Mediation and ethics
How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
ABSTRACT *
This article presents the ethical and procedural principles that give the mediation process its substance and trustworthiness. Starting from the observation that conflicts expose parties in their vulnerability, the author argues that whoever is entrusted with their resolution holds a position of power and trust, and that a mediator must therefore be not only an expert but an ethical and responsible person. The paper examines the core principles in turn: competence and continuing professional development as reflected in national codes such as that of the Slovenian Association of Mediators; neutrality and independence, including the duty to disclose conflicts of interest and, following Brown and Marriott, to decline appointment in certain circumstances even with informed consent; impartiality and the creation of a safe, predictable process; confidentiality as a building block of mediation, anchored in the European Code of Conduct for Mediators; and fairness, understood as securing equal participation, guarding against power imbalance and avoiding undue pressure to settle. Drawing on English and Welsh case law and the EU Mediation Directive, the author shows how legal systems protect mediation communications, and concludes that mediation embodies what is most natural to human beings: dialogue and cooperation, made safe by a professional and ethical mediator.
KEYWORDS *
Mediation principles, mediator ethics, competence, neutrality, impartiality, confidentiality, fairness, European Code of Conduct for Mediators, EU Mediation Directive, without prejudice rule, professional responsibility
INTRODUCTION
Conflicts are a considerable part of human relationships and thus cannot and should not always be avoided. However, we are able to choose how we address them and that is when mediation comes into the picture. As part of our everyday lives, conflicts can open new possibilities or they can represent an onerous challenge. Moreover, conflicts can also be very intimate and when dealing with them or their aftermath we are often exposed and vulnerable and so the way we choose to address our conflicts is very important. Consequentially, whoever is trusted with resolution or management of the conflict, may he or she be a judge, an arbitrator, or a mediator, shoulders great responsibility, and is in the position of power and trust. Following that, a mediator must not only be an expert but should also be a trustworthy and ethical person who understands his or her responsibility (ethical, professional, and legal). In this article, I will present some of the crucial principles integral to a mediation process which define the process not only in the formal way, i.e. in-process and stages of mediation but also in a substantial way, i.e. in fairness and trustworthiness.
MAIN CORPUS
Before the process of mediation commences there is a mediator – so who is a mediator? The answer to this question is not a simple one, however, there are some traits that may broadly define a mediator. One of them is competence which translates into a prerequisite that a mediator must be competent and knowledgeable not only of the process of mediation (procedural knowledge) but also in the process of mediation (substantial understanding). Different states and organizations have codes of conduct, for example in Slovenia – The Slovenian Association of Mediators – which define such traits and constitutes the educational path and continuing professional development in order to renew and enrich mediator’s skills and knowledge. The importance of professionalism and personality of the mediator is also reflected, for example in the European Code of Conduct for Mediators which in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 states that a mediator should disclose to the parties their background and experience for the purpose of enabling the parties to make an informed choice (Blake, Brown and Slime 2016).
Other traits of the mediator and also principles in the mediation process are neutrality and independence. I have already mentioned the importance of a mediator being professional and knowledgeable and in addition, the mediator ought to disclose their professional background to the parties. Another facet of disclosure is also the necessity that a mediator recognizes possible conflicts of interest or circumstances which may affect the mediator’s neutrality. Additionally, the mediator must disclose such facts or and circumstances to the parties for example close social ties with one of the parties or any other possible partiality which a mediator may hold (Moore 2014). Some authors, for example, Brown and Marriott, claim that even if the mediator has informed consent from both of the parties regarding the disclosed circumstances, there is still the necessity for a mediator to refuse mediation. These circumstance being: the mediator or with the mediator associated persons have a financial or personal interest in the outcome of the mediation, the mediator and client(s) were at any time in a therapist/client or counselor/client relationship, also important are beneficiary and trustee (past) relationships or there may be personal or other circumstances which may threaten the mediators’ impartiality (Brown and Marriot 2011).
