Leveraging ADRs (4) for Effective Dispute Resolution: Arbitration or Mediation in your Ball Card?

Choosing to dance what with whom: a try to set rules better to match the controversy among main ADR rhythms and melodies.

[Revised Oct 23, 2024]

There is a cite attributed to Budism philosophy, to Niestche, to Murakami, even a saying (my funny choice) coming from the Freestyle Wrestling show business regarding the non-compulsory chance for getting to be a part of any show: “Pain is inevitable: suffering is optional". For the purposes here, my approach is that controversies are always at your own risk; the risk starts when deciding to deal with someone, but the consequences are always up to you if you choose to dance what and with whom (or against whom).

This post is a short pause in the journey; a technical scale for this trip overflighting the Controversies' Ocean and understanding the importance of making sometimes inexpressible decisions, like the one Riviére makes in Antoine de Saint Exupery's Night Flight novel.

Arbitration and mediation can be compared, metaphorically, to two distinct styles of wrestling, each with its techniques and strategies (though this isn't a direct comparison to the different forms of wrestling like Folkstyle, Freestyle, or Greco-Roman). When faced with an international dispute, the challenge often lies in distinguishing between the two and selecting the most suitable method for a specific conflict. How does one determine which approach best aligns with the situation, especially when the stakes are high? This question can often prove to be quite challenging. In response, I’ve left a framework for your reference to help navigate these nuances.

When choosing between arbitration and mediation to resolve international disputes, it's essential to understand each method's unique features, benefits, and limitations. Both are alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms designed to bypass traditional litigation, yet they differ significantly in terms of process, outcome, and appropriateness for specific types of conflicts.

In previous posts, I discussed the darker aspects of ADR institutions, shedding light on the potential drawbacks, hidden complexities, and challenges that can arise, which may dampen expectations. However, in this post, I aim to offer a more optimistic perspective, highlighting these processes' advantages and proactive elements.

I’ll now present my thoughts on effectively distinguishing between arbitration and mediation, providing guidelines for determining which approach best suits your conflict. Feel free to share your views in the comments. Whether you are an ADR practitioner or a party involved in an agreement, I believe this proposal can help you choose the most effective resolution path.

Arbitration vs Mediation: Five Key Differences

Check, chart and notice suitability method related to the conflicting nature and other items to realise:

1. Regarding Binding Nature and Finality:

• When in Arbitration:

- Binding Decision: Arbitration results in a binding decision (arbitral award) that is enforceable in court under international treaties like the New York Convention.

- Finality: The arbitral award is typically final and has limited grounds for appeal, providing a conclusive resolution.

- Suitable for complex commercial disputes where parties need a definitive and enforceable outcome. It is also suitable when parties seek a legally binding decision that can be enforced internationally.

• When in Mediation:

- Non-Binding Agreement: Mediation seeks to facilitate a mutually acceptable agreement between parties, which is non-binding unless formalised in a contract.

- Flexibility: Parties retain control over the outcome and can withdraw from the process.

- Suitable for parties seeking to maintain a relationship post-dispute, such as family-owned businesses or long-term commercial partnerships. It’s also suitable for less complex disputes where parties are willing to negotiate and cooperate.

2. Regarding Process and Control:

• When in Arbitration:

- Adjudicative Process: An arbitrator hears evidence and arguments from both parties and then makes a binding decision.

- Less Control for Parties: The decision-making power lies with the arbitrator, and parties have less control over the outcome.

- Suitable for disputes requiring an authoritative decision, often involving substantial financial stakes or where legal rights need to be determined.

• When in Mediation:

- Facilitative Process: A mediator helps facilitate dialogue and negotiation between parties to reach a voluntary agreement.

- More Control for the Parties: Parties have significant control over the process and outcome, making mediation more collaborative and less adversarial.

- Suitable for disputes where preserving relationships is essential or parties prefer to have a say in the resolution process.

