Both on the ground and in the air, attention to detail can make all the difference between safety and disaster. Focused on pilots, Eva van der Fluit investigates what is needed in order to align the perspectives of all professionals they collaborate with so as to facilitate solid judgment and sound sense-making as the basis for their actions. This can lead to disagreements and conflict, which is not necessarily bad when they can manage, constructively, the pinnacle of differing paradigms at crucial moments. This can be defined as the sweet spot of conflict. This spot represents the essential moment at which all perspectives come to the table, are exchanged and lead to new insights. It takes special skills to manage such a process, many of which can be seen as mediation skills. If pilots, most often the captain, can successfully keep the communication process focused on the content and if they do not make it personal, the sweet spot may result in achieving a coordinated outcome, supported by all involved. The way pilots manage what is known as beginning conflict (as distinct from escalated conflict) has attracted the attention of other professionals such as doctors, lawyers, accountants and board members. Even at the lowest level of an organisation, important lessons may be learnt from the best practices developed in the airline industry.

With unfaltering determination, China continues to expand its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This article focuses on the preference that is given to mediation for the resolution of BRI-related disputes. China, Hong Kong and Singapore proclaim that this approach better fits with ‘Asian’ cultural values than adversarial processes like arbitration and litigation. The BRI can be seen as an innovative field lab where mechanisms for international commercial conflict management and resolution are being developed and put to action - and where legitimacy is tested.

The purpose of this article is to share some practical reflections on cross-border mediation and its application to Private Competition Disputes in Europe, at this time of crisis. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a rethinking of methods of dispute resolution, everywhere. In Europe, whether before the European Union courts in Luxembourg or the civil and commercial courts in the Member States, judicial procedures are at a standstill at the time of writing (mid-2020). Once the courts get going again, it will probably take years to get the judicial system back in good working order. It may be necessary to take shortcuts to get the system back in shape, such as cancellation of hearings, recourse to summary forms of justice, etc. That is not what the parties bargained for at the outset of their judicial procedure.

A Social Impact Assessment is often a formal requirement to determine and prevent social risks at greenfield development of complex infrastructural projects. This article discusses the background and building blocks with the different tiers of Business to Community mediation; a neutral, facilitated, dialogue and information sharing, negotiation, joint fact-finding and formal mediation.

In many cases much harm and sorrow is caused first before people sit down and settle. Why not settle without fighting first?

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.

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.