This paper examines the relative advantages of mediation and arbitration as alternative dispute resolution methods and explains how combining them into the Med-Arb model creates an effective synergy. The paper first outlines mediation's informal, non-binding, and relationship-building qualities, noting its approximately 85% success rate. It then describes arbitration's binding finality, privacy, flexibility, and cost-efficiency. Finally, the paper explains how the Med-Arb hybrid model leverages both approaches — using mediation to establish positions and trial agreements before transitioning to binding arbitration — resulting in a fairer, faster, and more comprehensive dispute resolution process.
Both mediation and arbitration have been used for many years to settle a wide range of disputes. These methods share a number of important advantages: they save time and money, offer both parties privacy, and circumvent the courts entirely. However, depending on the method selected, the finality of the decision will differ. This is because each approach embraces contrasting practices and procedures during the resolution process (Foundations of Conflict Resolution, 2012; Shachar, 2011; McLean, 2008).
Mediation is an informal procedure in which a neutral third party works to resolve a dispute. There are no formal rules established. Instead, a mediator works with both sides to craft an agreement that is acceptable to all. It is ultimately up to the individual parties to follow any decisions made during the process (Foundations of Conflict Resolution, 2012; Shachar, 2011; McLean, 2008).
As a result, mediation has been shown to be effective in successfully resolving approximately 85% of disputes. This is because it offers a number of distinct benefits:
These features illustrate how mediation is a low-risk solution that provides privacy, explores numerous options, and creates a greater probability of reaching an outcome acceptable to all sides (Foundations of Conflict Resolution, 2012; Shachar, 2011; McLean, 2008).
Arbitration is a binding process that may be court-ordered, mandatory, or voluntary. The two primary areas where it is used as a form of alternative dispute resolution are labor disputes and international commerce issues. During this process, an arbitrator works closely with both sides to understand their respective positions while remaining objective. What makes arbitration particularly attractive is the finality it offers in resolving the dispute (Foundations of Conflict Resolution, 2012; Shachar, 2011; McLean, 2008).
Several distinct benefits are provided to both parties:
These advantages illustrate how arbitration can help both sides quickly resolve key issues in a cost-effective and confidential manner (Foundations of Conflict Resolution, 2012; Shachar, 2011; McLean, 2008).
"Hybrid model combining mediation and arbitration phases"
This phase increases communication and allows trial offers to be presented to the opposing party. These proposals help enhance communication and improve everyone's ability to understand the core issues. When this happens, a better working relationship develops — one that is acceptable to all parties involved (McLean, 2008).
Once a successful trial agreement has been presented and accepted by all parties, the process transitions to final arbitration. At this stage, the elements established during mediation are incorporated into a final, legally binding proposal. This document reflects the agreed-upon positions and carries the enforceability of a formal arbitration award (McLean, 2008).
The benefits of this strategy are significant. Both sides can use mediation and arbitration together, allowing them to understand each other's positions more effectively and to test agreements before committing. The risks of this process are low, as all parties have the opportunity to explore different options before a binding decision is rendered. Once an informal agreement on key points has been reached, the final proposal is created through arbitration — ensuring fairness and incorporating the perspectives of all sides. These advantages create a synergy in alternative dispute resolution by combining the best features of both strategies (McLean, 2008).
The Med-Arb model demonstrates how the relative advantages of mediation and arbitration complement one another. Mediation's flexibility, voluntary nature, and relationship-building qualities lay the groundwork for informed, cooperative dialogue, while arbitration's binding finality ensures that a definitive and enforceable resolution is reached. By combining these two approaches, Med-Arb streamlines the dispute resolution process, reduces the time and resources involved, and produces outcomes that are fair and acceptable to all parties. These advantages create a meaningful synergy by taking the best of both strategies and applying them in a structured, sequential framework (McLean, 2008).
Foundations of Conflict Resolution. (2012).
McLean, D. (2008). Compelling mediation in the context of Med-Arb agreements. Dispute Resolution Journal, 63(3), 28–33.
Shachar, M. (2011). Conflict Resolution Management.
You’re 74% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.