Enforcing mediated settlement agreements: Critical questions and directions for future research

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

This article discusses a range of critical issues and policy concerns involved in the ongoing debate about the status of mediated settlement agreements (or MSAs) reached in cross-border disputes. It examines current methods of MSA enforcement in various jurisdictions and it identifies their strengths and shortcomings. The article then focuses on two questions:
1. Why should mediation and MSAs be given preferential treatment over unassisted negotiation and traditional contracts?; and alternatively,
2. Why should mediation not be given special treatment? Would a system which enforced MSAs undermine the values and objectives of mediation? It is suggested that such a system would, in fact, further central values and objectives of mediation such as those of self-determination, consensuality and party autonomy. The article then suggests directions for future research and analysis. We (the international community) have two main options for the future. We can:
1. Maintain the status quo (with some MSAs being enforceable as contracts, some as consent court orders, some as consent arbitral awards, and some not enforceable at all); or
2. Create a new system for the enforcement of MSAs, a New York Convention style system which recognises and enforces MSAs as MSAs.
The first option will perpetuate diversity, a lack of uniformity and uncertainty in the use of mediation. The second option poses challenges, but we ought to strive to overcome them. The arguments in favour of creation of a new system for mediation are persuasive.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)87
Number of pages118
JournalContemporary Asia Arbitration Journal
Volume7
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

mediation
self-determination
jurisdiction
Values
autonomy
uncertainty
lack
community

Cite this

@article{543f704b1e3a49559c5548ed3bd736f3,
title = "Enforcing mediated settlement agreements: Critical questions and directions for future research",
abstract = "This article discusses a range of critical issues and policy concerns involved in the ongoing debate about the status of mediated settlement agreements (or MSAs) reached in cross-border disputes. It examines current methods of MSA enforcement in various jurisdictions and it identifies their strengths and shortcomings. The article then focuses on two questions:1. Why should mediation and MSAs be given preferential treatment over unassisted negotiation and traditional contracts?; and alternatively,2. Why should mediation not be given special treatment? Would a system which enforced MSAs undermine the values and objectives of mediation? It is suggested that such a system would, in fact, further central values and objectives of mediation such as those of self-determination, consensuality and party autonomy. The article then suggests directions for future research and analysis. We (the international community) have two main options for the future. We can:1. Maintain the status quo (with some MSAs being enforceable as contracts, some as consent court orders, some as consent arbitral awards, and some not enforceable at all); or 2. Create a new system for the enforcement of MSAs, a New York Convention style system which recognises and enforces MSAs as MSAs.The first option will perpetuate diversity, a lack of uniformity and uncertainty in the use of mediation. The second option poses challenges, but we ought to strive to overcome them. The arguments in favour of creation of a new system for mediation are persuasive.",
author = "B Wolski",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "87",
journal = "Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal",
issn = "1999-9747",
publisher = "National Taiwan University (IEEB)",
number = "1",

}

Enforcing mediated settlement agreements : Critical questions and directions for future research. / Wolski, B.

In: Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2014, p. 87.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Enforcing mediated settlement agreements

T2 - Critical questions and directions for future research

AU - Wolski, B

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - This article discusses a range of critical issues and policy concerns involved in the ongoing debate about the status of mediated settlement agreements (or MSAs) reached in cross-border disputes. It examines current methods of MSA enforcement in various jurisdictions and it identifies their strengths and shortcomings. The article then focuses on two questions:1. Why should mediation and MSAs be given preferential treatment over unassisted negotiation and traditional contracts?; and alternatively,2. Why should mediation not be given special treatment? Would a system which enforced MSAs undermine the values and objectives of mediation? It is suggested that such a system would, in fact, further central values and objectives of mediation such as those of self-determination, consensuality and party autonomy. The article then suggests directions for future research and analysis. We (the international community) have two main options for the future. We can:1. Maintain the status quo (with some MSAs being enforceable as contracts, some as consent court orders, some as consent arbitral awards, and some not enforceable at all); or 2. Create a new system for the enforcement of MSAs, a New York Convention style system which recognises and enforces MSAs as MSAs.The first option will perpetuate diversity, a lack of uniformity and uncertainty in the use of mediation. The second option poses challenges, but we ought to strive to overcome them. The arguments in favour of creation of a new system for mediation are persuasive.

AB - This article discusses a range of critical issues and policy concerns involved in the ongoing debate about the status of mediated settlement agreements (or MSAs) reached in cross-border disputes. It examines current methods of MSA enforcement in various jurisdictions and it identifies their strengths and shortcomings. The article then focuses on two questions:1. Why should mediation and MSAs be given preferential treatment over unassisted negotiation and traditional contracts?; and alternatively,2. Why should mediation not be given special treatment? Would a system which enforced MSAs undermine the values and objectives of mediation? It is suggested that such a system would, in fact, further central values and objectives of mediation such as those of self-determination, consensuality and party autonomy. The article then suggests directions for future research and analysis. We (the international community) have two main options for the future. We can:1. Maintain the status quo (with some MSAs being enforceable as contracts, some as consent court orders, some as consent arbitral awards, and some not enforceable at all); or 2. Create a new system for the enforcement of MSAs, a New York Convention style system which recognises and enforces MSAs as MSAs.The first option will perpetuate diversity, a lack of uniformity and uncertainty in the use of mediation. The second option poses challenges, but we ought to strive to overcome them. The arguments in favour of creation of a new system for mediation are persuasive.

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 87

JO - Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal

JF - Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal

SN - 1999-9747

IS - 1

ER -