3. Formality and Procedural Differences

• When in Arbitration:

Formal Procedure: Resembles a court trial with formal procedures, rules of evidence, and legal arguments.

Structured Process: Involves a structured process that can be more predictable but less flexible.

Suitable for disputes needing a structured, formal approach, often with technical or legal complexities requiring expert adjudication.

• When in Mediation:

Informal Procedure is less formal and more flexible than arbitration. It focuses on dialogue and negotiation rather than legal procedures.

Adaptive Process: Can be adapted to suit the needs and preferences of the parties involved.

Suitable for disputes where flexibility and informality can lead to creative solutions and parties are open to dialogue.

4. Cost and Time Considerations

• When in Arbitration:

Potentially Costly: Arbitrators' fees and legal and administrative expenses can be expensive, especially in international settings.

Time-Consuming: While often faster than litigation, complex arbitrations take considerable time.

Suitable for High-stakes disputes where the need for a binding and enforceable resolution justifies the cost.

• When in Mediation:

Tipically Less Costly: Less expensive than arbitration, with lower mediator fees and reduced legal costs.

Time-Efficient: This can be resolved quickly, often in days or weeks.

Suitable for disputes where parties seek a cost-effective and timely resolution, especially in less complex cases.

5. Enforcement and Confidentiality

• When in Arbitration:

- Enforceable Awards: Arbitration awards are enforceable under international treaties, providing a precise mechanism for enforcement across borders.

- Confidentiality: Proceedings and awards can be kept confidential, varying depending on the arbitration rules.

- Suitable for disputes requiring enforceable outcomes and where confidentiality is essential.

• When in Mediation:

- Confidential Process: Mediation is typically confidential, fostering open communication and negotiation.

- Enforcement Issues: Mediated agreements require court intervention for enforcement if one party does not comply.

- Suitable for disputes where confidentiality is paramount, parties will likely comply voluntarily with the agreement.

Getting to something neat benefits businesses and conveys consensus.

Choosing between arbitration and mediation in international disputes depends on the specific needs and circumstances of the parties involved. Thus, by assessing the nature of the dispute, the relationship between the parties, the complexity of the issues, and the desired outcome, parties can select the most appropriate method for resolving their international (or local) conflict. But approaching a conclusion from the analysis above, it will end that:

• Arbitration is mainly suitable for disputes needing a binding, enforceable resolution. It has a formal process and can handle complex legal and technical issues. While,

• Mediation is ideal for disputes where parties seek a collaborative, flexible, and cost-effective resolution, especially when maintaining relationships and confidentiality is crucial.

Choosing the adequate ADR method is more than saving time, money, inputs, health and wealth from each side (two or more) in the controversy. It is a driver for creating a better world beyond the conflict. Suitability is a lever to reduce frictional inefficiencies in dispute resolution processes. And if a practitioner, here you have a last message to grab: either local or international, do you a favour: don't empower or arm your knowledge and skills with only -or mainly- a single hammer. Reality is wide enough to share more than just nails to hit.

Now, whether you agree or not with my conclusions, let's continue the series with a coming post regarding what other ADR tools can apply to remove disagreements, align time to take land off and co businesses and relive consensus in market relationships. What do you know about what Conciliation is for? Have they disadvantages or nuances?

A summary of key ideas you ought to have in mind when facing a conflict are these four:

1. Arbitration vs. Mediation: The two approaches are distinct in resolving disputes—arbitration is more formal and binding, while mediation is a collaborative and flexible process.

2. Choosing the Right Method: Selecting the appropriate approach depends on understanding the characteristics and suitability of each for the specific conflict.

3. Framework for Decision-Making: A practical guideline or framework can help determine which dispute resolution method best suits those involved's tolerance levels and expectations.

4. Balance in Perspective: While ADR has disadvantages, it is important to consider its positive, proactive aspects when choosing the best approach to resolve conflicts.

---

---