As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to expose obsolete business practices and force companies into uncharted territories, a disruption worth (re)considering for companies is to replace their over-reliance on litigation with mediation. In order for mediators to make this transition more appetising for businesses, we must train mediators to: 1) think more holistically through interdisciplinary training; and 2) foster cognitive diversity amongst our pool.

To analyse the advantages of mediation as a means of resolution of private competition disputes, it is helpful to look backwards to the underlying principles upon which modern mediation has been built. The principles that now guide leading mediation institutions in Europe are still based on the foundation that was laid by the methods of principles negotiations, written down in Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In, by Fisher and Ury.

Often being ‘the only woman in the room’, in this opinion Judith Meyer describes her concern about the underrepresentation of women, persons with disabilities, diverse neutrals and other minorities as professionals in alternative dispute resolution.

When the time comes to select a mediator, the judge, the lawyers, the parties or the mediation centre will want to find a good one. This raises two questions: what is a good mediator and how to find one?
The answer to the first question seems rather simple: a good mediator is one that the parties are happy with. This raises another set of questions: if the parties were happy with a mediator in one case, would they be happy with the same person in another case? Would other parties be happy with this mediator as well? If the answers are not a yes without reservation to both of those questions, then the question becomes: who would be a good mediator for this case between these parties?

In Europe, mediation has historically taken a facilitative approach. It is therefore no surprise that Med-Arb – a hybrid dispute resolution mechanism combining elements of mediation and arbitration – is not high on the agenda of European politicians, academics and practitioners.
As a result of this (apparent) lack of interest in Med-Arb, it remains unclear to what extent contractual clauses referring parties to Med-Arb (“Med-Arb Clauses”) and arbitral awards resulting from a Med-Arb procedure (“Med-Arb Awards”) are compliant with European standards on due process of law.
It is this void this article seeks to fill. It will discuss the American experiences with Med-Arb and the pros and cons of Med-Arb forwarded in that context (Section 2). Against this background, the feasibility of Med-Arb from the perspective of European standards on due process of law is assessed. It is concluded that from a European perspective, no overriding concerns of law exist that should call a halt to Med-Arb. Parties must, however, discount certain specific EU standards when agreeing on and conducting a Med-Arb procedure.