Mediation vs Conciliation: Alternative Disputes Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms

What is Mediation and Conciliation?

Mediation is a facilitated negotiation by a neutral third party, encouraging parties to find a mutually satisfactory solution. Conciliation involves a more directive third party suggesting solutions to help disputants resolve their conflict, often providing advice on settlement terms.

Mediation vs Conciliation: An Introduction

Mediation and conciliation stand out as two important alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes.

Both strategies aim to avoid the cost, time, and adversarial nature of litigation, yet they differ significantly in their approach, application, and implications for the parties involved.

What is Mediation? A Collaborative Problem Solving Strategy

Mediation is a facilitated negotiation process in which a neutral third party, known as the mediator, assists the disputing parties in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement.

The mediator does not have the authority to impose a solution but rather works to help the parties understand each other’s perspectives and explore possible resolutions.

The focus is on the parties themselves owning the process and the outcome, fostering a sense of control and investment in the resolution.

The confidentiality of the mediation process encourages open dialogue, as parties can speak freely without fear that their words will be used against them in future legal proceedings.

This openness often leads to creative solutions that address the interests and needs of all involved, rather than adhering strictly to legal rights or obligations.

Mediation is particularly effective in disputes where the parties have a relationship they wish to preserve, such as business partnerships, employment, and family matters.

It is flexible and can be tailored to the specific circumstances and needs of the parties.

What is Conciliation? Guided Settlement Efforts

Conciliation shares similarities with mediation in that it involves a neutral third party who helps the disputing parties to resolve their conflict.

However, conciliators typically take a more active role in proposing solutions and guiding the parties towards settlement.

While still ensuring the process is voluntary and confidential, a conciliator may offer opinions, evaluate the merits of the case, and suggest terms of agreement.

This approach can be particularly useful when parties are entrenched in their positions or when there is a significant imbalance of power or knowledge.

By providing expertise and an objective perspective, the conciliator can help bridge the gap between the parties, facilitating a resolution that might otherwise be unattainable.

Conciliation is often used in consumer disputes, labour disputes, and international relations, where an authoritative figure can provide guidance and encourage parties to consider broader implications and potential outcomes.

Mediation vs Conciliation: Key Differences

While both mediation and conciliation aim to achieve a resolution outside of court, their methods and the role of the neutral third party differ.

The choice between mediation and conciliation often depends on the nature of the dispute, the relationship between the parties, and their willingness to engage in the process.

Authority and Approach: Mediators facilitate discussion and negotiation, encouraging the parties to find their own solutions. Conciliators may suggest solutions and provide advice, offering a more directive approach.

Outcome Control: In mediation, the outcome is entirely in the hands of the parties. In conciliation, while the final agreement is still voluntary, the conciliator’s suggestions can significantly influence the outcome.

Suitability: Mediation is best suited for parties who are willing to communicate and collaborate to find a solution. Conciliation may be more appropriate when parties are unable or unwilling to negotiate directly with each other or when an expert opinion might facilitate resolution.

The Differences Between Mediation And Conciliation

DefinitionA process where a neutral third party helps disputants find a mutually satisfactory resolution.A process involving a neutral third party who suggests solutions to help resolve a dispute.
Role of Neutral PartyFacilitator who encourages dialogue and helps parties find their own solution.More active role; may propose solutions and give advice on the merits of the case.
ApproachNon-directive; mediator facilitates communication and encourages parties to reach a solution.Directive; conciliator can offer opinions and suggest terms of settlement.
Outcome ControlEntirely controlled by the parties; the mediator does not impose an outcome.While voluntary, the outcome can be influenced by the conciliator’s suggestions.
ConfidentialityHighly confidential; encourages open dialogue.Also confidential; aimed at ensuring parties can speak freely.
SuitabilitySuitable for parties willing to collaborate and communicate directly.Useful when there’s an imbalance of power/knowledge or parties are entrenched in positions.
Application AreasOften used in family disputes, business partnerships, employment, and community conflicts.Frequently utilised in consumer disputes, labor disputes, and international relations.
Mediation vs Conciliation

How Does The Timeline Of Mediation Compare To That Of Conciliation For Resolving Disputes?

The timeline for resolving disputes through mediation or conciliation can vary widely based on the complexity of the dispute, the willingness of the parties to negotiate, and the specifics of the case.

Generally, mediation may be quicker, as it relies on facilitating a dialogue directly between the parties to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, often within a few sessions.

Conciliation, involving a more active role from the conciliator in suggesting solutions and guiding the parties towards settlement, might take longer, especially if the conciliator needs to assess the situation, propose solutions, and negotiate between parties.