Impartiality is also an important principle to which a mediator needs to adjust his or her behavior so as not to act without impartiality towards the parties (European Code of Mediators, para 2.2). In short, it means mediators must not do anything or behave in any way that may demonstrate actual or perceived bias. The clients enter into the mediation process on the basis of a voluntary agreement and need to feel safe in the process and should be able to trust their mediator (Moore 2014). In order to provide such a safe space, a mediator should ensure the parties understand the nature and purpose of the process, fees and expenses, and the substance (terms) of the mediation agreement which is the voluntary (legal) basis on which the parties ascent to the mediation process and it often entails basic principles and rules of the mediation process. An important facet of providing safety to the parties is also predictability which means that a mediator should in a clear and understandable manner explain to the parties the process of mediation, the meaning of certain principles, possible timeline, and the purpose of different phases (Hayes 2017).
One of the most important principles in mediation is confidentiality which I believe to be one of the building blocks of the mediation process. For example, the European Code of Conduct for Mediators provides in paragraph 4: “The mediator must keep confidential all information arising out of or in connection with the mediation, including the fact that the mediation is to take place or has taken place unless compelled by law or grounds of public policy to disclose it. Any information disclosed in confidence to mediators by one of the parties must not be disclosed to the other parties without permission unless compelled by law.” As stated before conflict may be very intimate to the parties or there may be different important interests which otherwise parties do not wish to disclose, and therefore the mediator tackles information that is sensitive. Besides being professional a mediator must also be fair. Fairness is a subjective and debated term, at least regarding its meaning, however, a mediator must be fair in ensuring both parties are as equally involved in the process as is possible meaning they both get equal opportunities to engage and represent their side in order to build together a solution most suitable to a particular situation. In practice, such a necessity arises where one party is much stronger than the other, be it financially, institutionally, or otherwise (Ruben and Lievrouw 1990). Other sides to the fairness principle caution the mediator not to put undue pressure on a party to settle the dispute and not to coerce a party to partake in the process of mediation. This is a delicate issue because in principle a mediator should help parties to come to an agreement and not to make decisions instead of the parties. The mediator also has to be vigilant if there is any duress or undue influence which may hurt a party and the mediator has the option to terminate the mediation process (Blake, Brownand Slime 2016).
To this point, we saw the importance of a mediator not only being a professional in the broader sense but also being an ethical person who respects the process and the substantive part of mediation. What about the most important and integral essence of mediation – communication (dialogue)? It is crucial that words exchanged within a mediation process are subject to confidentiality. To elaborate further on this particularly important part of mediation, I shall use the rulings from English and Welsh courts. Of course, legal systems over the world differ and my goal here is not legal analysis but to emphasize the importance of communication and how a particular legal system recognizes it as well. For example, in Aird & Aird v Primer Meridian Ltd 2006 limitations on communications passing between the parties within the mediation or in the context of mediation were set under the without prejudice rule which bars the usage of such communications in subsequent court proceedings if the mediation is unsuccessful. In addition, the protection of communications was furthered in Smiths Group plc v George Weiss to protect investigations carried out as part of the mediation process. Furthermore in Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust 2004 the courts emphasized the integrity and confidentiality of the mediation process in stating that the court should not know, and should not investigate, why the process of mediation did not result in agreement meaning that not only communications during the process of mediation are protected but also communications before (and in connection to) mediation (Blake, Brown and Slime 2016).
In general protection of communications includes any oral or written communications made specifically for the purposes of mediation (offers, correspondence, position statements, concessions), any such communications between a mediator and a party (parties) before, during, or after mediation, and communications intended to persuade the parties to mediate (Ruben and Lievrouw 1990). We can infer from the above that communication is at most important in the mediation process and ‘good communication’ is closely intertwined with the professionality and ethics of the mediator as he or she is tasked with great responsibility to satisfy these standards. For example, the EU Mediation Directive in article 7 (that had to be implemented by May 2011), states that member states should ensure that mediators should not be compelled to give evidence regarding information arising out of mediation. On the other hand, it provides for exceptions where all parties agree or there are public policy considerations that require the mediator to give evidence.
