The Rationality and System Perfection of Identity Compatibility between Arbitrator and Mediator in the Med-Arb Model
- 1 School of Law, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China
Abstract
In the framework of the Med-Arb Model process, it is reasonable to assume that the identity of the mediator and arbitrator is compatible, which means they could be the same person. This alignment is an important manifestation of the involved parties’ autonomy, aligning with substantive justice in practice and enhancing the efficiency of dispute resolution. Besides, the neutrality and impartiality of mediators and arbitrators are guaranteed by internal moderation and external supervision. The modification of the arbitrator selection procedure in the Draft Amendment of China ’ s Arbitration Law (2021) aims to mitigate any crisis of confidence among the parties involved. To enhance this model, practical implementation necessitates the express consent of the parties, along with the requirement for the moderator to meet the qualification standards of both the mediator and the arbitrator. In this regard, the information obtained in the mediation is not allowed to be used in the arbitration. Additionally, the arbitration award needs to be reviewed, and there should be an adequate timeframe for procedural adjustments subsequent to the parties’ submissions of statements and evidence.
- Alexander, N. (2006). G lobal Trends in Mediation (2nd ed., p. 263). https://doi.org/10.33196/pm200504021101
- Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (2017 Amendment).
- Berger, K. P. (2015). Private Dispute Resolution in International Business: Negotiation, Mediation, Arbitration (3 rd ed.).
- Born, G. B. (2021). International Commercial Arbitration (3rd ed.). Kluwer Law International.
- Boulle, L. (2014). International Enforceability of Mediated Settlement Agreements : D e veloping the Conceptual Framework . Social Science Electronic Publishing.
- Brown, H. J., & Marriott, A. L. (1999). ADR P rinciples and Practice (p. 131, 2nd ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
- Buehring-Unle, C. (1992). Co-Med- Arb Technique Holds Promise Best of Both Worlds . BNA, World Mediation and Arbitration Report, 22, Vol. 2, No. 1.
- Bühring-Uhle, C. (2006). Arbitration and Mediation in International Bus i ness—Designing Procedures for Effective Conflict Management (2nd ed.). Lars Kirchhoff & Gabriele Scherer.
- Cao, L. J. (2006). Combining Conciliation and Arbitration in China: Overview and Latest Developments. International Arbitration Law Review , 9 , 84-91.
- Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (1994). The MED-ARB Debate, Some Contributions. Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Ma n agement , 3, 173-183.
- China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) A rbitration Rules (2024).
- CIETAC Panel of Arbitrators . http://www.cietac.org/index.php?m=Page&a=index&id=43&l=en
- Cooley, J. (1986). Arbitration vs. Mediation—Explaining the Differences. Judicature , 69 , 263-264.
- Deason, E. E. (2005). Procedural Rules for Complimentary Systems of Litigation and Mediation-Worldwide. N otre Dame Law Review, 80 , 553-592.
- Finn, M. (2021). Remaining the Dispute Resolution Epicentre: Is Med-Arb in Europe’s Future? IBA Construction Law International, 16, 18-22.
- Huberman, M. J. (2019). How to Make the Most of Med-Arb. The Resolver, 2019, 11.
- Limbury, A. (2009). Hybrid Dispute Resolution Process—Getting the Best While Avoi d ing the Worst of Both Worlds (pp. 104-120)? Institution of Arbitrators Mediation Symposium in London.