From an international point of view the double hybrid nature of ‘med-arb’ – imagined as a ‘guarantee’ for a ‘prompt’ resolution of business disputes – is out on a limb. The contractually planned transition from a failed mediation towards the ascertainment of procedural fairness in the subsequent arbitration under the guidance of the same Neutral poses indeed delicate questions.Not more than two – by the way federally ruled – countries – the USA and Australia – have endeavored – in some of their States – to tackle the problems related to confidentiality which determine the viability of ‘med-arb’ (beside the basic behavioral problem of negotiating with the assistance of a Neutral who unexpectedly may become your arbitrator). The validity of the – domestic – solutions devised in the USA and Australia is subject to caution in the light of the 1958 New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

This contribution examines how the Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters is transposed in various member states of the European Union, or how the discussion about the transposition is conducted or is still ongoing in some countries. The following seven countries are examined: Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, England, France, Germany and Austria.

The goal of this article is to examine key problems of training standards for mediators in Russia and to identify possible solutions that may address these issues. In considering the question of mediation training in the context of mediation development in Russia, one can distinguish two periods: (1) before the enactment of the Law on mediation, or the period of private initiatives, and (2) after this Law entered into force, which can be entitled as the period of governmental regulation.During the first period, there were no special legal regulations and thus, private institutions had been offering their own diverse and numerous mediation training programs. The situation has changed due to the active force of the Federal Law on mediation by implementing provisions that require creation of a special unified training program for professional mediators and approval by the Government of the Russian Federation. This program was adopted on 14 February 2011. The approach of the Russian legislature to the establishment of a consistent educational standard for Russian mediators can be considered as the implementation of the woldwide shift toward standards unification. However, the Law itself contains some contradictions, and also contains a number of provisions that cast serious doubts upon the success of this effort.

The article introduces the Round Table Mediation& Conflict Management of the German Economy, illustrates its role, member corporations and objectives, gives an insight into its vision and mission and provides an overview both of its organizational structure, functioning and the main topics currently dealt with in the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution. The contribution further provides an overview regarding recent developments of commercial mediation and finally assesses the future prospects of corporate conflict management in Germany.

The article is intended to give a view (shared by many) on how arbitrators could or maybe even should react when faced with misdeeds in an ongoing arbitration proceeding. The misdeeds meant in this article concern forgery and false witness testimonies that may fraudulently influence judgements. Not covered are questions related to illicit contracts (i.e. contracts induced by bribery or corruption).
The author contrasts the different views of an arbitrator’s role as either as a private dispute settler or as a person deriving his or her function also from the state as a guarantor of arbitration as a means to settle disputes. She comes to the conclusion that in the end, public policy consideration should overrule party autonomy and that, contrary to the current practice, tribunals faced with misdeeds during an arbitration should not hesitate to address this issue in the award.

Arbitration cases involving EC competition law may create difficulties for arbitrators with regard to their attitude towards the EU organs. The article discusses aspects of this relationship. The article specifically evaluates the (non-)application in arbitration of the regime for EC Commission’s relationship with member states’ courts as well as the EC Commission’s role as a third party in arbitrations. The article then analyses circumstances of the possible co-operation of arbitrators with the EC Commission and the conditions for its smooth running. The article subsequently looks at the effects of the Commission’s decisions on arbitration as well as the effects of the arbitral awards on the Commission. The article considers the lack of a relationship between arbitrators and the European Court of Justice in light of the Court’s jurisprudence, and the relevance of the Court’s jurisprudence for particular arbitrations.

In the contribution ‘Mediation Law in Germany’ Renate Dendorfer discusses the background and contents of the ‘German Code for Promotion of Mediation and other Proceedings of Alternative Dispute Resolution’ in light of the implementation of the EU Mediation Directive. Important issues such as duties of the mediator, confidentiality, and training and education are focused on.