Les clauses Marc/ADR - Université de Neuchâtel

Transcription

Les clauses Marc/ADR :
faut-il innover, et si oui, comment ?
Jeremy LACK
Avocat & Médiateur, Etude ALTENBURGER (CH)
Barrister, QUADRANT CHAMBERS (GB)
Counsel, PEARL COHEN ZEDEK LATZER LLP (US)
Enseignant à l’Université de Neuchâtel
Zürich
Seestrasse 39
CH - 8700 Küsnacht
Tel. +41 44 914 88 88
[email protected]
1
Genève
Rue Rodolphe-Toepffer 11bis
CH - 1206 Genève
Tel. +41 22 789 50 20
[email protected]
© B. Sambeth Glasner & J. Lack 2008. All rights reserved.
www.altenburger.ch
Les clauses Marc/ADR
(a) Faut-il innover?
-
Pourquoi les clauses compromissoires?
L’évolution du monde des affaires
La neurophysiologie du conflit
Une approche holistique du conflit
(b) Si oui, comment ?
-
2
La gamme des MARC
Les clauses standards
Les clauses mixtes
Le concept «Clause & Effet »
Quelques exemples
www.altenburger.ch
Pourquoi utiliser des clauses compromissoires?
• L’autonomie des parties (c.a.d. plus de choix)
• La flexibilité
• Le pragmatisme
• Arriver à un résultat (pas la formalité de la procédure)
• Efficacité (coûts et temps) – surtout dans un contexte global
• Sentiment de justice (surtout avec le recul)
• Certitude en affaires (exequatur)
• Clôre le conflit
• Confidentialité?
Avons-nous perdu de vue le but de ces clauses ?
3
www.altenburger.ch
Le monde de l’arbitrage
4
www.altenburger.ch
Le résultat = Des poissons dans des bocaux
5
www.altenburger.ch
Le monde “évolue”
Voir:
The World is Flat,
Thomas Friedman
e.g., L’Internet:
Asia Pacific - Red
Europe/Middle East/Central
Asia/Africa - Green
North America - Blue
Latin American and Caribbean Yellow
RFC1918 IP Addresses - Cyan
Unknown - White
Source:
6
http://www.opte.org/maps/
www.altenburger.ch
Il faut développer une vision kaléidoscopique
Source: http://bindweed.com/magicmirror/kaleidoscope-collage.gif
7
www.altenburger.ch
Avons-nous évolué dans notre gestion des conflits?
Source: http://www.didntyouhear.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/evolution1.jpg
Source: M. Rushton, Legal Business Arbitration Report 2008 p. 20
8
www.altenburger.ch
Il faut repenser à notre image de nous-mêmes
C/
L’homme Vitruvien
Comment nous aimons nous voir
9
L’homme Homunculus
Comment nous cerveaux sont soudés
www.altenburger.ch
Les approches typiques
Source: J. Kalowski
10
www.altenburger.ch
Le syllogisme juridique (une équation)
Les faits (passés & présents)
+
Le(s) droit(s) applicable(s)
=
Conclusions
« Nous devons nous fier qu’aux faits objectifs. »
« Les arbitres ont une obligation sacrée d’établir la vérité. »
11
www.altenburger.ch
La « vérité » est-elle subjective ?
Cerveau gauche c. cerveau droit ... Dans quel sens voyez-vous tourner la danseuse?
Dans le sens des aiguilles d’une montre, vous utilisez plutôt l’hémisphère droit de votre cerveau; dans
l’autre sens, plutôt l’hémisphère gauche. Nous pouvons la faire changer de direction! (Essayez).
CERVEAU DROIT
uses feeling
"big picture" oriented
imagination rules
symbols and images
present and future
philosophy & religion
can "get it" (i.e. meaning)
believes
appreciates
spatial perception
knows object function
fantasy based
presents possibilities
impetuous
risk taking
CERVEAU GAUCHE
uses logic
detail oriented
facts rule
words and language
present and past
math and science
can comprehend
knowing
acknowledges
order/pattern perception
knows object name
reality based
forms strategies
practical
safe
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22535838-5012895,00.html
12
www.altenburger.ch
Le cerveau « triune » : 3 étapes d’évolution
Voir: Paul D. MacLean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain
Source:
http://www.solarnavigator.net/biology/biology_ima
ges/brain_animal_comparisons.jpg
13
Source: http://www.cop.com/info/346edb.gif
www.altenburger.ch
Nos sommes guidés par nos émotions
Source: http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~psyc220/kalat/JK379.fig12.13.amygdala_con.jpg
Les amygdalas agissent comme une détecteur rapide de pertinence: elles agissent
comme un interrupteur entre les couches reptiliennes et néocorticales du cerveau
La perception est 100% émotionnelle (quoi que nous voulions)
14
www.altenburger.ch
La face cachée de tout conflit
Faits
Loi(s)
Positions
Préoccupations
Malentendus
Perceptions
Sentiments
Intentions
Emotions
Craintes
Intérêts
Besoins
Valeurs
15
Le côté “objectif” du
conflit semble
souvent évident …
… mais le côté
“subjectif” reste a
découvrir et parfois
ne le sera jamais.