SUMMARY *
The author identifies competence, neutrality, independence, impartiality, confidentiality and fairness as the principles that constitute mediation in substance, not merely in form. Their common thread is trust: parties who are exposed and vulnerable can only shape their own agreement in a process that is predictable, protected and evenly balanced. The paper shows that these principles are not abstract ideals but are codified in professional codes, secured by disclosure duties that can extend to declining an appointment, and reinforced by courts and legislation that shield mediation communications from later proceedings. In the author’s account, the mediator’s ethics and the protection of dialogue together form the foundation on which the entire process rests.
CONCLUSION
Mediation is of course much more than just a process regulated by rules. It plays an important role in everyday human relationships because it bears the notion of progress in dealing with conflicts. It sets aside the confrontation part which is quickly prescribed to a conflict situation and emphasizes dialogue, cooperation, and progressive communication (dialogue). All this is possible with a professional, ethical and responsible mediator who is able to understand the conflict as a whole and is able to provide a safe environment in which parties themselves will be able to shape their agreement focused on the future. It may seem a bit wishy-washy to assume such responsibility for mediation but if we look at it from a different perspective, mediation applies what is most natural to humans – communication (dialogue) and (I believe) cooperation.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
The tension underlying this article is a quiet but real one: mediation promises safety through principles, yet those principles live or die in the conduct of a single person, the mediator, who works behind closed doors precisely because confidentiality demands it. The task is therefore to make ethics verifiable without breaking the confidentiality that makes mediation work. Four measures accomplish this.
First, translate principles into observable commitments. Codes of conduct gain practical force when each principle is paired with a concrete behavior the parties can see: a written disclosure statement handed over before the first session, a standard opening in which process, fees, timeline and termination rights are explained in plain language, and an explicit invitation to either party to raise concerns about impartiality at any point without penalty. What the parties can observe, they can trust; what they can trust, they will use.
Second, institutionalize the duty to decline. The strict view of Brown and Marriott, that some conflicts of interest bar appointment even with informed consent, deserves adoption as a professional standard rather than a scholarly opinion. A short, published list of absolute exclusion grounds, financial interest in the outcome, prior therapeutic relationship, close personal ties, protects not only the parties but the mediator, who can point to the rule instead of negotiating their own integrity case by case.
Third, close the accountability gap with confidentiality preserving oversight. Complaints about mediator conduct should go to a professional body empowered to review them under the same confidentiality that governed the mediation itself, with anonymized publication of outcomes and principles. Regular peer supervision and intervision, already noted in earlier contributions to this journal, complete the structure: the mediator is never examined publicly, but is also never entirely unexamined.
Fourth, harmonize the legal shield around dialogue. The case law and the Directive provisions the author cites show convergence toward one rule: what is said in and around mediation stays out of the courtroom, with narrow exceptions for consent and public policy. Jurisdictions that have not yet codified this protection should do so, because parties speak freely only where the law guarantees that candor today cannot become evidence tomorrow.
Held together, these measures answer the article’s implicit question, why should vulnerable parties entrust their conflict to a stranger, with the only answer that endures: because the stranger is bound, visibly and enforceably, by principles stronger than any single case.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES
Blake, Susan, Brown, Julie and Sime, Stuart. (2016). A Practical Approach to Alternative Dispute Resolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown J. Henry and L. Marriottources L. Arthur. (2011). ADR Principles and Practice. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
European Code of Conduct for Mediators. (2004). Launched at a European Commission Justice Directorate conference in Brussels on 2 July.
Hayes, F. Andrew. (2017). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, Second Edition: A Regression-Based Approach. London: The Guilford Press.
Moore, W. Christopher. (2014). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ruben,Brent David and Lievrouw, A. Leah. (1990). Mediation, Information, andCommunication. London: Transaction Publishers.
Communication, Conflicts and Mediation: A Personal Reflection
How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
ABSTRACT *
In this essayistic reflection, the author explores conflict as a constitutive element of human relationships, from the interpersonal sphere to international relations, and develops a vision of mediation as more than a dispute resolution technique: as a civilizational step toward peace. Drawing on historical experience, notably the mediated negotiations of Westphalia in 1648 that ended the Thirty Years War and shaped the modern order of sovereign states, the author argues that conflicts are neither inherently destructive nor avoidable, but opportunities whose value depends on how they are addressed. The paper reflects on the mediator’s own humanity and interests as a condition of genuine neutrality, on the significance of context, culture and consent in the mediation process, and on Galtung’s ABC triangle as a lens that converts attitudes, behavior and contradiction into sources of information and opportunity. Contrasting avoidance, adjustment, conquest and compromise with collaboration as the fullest outcome, the author concludes that peace is not the absence of conflict but a way of living with it, and that mediation, by acknowledging the humanity and dignity of the other, is a vital instrument on that road.
