of them in a post part of this series, there are distinct differences between mediation and its disadvantages. Still, these are specific to it in general and international contexts. Let's focus on those disadvantages for now. helps disputing parties resolve their conflict

Conciliation helps disputing parties reach a mutually agreeable solution. Unlike arbitration, which results in a binding decision, or mediation, which relies heavily on the parties' negotiation, conciliation provides an intermediary approach that combines elements of both. In few words, conciliation is strength in apparent weakness; accordingly, it is the most complex tool among the other five due to the foundations being made in thin air all the time.

The conciliator pivots in the controversy, offering suggestions and guiding the parties toward a resolution without imposing a decision. This role can appear weak compared to the authoritative stance of an arbitrator, but this apparent weakness is a significant strength in preventing conflicts from escalating.

Conciliation’s apparent weakness —its lack of binding authority— is its strength. By acting as a neutral guide and pivot in the controversy, the conciliator helps prevent conflicts from escalating and fosters a cooperative, cost-effective, and flexible environment for dispute resolution. This approach resolves the immediate issue and helps preserve and enhance relationships, making it a valuable tool in the ADR repertoire.

Disadvantages of using Conciliation can arise from a general scope as a regular driver in the toolbox or from specific grounds in international controversies. Thus, the benefits may also not be recognised by the parties or the practitioners behind the parties, so disadvantages should be unveiled to be traced. General disadvantages to note come from these impressions gathered from the perspectives of the parties in the contract, considering:

1. Non-Binding Nature

•    Lack of Enforcement: Like mediation, conciliation agreements are only legally binding if converted into a formal contract. If one party decides to avoid adhering to the terms, this can lead to issues with enforcement.

•   Voluntary Compliance: The success of the conciliation relies on the parties' voluntary compliance. The agreement may only be implemented if the parties are committed.

2. Imbalance of Power

•    Power Dynamics: Power imbalances between the parties can affect the fairness of the conciliation process. A dominant party may influence the outcome, disadvantaging the weaker party.

•    Pressure to Settle: The conciliator’s suggestions may exert undue pressure on one party to settle, potentially leading to an agreement that is not in their best interest.

3. Quality of the Conciliator

•    Conciliator’s Expertise: The effectiveness of conciliation heavily depends on the conciliator’s skills, experience, and neutrality. A less skilled conciliator may be unable to manage the process effectively or provide fair suggestions.

•    Perceived Bias: If the conciliator is perceived as biased, it can undermine trust in the process and the resulting agreement.

4. Lack of Formal Discovery

• Limited Evidence Gathering: Conciliation does not involve formal discovery procedures, which can be a disadvantage if one party needs to gather extensive evidence to support their position.

• Voluntary Information Sharing: The process relies on the voluntary sharing of information, which can be problematic if one party is not forthcoming.

5. No Legal Precedent

• Inconsistent Outcomes: Conciliation does not create legal precedents, leading to inconsistent outcomes in similar cases. This lack of precedent can be problematic for developing legal standards.

• Lack of Public Record: There needs to be a public record of the proceedings or the agreement, which can be an issue where transparency and accountability are essential.

6. Potential for No Resolution

• Unresolved Disputes: If parties cannot agree through conciliation, they may need to pursue other dispute resolution methods, which can lead to additional time and costs.

• Stalled Negotiations: If parties are entrenched, the process can become stalled, leading to a prolonged and potentially fruitless conciliation.

Now, from the ground of the International Disputes Scenario, there are some remarkable issues which deserve to be noticed as disadvantages that sometimes turn the conciliation lever to an option for fostering general reluctance, if not more than a mere suspicion:

1. Cultural Differences

• Diverse Cultural Norms: Cultural differences can affect the conciliation process, leading to misunderstandings and difficulties in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement.

• Cultural Sensitivity: Conciliators must navigate and manage cultural expectations, which can be challenging and affect the outcome.

2. Language Barriers

• Translation Issues: Language differences require interpreters, which can lead to miscommunications and additional costs.

• Complex Documentation: Translating documents can be time-consuming and costly, and errors can affect the process.

3. Legal and Regulatory Differences

• Conflicting Legal Systems: Different legal systems can complicate conciliation. Parties may have differing expectations and understandings of legal principles and procedures.

• Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring compliance with diverse legal and regulatory frameworks can be complex and daunting for conciliators.

4. Enforcement of Agreements

• Cross-Border Enforcement: Enforcing conciliation agreements across borders can be challenging. Different jurisdictions may have varying rules and levels of willingness to enforce foreign contracts.

• Sovereign Immunity: Sovereign immunity issues can complicate enforcement efforts in disputes involving states or state-owned entities.

5. Neutrality and Bias

• Selection of Conciliator: Finding a neutral conciliator acceptable to all parties can be difficult in international disputes. Perceived or actual biases can undermine the process.

• Mediator’s Impartiality: Ensuring impartiality is crucial but challenging, especially in complex, high-stakes international disputes.

6. Logistical Challenges

• Geographical Distances: Coordinating across different time zones and locations can be logistically challenging and costly.

• Virtual Conciliation Limitations: Virtual sessions can lack the effectiveness of in-person interactions and may face technical and security issues.

7. Confidentiality and Transparency

• Balancing Confidentiality: Confidentiality can limit transparency and public scrutiny, essential in public interest cases.

• Legal Obligations: Different jurisdictions have varying expectations regarding confidentiality and disclosure, complicating the process.

While beneficial for fostering dialogue and reaching amicable agreements, conciliation has several disadvantages, especially internationally. These include cultural and language barriers, legal and regulatory differences, enforcement challenges, and potential biases. The non-binding nature, power imbalances, and logistical issues can further complicate the process. Understanding these disadvantages can help parties determine whether conciliation is suitable for resolving their dispute.

The positive side of this ADR tool, Conciliation’s apparent weakness—its lack of binding authority—is also its strength. By acting as a neutral guide and pivot in the controversy, the conciliator helps prevent conflicts from escalating and fosters a cooperative, cost-effective, and flexible environment for dispute resolution. This approach resolves the immediate issue and helps preserve and enhance relationships, making it a valuable tool in the ADR repertoire.

Then, talking seriously about Conciliation, if you were wondering whether it was or wasn't the pinky one in the ADR fingers in a hand, the answer will come to you in many ways: quite beyond a pinky finger!

Closing to the end of this series, the next post will revise other relevant ADR tools, though they are not used as frequently in practice as the. three main ones

Note: Adjudication and Dispute Boards will have their respective posts out from these series for a common reason: both are characteristic of multi-year business relationships regularly connected to construction agreements and different forms of partnership in delivering infrastructures, making industrial developments or engaging in long-lasting projects. A scenario wherein the parties should avoid interruptions in the regular and timely process framework and the logic of the business accommodates the practice as a good standard.

---

---