In 1976 the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, about corporate social responsibility and sustainability, were carried. To implement the guidelines national contact points inform people and enterprises, and mediate in case of a complaint. This article describes the structure, procedure and role of the Dutch and Belgian National Contact Points.

Taking the recent European Commission’s Report on the application of Mediation Directive 2008/52/EC as a starting point, the authors set out to reconstruct the pattern of ADR/mediation activities undertaken by the EU and the Council of Europe over the past 40 years. The authors conclude that the European initiatives have been conducive to a broadening and deepening of the ADR debate. Remarkable shifts can be observed in the emphasis placed by the European agencies during this period, notably a shift from emancipatory to efficiency-based arguments. The inherent coupling of private mediation and public adjudication entails risks however for each of these distinct conflict resolution strategies. The authors call for advanced research designs to generate the data needed for a genuine evidence-based policy in this domain.

Research has been conducted by Leiden Law School into the efficacy of an instrument based on insolvency practice, ‘Harvard negotiation’ and ‘serious gaming’ aiming at better conflict management in case of (near) bankruptcy. Business rescue workout simulation games were played at different places worldwide. Serious gaming provides insight in the complexity and dynamics of (informal) reorganizations. The research further confirms that the Harvard negotiation-principles and the INSOL International Statement of Principles for a Global approach to multi-creditor workouts may provide a useful contribution to the realization of a successful (international) financial restructuring. The intervention of skilled neutrals is often significative. More focus on communication, negotiation and cooperative dispute resolution is also consistent with the initiatives of legislators and policymakers which stimulate companies to restructure at an early stage of financial distress. These developments also make ADR-skills become of more relevance to (insolvency) professionals.

Mr Ard van der Steur MP for the Dutch Liberals (VVD), has introduced three interconnected private member bills to anchor mediation more firmly into the Dutch legal system. This initiative grew out from dissatisfaction over the truly minimal implementation of EU Directive 2008/52 in the Netherlands. For one thing, the bill envisages stricter quality standards and registration requirements. Professional privilege, for instance, will only accrue to those who meet all requirements as Registermediators. Another interesting aspect of the bills concerns the duty for parties to indicate to court in the writ of summons whether mediation has been attempted, and if not, why not. If a legal question arises while a mediation is pending before a Registermediator, the latter may refer that question on behalf of the parties to a cantonal judge electronically, whereas proviso is made for the judge handing down judgment at short notice, in order not to interrupt the flow of mediation more than necessary. These are just some of the innovative aspects of the bills that are being discussed during this interview at the premises of the Dutch parliament.

Medio 2013 the European legislator adopted Directive 2013/11/EU (ADR Directive) and Regulation 524/2013 (ODR Regulation), both in the field of European consumer redress. The Directive and Regulation aim to promote the simple, fast and digital (out of court) resolution of consumer disputes. The Directive must be implemented no later than July 2015. This article describes some hurdles the Dutch legislator must overcome to successfully implement the Directive into the self-regulatory Dutch Consumer ADR system.

On 26 May 2013 Ard van der Steur, Netherlands MP for the liberal democrats, introduced a cluster of three mediation bills to secure the status of mediation as a sound alternative to traditional in-court adjudication in civil and administrative disputes. Although the starting point in these bills is that mediation should take place on a voluntary basis, there are some arrangements that may result in quasi compulsory mediation. One such arrangement is that the judge, on his own motion, may refer parties to mediation. Also parties have to proof that they first have attempted to settle their dispute through mediation and if not, why not.

Following an overview of the historical place of mediation in China, this contribution summarizes the outcomes of a Euro-Chinese symposium held in Beijing on 1 and 2 September 2012, focused on mediation as a case management tool for the courts. In China, mediation appears to be on the rise again since a few years, reconquering its traditional predominant place in China, after a decade of increased litigation during the period of rapid economic growth. The pressure on Chinese courts to make the parties settle raises some questions however about how to assess whether private mediation or public litigation is indicated, and by which evidence-based standards.

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.

On 21 May 2008 the European Directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters was adopted. The directive will have to be implemented in Dutch legislation before 21 May 2011. The objective of the Directive is to facilitate access to alternative dispute resolution and to promote the amicable settlement of disputes, by encouraging the use of mediation and by ensuring a balanced relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings (Article 1(1)). As a result of the arrival of the European Mediation Directive mediation the Netherlands will get a legal basis and thereby recognition. This article inter alia discusses the Mediation Directive from the NMI's perspective and discusses the articles from the Directive relevant to NMI step by step.

In this contribution an overview is given of the most recent developments with regard to commercial dispute management and its legal context, in particular in the Netherlands. Firstly, a focus is put on the importance of integral conflict management on the basis of ADR/EDR from the perspective of risk management and cost control. Secondly, recent developments with regard to effective dispute resolution, in particular in government policy, ADR/EDR and in the legal context are discussed. The judicial and the extrajudicial system offer conflict parties various possibilities to effective and efficient dispute resolution. Further, special attention is paid to mediation clauses in commercial contracts. With regard to the European Directive of 21 May 2008 on mediation in civil and commercial matters, Directive 2008/52/EC, its consequences to the Dutch legal system and its importance for commercial dispute resolution management are discussed.

This article deals with confidentiality in mediation proceedings. Confidentiality is considered to be one of the key advantages of mediation. Usually the parties agree that they will not be compelled to produce evidence concerning the mediation, nor call the mediator as a witness in case of subsequent judicial proceedings. However, it is not sure how the court in civil judicial proceedings will handle such an agreement. The court will have to balance the interests of confidentiality and establishing the truth. In some cases it is clear that the court should not respect the confidentiality agreement, for example when there is an obligation to disclose evidence of a criminal offence. In other cases there might be proper grounds to let the confidentiality prevail, but there is no guarantee that the court will respect the confidentiality agreement. As part of the implementation of the European directive on mediation Member States are obliged to adopt provisions about admissibility of evidence in civil judicial proceedings in order to protect certain aspects of confidentiality of mediation proceedings.