KEYWORDS *
Mediation, conflict as opportunity, peace, Westphalia, international relations, Galtung ABC triangle, neutrality, the other, human dignity, collaboration, conflict management
INTRODUCTION
Who we are as human beings is in a great way influenced by where or what kind of a social environment, we live in. An important part of our social environment are relationships, the world of human interaction, and communication. Relationships between people shape our world for better or for worse. A vital ingredient of this world is also conflict. They may represent a threat or an opportunity. How we tackle such ‘opportunities’ is very important for the quality of our lifetime spent on this planet. If we look at international relations, based on sovereign nation-states and international organizations, we can see resemblances with our own interpersonal structures. In the international community conflicts are also an important issue; for example, they are a core challenge for United Nations. Conflicts are connected, by their nature, with war and peace, with stability and security. Therefore, conflicts are a crucial part of our broader human existence. Many of us view them as negative and destructive, but what I find interesting is that a conflict can be a problem or a challenge, yet it can also be an opportunity if we make it such. Yes, it sounds idealistic but history and everyday life prove it is or at least can be a reality. At this point, the classical Greek view of imagination comes in handy. It is hard to talk about ideas without acknowledging the important role of imagination. So, let us be idealistic and embrace our imagination, without alienating ourselves from reason and reality, in order to explore conflicts and of course what mediation means in this polyphony of human interactivity.
MAIN CORPUS
Conflicts, or more precisely not knowing how to address them, can be destructive. On a larger and more devastating scale, this was and still is, seen in the international community. The continent which is historically notorious for its wars, Europe, is a great example and reminder for the whole of humanity that conflicts should be addressed with responsibility and respect. For example, the Thirty Year’s War was an extremely complicated and bloody one. As it is normal for war there was a great number of civilian casualties and destruction of trade, infrastructure, and proliferation of hatred. It had to end, and it did with the negotiations of Westphalia in 1648. I am mentioning this case because most of the negotiations in the mentioned case were bilateral, and the toughest cases were conducted with the help of mediators. The role of mediators in Westphalia was an active one meaning the mediators also had to steer the process of negotiations to promote a favorable milieu and to propose helpful ways out of deadlocks (Meerts 2014). What I am trying to say is that dealing with conflicts and searching for ways of better conflict management are not new. This is something human societies have been dealing with from the ‘beginning of society’ itself. In our case, the mentioned negotiations (with the help of mediators) resulted in a regime of sovereign (in legal terms equal) states and this regime, at least in part, shaped the world of international relations based on sovereign (modern) states which we know today.
As the war of Spanish Succession raged through Europe, the German emperor said the best way to peace is through war. Of course, as a mediator, I could hardly agree with such a statement, but I understand it. If we want to reframe this statement, we first need to ask ourselves what is behind it. What are the interests and not only the positions of the parties involved? I personally believe that we (unfortunately) need a reminder of what a mishandled conflict situation can result in. In international relations war is destructive and in a state of war, our basic civilizational values are attacked directly. Human dignity, human rights, personal freedoms, and human life itself are all threatened by a state of war in society. In our interpersonal relations conflicts can escalate and cause great damage not only to the parties involved but also to our broader surroundings. It forces us to invest a great deal of energy and our time (which is limited) and still at the end our victory (if there even is one) is often a Pyrrhic victory. We tend to forget all of this when we are in a heat of the moment or when nations (peoples) are being driven by emotional nationalism. We need to get over ourselves and our sometimes grandiose and narcissistic self-image. We indeed need to lift our veil of ignorance. When we take all of this into consideration it all seems painfully philosophical in contrast to our simplified materialistic world. But is it really? For I believe it to be quite simple. We need to acknowledge our human part in relation to our social part. Emotions, interests, and needs; are not necessarily bad or even irrational.
