Med-Arb and other hybrid processes have been received with reluctance in the United States and UK, mainly\u00a0because of ethical concerns of the arbitrator.\u00a0 Outside of\u00a0common law countries, however, the legal culture has been more welcoming to the involvement of an adjudicator — whether a judge or an arbitrator — in settlement discussions. This range of views was the topic of a panel discussion at the UIA’s recent World Mediation Forum in Lisbon, Portugal.<\/p>\n
Joe Behan of Dublin, Ireland<\/a>, reframed the topic as the role that mediation plays in arbitration practice.\u00a0 ICC Arbitration Rules Appendix iv(h)(ii) allows the arbitral tribunal to facilitate settlement, with the proviso<\/em> that such efforts not derogate the enforceability of the award.\u00a0 CIArb Practice Guideline 7 provides for the parties to\u00a0waive\u00a0challenges on the basis of settlement efforts, as do the rules of the \u00a0HKIAC and SIAC.\u00a0 JAMS has a “mediator in reserve” policy in international arbitrations.\u00a0 CPR categorically forbids arbitrators from acting as mediators.\u00a0 Some courts have held agreements for med-arb, and awards deriving from med-arb, to be enforceable, even where statutes prohibit it, if the parties have intentionally and knowingly waived such objections.\u00a0<\/p>\n