This year, 2021, TMD has reached a milestone: its 25th volume. To celebrate this event, the issues to be published this year will highlight what has been achieved over the past 25 years, in mediation practice, and in respect of scientific knowledge on the various modes of dispute resolution. The question which targets to set for the future, will equally be addressed.
Geographically, the focus of this first issue is on the Netherlands, whereas the third issue will be addressing developments in Belgium. The fourth issue this year will highlight international developments, ranging from the USA to China. The second issue will be a special surprise for our subscribers.
The present issue, dealing with the Netherlands, starts with a tribute to the pioneer of family mediation in this country, the late professor Peter Hoefnagels. His original article, published in the very first volume of TMD (1997) and reproduced here in its entirety, describes his own experience when pioneering divorce mediation from 1974 onwards. In 1997, the year of original publication, mediation was not yet widely acknowledged nor embraced. Brigitte Chin-A-Fat responds to Peter Hoefnagels through a personal letter following his article, reassuring the great pioneer that 25 years further on, mediation has become well established in the family domain.
The issue continues with three interviews, organized by editors Roger Ritzen and/or Rob Jagtenberg, with individuals who have (sometimes inadvertently) become leading authorities in the field.
Steve Whittaker, an English solicitor who moved to the Netherlands in 1988 to work in the construction industry and became inspired by the use of ADR in Hongkong, became the founder of the Netherlands Mediation Institute (NMI), in the mid 1990s. For 20 years, NMI was the umbrella structure for (almost) all mediators in the Netherlands and the interface between the mediation community and government. Compared with those early years, today, interests seem to diverge increasingly, at the risk of fragmentation.
The second interview is with former President of the Court of Appeal in Arnhem, Ms. Machteld Pel. For many years, she spearheaded the Dutch national research program on court-referred mediation, thereby acting as the trait-d’union between the judiciary and the mediation community. Judges who were sceptics at first, often became interested after having taken the special training courses co-designed by Machteld Pel. Her book ‘Referral to Mediation’, which is packed with checklists and practical tips for formulating questions, has become a genuine classic.
The interview with Fred Schonewille takes the reader to the past decade in particular. Fred Schonewille has been the driving force behind various proposals for mediation legislation, aiming to secure a more prominent place for mediation, while improving professional quality standards. The Netherlands and Belgium constitute contrasting cases, where in the Netherlands legislation proposals were hitherto torpedoed, whereas Belgium has comprehensive legislation in place for some time now.
Fred Schonewille has also pioneered premarital mediation and new varieties of mediation in the domain of family-owned companies. Some fascinating insights gained in these areas are also shared in this third interview.
This first issue in the special year 2021 is concluded by two smaller contributions; in the first of these, Médiation à la française, Paris-based Dutch lawyer-mediators Marinka Schillings and Thom Verkuilen provide an overview of recent developments in France. Legislative action as well as some recent research outcomes are addressed. The second of the smaller contributions highlights a conference organized by a professorial team from the Radboud University in Nijmegen, addressing the position of the judge vis-a-vis various modes of dispute resolution. The proceedings of the conference will be published as a book later this year.

This is a letter written by Brigitte Chin-A-Fat to the late Peter Hoefnagels, who was one of the Dutch pioneers in the field of divorce mediation and a professor of criminology and family law at Erasmus University Rotterdam. In 1997, TMD published an article from his hand in which he wrote how he had become inspired by the potential of divorce mediation and about his (first) experiences with this ‘new’ mode of dispute resolution in family disputes. The original article by Peter Hoefnagels, dating from 1997, is reproduced in 2021 in TMD in view of its relevance today and precedes the letter by Brigitte Chin-A-Fat.
Hoefnagels invented the so-called ‘divorce announcement’ and introduced psychology to the legal world of divorce and family mediation. Anno 2021, there are many (legal) developments which are bound to have an impact on the reform of Dutch divorce procedure.
The Dutch government has set up pilot projects experimenting with inter alia a ‘joint access’ to the family court. Many of these developments are in line with Hoefnagels’ suggestions to avoid harm being inflicted on the ex-spouses and notably their children to the largest extent possible. The author discusses some of the current pilot projects and connects the rationale underlying these experiments to Hoefnagels’ ideas as presented 25 years ago. She also looks into the future, notably which changes are likely to occur in the next 25 years in the field of divorce mediation.

Mediation is becoming ever more important in French law. For a long time, parties have been able to agree to mediate to avoid expensive and long legal proceedings. Recent reforms have extended the scope of mediation. The courts can ask parties to try and mediate, and in some areas of law, for instance disputes about less than € 5000, mediation has even become a prerequisite for being able to file a case. Whilst mediation is thus playing an important role in everyday disputes, national regulation for mediators is lagging behind. There are no thorough universal standards for mediators and there is no central disciplinary board, even though mediators’ organizations have been creating such professional rules and institutions. It is likely the advent of a mandatory attempt at mediation will lead the French legislator to adopt more universal rules for mediation.