The process and the idea behind mediation is one of a wholesome approach in conflict management with trying to achieve an agreement which strives towards the future. Mediation acknowledges the legal background of a conflict without forgetting the emotional (human) aspect, recognizes the interests and needs of the parties involved, and most importantly it can bring parties to see and understand the ‘other’. I believe there is no conflict that cannot be successfully addressed. It has happened to me on several occasions when I was mediating and concluding my opening statement, that parties (also legal representatives) said something like ‘we will probably never settle’ or ‘I cannot even look at the other person’. As a mediator, I hear that the object of the conflict is extremely important for the parties involved but something must have happened that ‘depersonalized’ the other involved party for them. At this time, I am usually certain that we are at a point where we are ‘afraid’ of being humans and we, in order to win, become robots with procedurally led relations. This is not usually addressed in court procedures, but I believe it is a crucial part and for the long-term solution a vital one.
I have already addressed one important part of the mediation process and this are the parties involved (including the mediator). Not only parties who are directly involved in an interpersonal or international conflict need to be addressed, but also the interests of attorneys and us the mediators. Of course, a professional mediator is ideally a neutral one; it is true, mediators are skilled, professional, and respected individuals but they also have a stake in a mediation. They dedicate a huge amount of energy and time so that the parties would be able to achieve a solution that would enable them to move along in their lives and continue living without the burden of one conflict situation. Why do we need to take this into consideration? Well, I believe it is not opposed to the principle of neutrality, but it is a necessary way of approaching mediation from a mediator’s point of view. I believe a mediator can only be truly neutral if he or she is aware of their own interest in it. If we are aware of our ‘human part’ we can control it and we are more capable of addressing the situation. Attorneys also need to be considered. They can be an asset to the process of mediation and not necessarily a threat. When preparing for mediation and considering parties it is advisable to know as much as possible about them; who may be an influential person and can influence, (even though such parties are formally not a party in mediation) the process. A mediator should be a great listener and an even better observer. She or he also should be able to analyze all of the gained information and they also have to know how to apply it in order to achieve a desirable result of a mediation process.
Another important part of mediation, which I have also briefly already addressed, is the context or the environment of a certain conflict. It is important for a mediator, besides studying the conflict itself, to also be aware of the surrounding environment in which the conflict is taking place or the ones a certain conflict can influence. For example, in an international conflict that is being mediated, it is important to understand the cultural background of the conflict itself and the people involved. What is also crucial is the location and the room where such mediation is taking place. For an interpersonal conflict one also needs to take into account the surroundings of a conflict. For example, if a dispute is taking place in a rural area, between neighbors, it may be important to take into account the reputation of the parties and how the agreement will look on the outside, meaning will they be recognized as losers or winners or maybe both as rational individuals. What is also unique in a mediation process and relates to actors and conflict environment is the fact that parties are not forced into such a process. For mediation to begin it needs the consent of both (or all) parties. This is more important than it may look. What it means is that deep down inside parties in conflict, even though they maybe hate each other, are willing to sit down and try to achieve an agreement via a professional rather than face each other in a court battle where they will give their sovereignty over their own conflict to lawyers and the decision power to a judge.
Courts and legal systems are of course extremely important for a nation-state or a society to function. For example, one of the constitutional functions of the judiciary is to provide for the resolution of legal disputes, but it can also be very time and money-consuming when addressing individual-civil disputes. It can drain the energy out of people. And what is most important it takes into consideration only the legal facts which are very limiting and in consequence the (legal) decision is not always a settling one. Mediation addresses all the above and what should also be mentioned is that resolving a conflict via court proceedings or mediation is not mutually excluding. Therefore, if one decides to settle a dispute using mediation, this does not mean it will not be possible if the mediation were to prove ‘unsuccessful’, to use other legal means to achieve a solution. Mediation on the other hand is not a ‘loose’ process. It is a structured way of addressing a conflict where parties are protected by the professionality of the mediator and principles which apply to the mediation process. It is a process that offers different parts of a conflict to be addressed and offers predictability and safety for the involved parties. It is great how humanity has already developed many ways of conflict management; we just need to start using them and learn from past experiences.
