Читать книгу Mediation - Alain Lempereur - Страница 36

These intervention methods are arranged on a continuum from more autonomy for the parties toward more control by the third party.

1 Ally – It is wise, when a party lacks self‐confidence and recognizes the need for support, to ask a third party to sit next to the party or attend the meeting as part of the audience. Though this individual – or a supporting group – is not a substantive expert, and remains silent, their presence offers comfort.FIGURE 2.1 The 8 A's: Mediation within the spectrum of third‐party approaches.

2 Attorney – When a situation involves a legal dimension, it is wise to have input from someone who understands the law – its technical and relevant language and its challenges – and who can represent the involved party. The latter, of course, is free to adopt or reject the attorney's contribution.

3 Ambassador – In some situations, it is wise to resort to a third party who will be a representative, either because they are well versed in a particular area (for example, a regional subject matter expert) or because they know either one or both of the parties.General Staff of the National Burundian Defence Forces (Wolpe et al. 2004; Colson and Lempereur 2011; Lempereur 2020)At the start of the 2000s, in the aftermath of a civil war having claimed the lives of 1 out of 20 Burundians, the delicate national reconciliation implied, in particular, the integration of the defense and security forces. For months, the representatives of the regular army and the armed movements remained stuck on many questions, such as rank harmonization and position allocation. During a series of formative retreats gathering the head members of all the former belligerents, third parties (including two of the co‐authors) were involved. They acted in a diplomatic fashion, using methods of conflict resolution, as ambassadors do. They also brought military experts, who played the role of advisory aides. Subsequently, the parties succeeded in unfreezing the situation and in settling all the details by themselves, without third‐party support. During this period, the third parties remained available as attendants in the background to offer all the help that the parties would have judged useful; they were ready to intervene “if necessary,” but the parties did not need them. Their simple availability proved sufficient.

4 Auxiliary or facilitator – When direct negotiations are deadlocked, parties might need a third‐party facilitator who will act as an intermediary. By asking questions and sequencing the steps of problem‐solving, this type of third party paves the way to breaking the existing logjam, thus enabling parties to conceive and produce their own solutions.

5 Adviser – Faced with the same difficulties of relationship deterioration and deadlock, parties may need to resort to a person who, in addition to providing methods and process tips, will offer their evaluation, i.e. substantive guidance on questions at stake. Because of the Adviser's expertise and experience, the parties will seriously consider their recommendations, which again they are free to adopt or refuse.

6 Arbitrator – When the parties have not been able to come up with a binding solution – despite the involvement of one of the preceding outsiders – and there is an urgency, weariness, and/or desire for a decision – it may be necessary to designate a third party in whom the parties place their confidence, and whose decision they agree a priori to accept. This form of “private justice” exists in sports as in many civil disputes.

7 Adjudicator – If a “private third party” cannot decide their case, parties can turn to a “public institution” that wields a conclusive function, such as the judiciary for legal disputes. This adjudicator – typically, a judge – will have to conduct due process, and therefore keep the parties involved to a certain extent before deciding, and for this reason differs from the last type of third‐party intervention: Authority.

8 Authority – As a solution to the conflict, parties (either or both) may decide to ask an authority figure to make the decision. By doing so, however, the parties usually completely lose control over decision‐making. The authority's solution can become necessary in an urgent situation that requires a quick decision with or without consultation.Conflicting medical diagnosesIn a hospital, sometimes doctors make different diagnoses. They cannot negotiate indefinitely, because the patient's health would suffer. They therefore agree to rely on the head of the department, whose special expertise is authoritative. The hierarchical authority is asked for a decision on how to move forward with the patient's medical treatment.