Both processes, however, are typically faster and more efficient than court litigation.

How Do Mediators And Conciliators Handle Power Imbalances Between Disputing Parties?

Mediators and conciliators employ various strategies to address power imbalances between disputing parties to ensure a fair and equitable process.

Mediators focus on facilitating communication, encouraging mutual understanding, and ensuring that all parties have an equal opportunity to express their views and concerns.

They may hold private sessions with each party (caucuses) to understand their positions and concerns deeply.

Conciliators, while also acknowledging the power dynamics, might take a more proactive approach by offering suggestions and advising less powerful parties on the merits of their case or potential solutions.

Both roles involve employing techniques to level the playing field, such as setting ground rules that give each party equal speaking time and ensuring that negotiations occur in a respectful and constructive manner.

Can A Mediation Or Conciliation Process Be Converted Into Arbitration?

A mediation or conciliation process can be converted into arbitration, provided all parties involved agree to this transition. This process, often referred to as “med-arb,” combines mediation and arbitration into a single procedure.

Initially, a neutral third party attempts to facilitate a mutually acceptable agreement between the parties through mediation.

If the mediation phase does not result in a resolution, the same or a different neutral party then shifts roles to act as an arbitrator, making a binding decision on the dispute.

This hybrid approach requires clear agreements upfront about the process, confidentiality, and the arbitrator’s authority, ensuring that parties are informed and consent to the potential transition from mediation or conciliation to arbitration.

What Types Of Disputes Are Ineligible For Mediation Or Conciliation?

Generally, disputes involving criminal activities, where public policy concerns necessitate a judicial or regulatory decision, cannot be resolved through these mediation or conciliation.

Similarly, cases that involve allegations of serious misconduct, such as fraud or violence, may also be unsuitable for mediation or conciliation.

Disputes requiring a legal precedent or the interpretation of a law in a public forum, matters involving the rights of third parties not present in the mediation or conciliation, and issues that one party wishes to make public as a matter of principle or awareness may also be deemed inappropriate for these alternative dispute resolution processes.

Can Settlements Achieved Through Mediation Or Conciliation Be Appealed?

Settlements achieved through mediation or conciliation are generally considered final and binding on the parties involved, making them difficult to appeal in a traditional sense.

These agreements are based on mutual consent, where parties voluntarily agree to the terms of the resolution.

Upon reaching a settlement, parties often sign a written agreement that can be enforceable as a contract in court.

The nature of these processes emphasises finality and encourages parties to commit to the agreed-upon terms, thereby reducing the likelihood of future disputes.

However, there are limited circumstances under which an appeal or challenge could be considered, such as when there’s evidence of fraud, duress, a fundamental mistake, or if the agreement is in violation of public policy or the law.

The specifics may vary depending on the jurisdiction’s legal framework governing mediation and conciliation.

Nonetheless, the scope for appealing a settlement reached through these methods is significantly narrower compared to decisions rendered in court or through arbitration.

How Are Mediators And Conciliators Compensated, And Who Bears The Cost?

Mediators and conciliators are typically compensated either on an hourly or per-session basis, and their fees can vary based on their experience, the complexity of the dispute, and the geographical location.

The parties involved in the dispute usually share the cost of mediation or conciliation, although the specific arrangement can vary depending on the agreement between the parties or the rules of the mediation/conciliation service provider.

In some cases, one party may agree to bear a larger portion of the costs or even the full amount, particularly if such an arrangement is part of the negotiation process.

Additionally, court-ordered mediation or conciliation might have different mechanisms for determining fees and cost responsibilities.

Are There Specific Laws Governing Mediation And Conciliation?

Many countries have enacted laws and regulations to define the procedures, principles, and standards for these alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes.

For instance, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has developed the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (2018) aims to facilitate international trade and commerce by promoting mediation and conciliation as an alternative and effective form of dispute resolution.

Additionally, local laws often provide guidelines on confidentiality, the enforceability of agreements, the role and qualifications of mediators and conciliators, and procedures for initiating these processes.

These legal frameworks ensure that mediation and conciliation are conducted fairly, efficiently, and with legal authority.

Conclusion: Mediation vs Conciliation

The choice between mediation and conciliation depends on the specific needs and dynamics of the dispute at hand.

Both processes offer valuable alternatives to litigation, providing more personalised, confidential, and often more efficient resolutions.


Related Articles

Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Join Thousands of Subscribers Who Read Our Legal Opinions And Case Analysis.