Mediation in a broader sense is more than ‘just’ a conflict management tool; it is, for me, a way to achieve a state of peace – peace not meaning the absence of war or conflict but peace where conflict is present and even welcome. It is a change in peace and conflict narrative where both are treated as antinomies. For me as a mediator conflict is necessary for peace. We need conflict so we can better ourselves, so we can advance and develop. If we all were to agree on everything, we would not need discussion, debate, constructive criticism, etc. Conflict can be a good thing and a great opportunity. It is and will always be a part of our world. We need to tap into the opportunities a conflict situation provides us. This is where mediation can play a vital role. If I look at Galtung’s ABC triangle of conflict, as a mediator, I see opportunities and not only obstacles. A stands for attitudes (assumptions) and tells us about a person’s position, feelings she or he has invested in a conflict. From this we can see how an individual sees his or her surroundings it is something which shapes our ‘point of view’. For example, what motivates someone to work on her or his marriage instead of just ‘giving up’? Maybe it is consistent with their values or even religious beliefs or maybe they just believe in working for a relationship.
B stands for behavior and if we look through the mediator’s eyes this becomes a source of information. Especially when the ‘opposite’ party presents his or her position we are interested also in which way the other party will react. We, as mediators, can combine the information gained from attitudes with information gained from the behavior or reaction caused by the other party’s statement. Will they deny it and oppose it? And how will they oppose it? Will they be angry and frustrated or will they just ignore and dismiss everything the other party just said etc.? Galtung claims that a full manifestation of conflict is possible when A, B, and C (contradiction) are present. I chose Galtung’s ABC conflict model because it depicts the development of a conflict quite clearly. We can also reframe all the ingredients of the triangle as opportunities. Different parts of a conflict provide us with much-needed information. One ‘just’ needs to listen and try to understand. When people are personally invested in a conflict (which is almost always) it is hard to look at the situation from afar. Mediator can provide such a view and help us to see it for ourselves. This is why a mediator besides being a good (great) listener and observer also has to be a good communicator. This means one should adjust his or her ways of communicating according to the situation and at the same time upholding high standards and principles.
In interpersonal relations and in international relations we address conflict differently. One may simply avoid or deny a conflict but that is not productive because a conflict does not just simply vanish. As I have stated before, the conflict has its purpose and it is hard to dismiss that purpose. The consequence is often the frustration of involved parties and damaged or broken communication. We miss a great opportunity to use that energy that is set loose by a conflict (I lose-You lose). Another way people often deal with a conflict is an adjustment. But the adjustment is a way of avoidance where we avoid dealing with conflict as a whole and adjust our interests in order to satisfy the other party’s interests. It may, in short term, ‘resolve’ a conflict but in long term, it may build up frustrations that fuel a future conflict and this brings us back to square one (I lose-You win). The opposite of adjustment is fighting or conquering. It is a state of mind which promotes only our victory. If we are not able to reach a victory the only option acceptable for us is the other party’s defeat (I win-You lose). The popular outcome of negotiations is compromised. It is a much better result than the previously mentioned possibilities, but it is also limited (I win some-You win some). In my opinion, the best way of addressing and resolving or managing a conflict is a collaboration where both parties search for a solution that is ‘perfect’ for both parties (I win-You win). The last-mentioned outcome is also one of the goals of mediation.
Mediation can adjust to the nature of a conflict which can even better the possible outcome. If I return to the general level where I started and point out again that our (social) world is based on human interactivity. Of course, it seems logical and obvious but in reality, we often forget this and push what is most ‘natural’ aside. What I mean by this, regarding conflict, is that even if we have a complex international conflict with abstract foreign policies and other large interests, people and everyday life are most affected. In conflict relations, it is important to always keep in mind that we are dealing with another human being even though it can be extremely hard sometimes, especially in international conflicts where people assume a role and often identify with it. Mediation is not only another way of conflict resolution. It is a civilizational step for human society in addressing a crucial part of human relations – conflicts. It allows us to address the human side of the conflict as well as the normative (legal or political) one. It deals with acknowledging the other side in the dispute. This is, for me at least, a crucial step in managing or resolving a conflict. Another important thing to be aware of, I believe, is that we are not the first nor last humans to walk this earth. There are thousands of years of human experience, wisdom, philosophies in the ‘east’ and ‘west’. We can tap into this well of wisdom and knowledge and apply it in the present and for the future.
