The Austrian mediation landscape is quite inhomogeneous, with no universally applicable framework in place to safeguard best practice standards in mediation. Any commitment of mediators to codes of conduct or ethical guidelines occurs on an entirely voluntary basis. Control mechanisms exist in the form of complaint bodies instituted at the level of Austrian mediation associations.

The article gives an overview of mediation in German administrative courts. It deals with the legal basis as well as the organisation of mediation within the courts. The special features of mediation with an administrative law background are explained. By means of examples, the authors make clear that there is more room for alternative dispute regulation in public law than one might imagine.

This report about mediation in Germany in order of the German government reports about the effects of the German Mediation Law on the development of mediation and about the education of mediators.

The two years FOMENTO project ‘Fostering Mediation in cross-border civil and succession matters’ aims to contribute to conflict prevention in cross-border succession matters. To reach a deeper understanding and impulses for a correct implementation of Directive 2008/52/EC (Mediation Directive) and of Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012 (Succession Regulation) the effects of both regulations have been analyzed in a research study. To this end, country reports about the implementation of the Succession Regulation and the Mediation Directive in six European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Sweden) have been assembled and 105 expert interviews with lawyers, notaries, judges and mediators have been conducted and analyzed.
This article gives a general overview about the outcomes of the research study and focuses on the analysis of the expert interviews. The experts gave answers about the concrete advantages, challenges and suggestions for improving mediation in cross-border succession conflicts and the effects of the European Succession Regulation.

The ADR Act of 18 June 2018 provides for an insertion into the ‘Gerechtelijk Wetboek’ (Judicial Code), entitled ‘Collaboratieve onderhandelingen’ (Collaborative Negotiations), which came into force on 1 January 2019.

Following a retrospective of the road towards the Convention, incorporating some Singaporean inside views, the authors provide a detailed analysis of the envisaged grounds for refusal of mediated settlements. The authors also highlight various issues around the very concept, and proof, of mediation. These issues are fundamental, as only settlements ensuing from mediation are covered. Another significant aspect is the absence of any provisions pertaining to the status of agreements to mediate, the contract situated at the entry side of mediation.

With a Belgian law of June, 18 2018, the principle of the voluntary nature of mediation was affected. A lot of critical comments can be made at this point. The scope of the obligation is not clear. Mandatory mediation raises the threshold to the court and has as effect that many cases are not handled in the most appropriate way. The bar doesn’t support the measure. Research is needed to find out if the new measure is justified.

In 2017, empirical research has been conducted at Ghent University regarding the attitude of Belgian lawyers on mediation in the current and future legal and social context. This article explains the background, goals and methodology of the research and unveils some of the results by sharing the first remarkable findings.

On 23 April 2018, the Belgian Ministry of Labour, together with a consortium of 12 European research institutes, held a symposium on the current state of the art and best practices for conciliation and mediation in collective labour conflicts within the European Union, and particularly in Belgium. The symposium was organized for two occasions. First, the 50st anniversary of the Belgium law, providing mediation services by the Ministry of Labour to prevent and mediate in collective labour conflicts. Second, the presentation of the results of an EU (DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion) sponsored project in 12 EU member states.
The management of collective labour conflicts is in all countries regulated differently. The study shows that also practices of third party intervention differ largely. Most countries differentiate conciliation (a relative informal process of facilitated negotiation), mediation (usually defined as a strong involvement of the third party, who gives recommendations to the parties), and arbitration. Mediators typically are not trained, certified or registered as mediators in most countries. In all countries there is a large potential for conciliation, particularly in early stages of conflict (preventive mediation), as well as in rebuilding of trust after conflict episodes. More details in open access book: Mediation in collective labor conflicts (Springer, 2018).

Despite the positive development of the European Mediation Directive and its translation in the German Mediation Law, in 2014 only 1.5% of the cases in court proceedings at the lower German courts were referred to court mandated conciliation or mediation proceedings. Against this background and in the context of a broader ten years research project, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Institute of Conflict Management at the European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder) initiated a series of studies in 2005. This series was recently concluded with the fifth study conducted end of 2015 and published in October 2016. In addition to assessing the overall corporate landscape in Germany with regard to commercial dispute resolution, the study also considered the future developments and the required changes for further advancing this field.

Over the last years the expectations of Belgian clients have changed and the Flemish lawyer needs to adapt his positioning. Clients are looking for a personalized solution that not only provides a solution for the substantive (pure legal) aspect of the dispute, but also meets, at least takes into account, the more emotional and relational aspects of the conflict.
In collaborative negotiation (also called principled or interest-based negotiation), the approach is to treat the relationship as an important and valuable element while seeking an equitable and fair agreement for all parties.
As part of the collaborative law method, each party engages its own specially trained Collaborative attorney whose job consists in helping to settle the dispute outside the court. If one of the parties however decides to go to court, the collaborative law process terminates and both attorneys are disqualified from any further involvement in the case.
The Association of French- and German-speaking Bars of Belgium has integrated collaborative law in its code of ethics. The Association of Dutch speaking Bars of Belgium looks in which way collaborative law can also become a part of the practice of the Flemish lawyer.

In this article Herman Verbist analyses the new ICC-rules of 1 January 2014. He gives a historical overview of the ICC mediation rules and reflects on the comtemporary rules based on modern mediation practices. Also he gives clear tools for mediation procedures.

This article investigates the functioning of the Dutch National Contact Point (NCP) during the specific instance procedure based on shared experiences of parties involved in a specific instance procedure, the stipulations of the OECD’s Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the Dutch Government Decree 2014. NCPs function as a unique implementation mechanism of these guidelines by providing mediation and conciliation services during specific instance procedures. The recent debate in the Netherlands on the functioning of the Dutch NCP and the lack of rigorous up-to-date research necessitate further research on this topic. Hence, this article shares more in-depth knowledge about the functioning of the Dutch NCP, contributes to the ongoing debate in Parliament and in the OECD on the functioning of NCPs, and presents suggestions for further improvement.

Managing commercial conflicts requires reflexivity: the description of the conflict influences the manner in which the conflict is handled, and changing this description may influence this approach and the desirable outcome. The Belgian law firm contrast was curious to find out more of different parameters influencing the manner in which a conflict is handled. It developed an in-dept questionnaire and submitted it to 40 participants. The findings of this research are commented.

This paper is a combination of the ‘Oxford study 2012’ (C. Hodges, I. Benöhr & N. Creutzfeldt-Banda, Consumer ADR in Europe, Oxford: Hart Publishing 2012) and subsequent publications about consumer dispute resolution in Europe. Recent EU legislation aims to establish a EU-wide framework for consumer alternative dispute resolution (CADR or CDR) schemes and a platform for online dispute resolution (ODR). This forces member states to revisit their existing CDR models and in some cases, to modernize their structures. Many member states face challenges of reform of existing systems by the directives implementation date of 2015. This paper will provide an overview of CDR, the development of current legislation and discuss some national examples. The paper concludes with comments about implementation of the directive and potential future direction.