SUMMARY
In a world of technology, globalization (internationalization), and normative organization of human life we tend to forget and ignore that what makes us human in the first place: emotions, communication, all the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ things. We are quick to hide behind social constructs and legal norms in order to avoid the ‘scary’ (social, psychological, emotional, cultural) part of being human. Societies consist of relations between people and peoples. If I use the concept of the ‘other’ we can see how important it is that we acknowledge the humanity and dignity of another human being. It is not ‘just’ a philosophical concept, it had and still has ‘real’ world consequences: for example, colonialism, slavery, and international war crimes, just to name a few.
CONCLUSION
In my master’s research, which focused on universality and relativism regarding human rights, I have found that humanity can and does exist as a society and it is based on its diversity and cultural, historical wealth. Culture and diversity are not opposed to human dignity and the other way around. It is important to know that diversity does not threaten us, it makes our world interesting and wise. But in order to reach this understanding, we need to learn, teach, be self-critical, acknowledge our human essence. This, in my opinion, is the road to peace. Allow me to reiterate that peace is not just the absence of conflict, it is a way of living, a way of organizing a society. It may sound idealistic but without an ideal world, there would not be a real-world in good or bad. The Greeks knew that without imagination (phantasia) there is no wisdom (knowledge). Peace is an acknowledgment of the human. A vital part of achieving peace is reserved for mediation. I view conflicts as a challenge and without challenge, there is no progress, if I borrow words from Arnold Toynbee (1966). Mediation addresses this challenge and its result is not just conflict resolution it can also result in peace.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
Since this essay treats conflict itself rather than one particular dispute, the fitting solution is to show how its central insight, that peace is a way of living with conflict rather than the absence of it, can be made operational at the three levels the author connects: the person, the profession and the international order.
At the personal level, the decisive move the author describes is rehumanization. When a party says they cannot even look at the other person, the conflict has hardened into roles. Practical instruments exist for softening that hardening: uninterrupted speaking time in which each party tells the story behind their position, the mediator’s request that each side restate the other’s concerns before answering them, and carefully chosen questions about what the relationship was before the dispute. These are not sentimental gestures; they are the working method by which the depersonalized other becomes a negotiable counterpart again, and they can be taught in every mediation training.
At the professional level, the author’s reflection on the mediator’s own stake deserves to become standard practice. A short self inquiry before every case, what do I want here, where does this conflict touch my own history, what outcome would flatter me, converts hidden interest into conscious material and thereby protects neutrality exactly as the author argues. Supervision and intervision structures, in which mediators regularly examine their cases with peers, institutionalize this awareness and should be part of every professional code.
At the international level, the Westphalian example the author invokes carries a usable lesson: durable orders emerge when mediation is built into the settlement itself, not added afterward. Modern peace processes can honor this by writing standing dialogue mechanisms, review conferences and mediation clauses into their agreements, so that the inevitable future conflicts of implementation have a prepared channel. The same logic scales down to organizations and communities, which can anchor mediation clauses in contracts, statutes and neighborhood structures before conflicts arise.
Finally, the author’s reframing of the four outcomes into collaboration points to an educational task. If avoidance, adjustment and conquest are learned patterns, collaboration can be learned too, and earlier: conflict literacy, taught in schools as the ability to name one’s needs, hear the other’s, and search jointly for options, is the longest term investment in the peace this essay describes. Mediation then ceases to be an emergency service and becomes what the author claims it is, a civilizational practice, exercised daily.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES
Sources:
Meerts, W. Paul. (2014). Diplomatic Negotiation: Essence and Evolution. Den Haag: Clingendael Institute.
Toynbee, Arnold. (1966). Change and Habit: The Challenge of Our Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.