www.altenburger.ch
Une approche holistique (prévention et résolution de conflits)
VALEURS
BESOINS
Bases fondamentales
Contraintes
Stratégies
Cible
PROBLEMES
Intérêts
Positions
17
SOLUTIONS
Options
Alternatives
www.altenburger.ch
Les étapes du conflit
Zone à cibler
1 Durcissement des
positions
Polarisation du
2
débat
Passage à
3
l’acte
Préjugés et
4
WIN-WIN
coalitions
5 Faire perdre la
face
Stratégies de
6
menaces
Frappes
WIN-LOSE
7
contrôlées
8
Ecroulement
9 Ensemble dans le
gouffre
Inspired by: Tina Monberg
Source: F. Glasl’s “Confronting Conflict”
18
LOSE-LOSE
www.altenburger.ch
Les outils = Méthodes Appropriées de Résolution de Conflits (MARC/ADR)
Moins évaluatif
Moins structuré
Moins formel
Source: J. Kalowski, JOK Consulting
MEDIATION
EXPERTISE INDEPENDANTE
CONCILIATION
EVALUATION
ARBITRAGE
Plus évaluatif
Plus structuré
Plus formel
19
NEGOCIATION
Consensuel
Les parties ont le contrôle
JUGEMENT
Contradictoire
Un tiers a le contrôle
www.altenburger.ch
Arbitrage …
Résolution
Source: Joanna Kalowski
A
P1
20
P2
www.altenburger.ch
… Conciliation …
Résolution
C
Jurisprudence
P1
Doctrine
Lois
JUSTICE
OBJECTIVE
21
P2
www.altenburger.ch
… Médiation
Résolution
P1
P2
M
JUSTICE
SUBJECTIVE
22
www.altenburger.ch
La médiation
“Le processus par lequel les participants avec l’aide
d’une ou plusieurs personnes neutres isolent
systématiquement les problèmes contentieux afin de
développer des options, examiner des alternatives et
arriver à un accord consensuel qui répond à leurs
besoins.”
Folberg & Taylor
Commercial Mediation, 1984
Ceci peut être sur des questions de forme ainsi que de fond.
23
www.altenburger.ch
Ce qui rend la médiation unique
PASSE
COMPREHENSION
& EXPLORATION
Résumés + préparation d’agenda
Examen des problèmes
Séances privées (« caucus »)
Génération d’options (c/ alternatives)
Négociation(s)
RESOLUTON
FUTUR
24
Début
Présentation
des histoires
Pré-médiation:
Réunions préliminaires
(séances privées & conjointes)
Accord/
Clôture
Post-médiation:
Homologation et
exécution de l’accord
www.altenburger.ch
Taux de réussite (Source: ACB, NL 2006)
Durée moyenne d’une médiation
4 séances d’une
½ journée
Pourcentage de conflits résolus en une seule
séance
15%
Pourcentage de cas où il y a eu une transaction
79%
Satisfaction des parties (volonté de refaire une
médiation)
92%
Valeur moyenne litigieuse
Coût moyen
€ 5 millions
€ 3,500.00 / partie
http://www.mediation-bedrijfsleven.nl/english.shtml
25
www.altenburger.ch
Pourquoi innover : plus de choix + meilleurs résultats
26
Faits
Loi(s)
Positions
Arbitrage ou
procès
Préoccupations
Malentendus
Perceptions
Sentiments
Intentions
Emotions
Craintes
Intérêts
Besoins
Valeurs
+
Médiation
=
Une approche plus
holistique de la
résolution des conflits
www.altenburger.ch
Innover: Si oui, comment?
Think Swiss!
Think Global!
Think Case-by-Case!
27
www.altenburger.ch
Pourquoi inclure une phase de médiation ?
« Transformez
une menace en
opportunité commerciale »
Cees J.A. van Lede, Président du Conseil
d’administration de Akzo Nobel NV
28
www.altenburger.ch
Quand insérer l’étape de la médiation ?
Le plus tôt possible
« Résolution Rapide de Conflits – le plus tôt les
procédures de MARC seront utilisées dans le
cycle d’un conflit, le moins il y aura de risque
que le conflit pourra s’escalader hors de
contrôle. »
Hans Peter Frick, Group General Counsel, Nestlé SA
Source: http://www.mediation-bedrijfsleven.nl/english.shtml#quote4
29
www.altenburger.ch
Articulations & procédures mixtes
Consecutives
• Med-Arb
• Arb-Med
Parallèles
• Med//Arb
• Carve-outs
• Fenêtres
• Shadow mediation
• Partnering
Hybrides
• MEDALOA
• « Co-medarbitres »?
30
Facteurs clés
• Parties
• Certitude de résultat
• Coûts
• Temps & délais
• Distances
• Langues
• Compétences
• Lieu
• Institution
• Nationalités
• Avocats
• Neutres
• Disponibilités
• Conseillers
• Confidentialité
• Pièces à produire
• Implémentation
• Exécution
www.altenburger.ch
Les clauses standards (ex. les “Swiss ADR Rules”)
Au service des entreprises
Les Chambres de commerce suisses sont des associations de
droit privé qui regroupent une majorité d’entreprises dans les
secteurs de l'industrie, des services, des arts et métiers. Avec
le Règlement suisse de médiation commerciale, les Chambres
de commerce de Bâle, Berne, Genève, Neuchâtel, Vaud, Tessin
et Zurich mettent à la disposition de l’économie suisse et
internationale, un mode amiable de résolution des conflits.
Par la médiation, deux ou plusieurs parties demandent à un
tiers, le médiateur, de les aider à trouver un accord pour
mettre un terme à leur différend, voire de prévenir un conflit
futur. Le médiateur favorise l’échange de points de vue et tente
d’amener les parties à explorer des solutions acceptables pour
celles-ci. Il ne donne pas son avis, contrairement à l’expert, il
ne formule pas de proposition, contrairement au conciliateur et
il ne tranche pas le litige, contrairement à l’arbitre.
La médiation peut prendre fin en tout temps si les parties ne
trouvent pas une solution amiable, ou si l’une des parties
souhaite mettre un terme au processus.
Règlements modernes, flexibles et efficaces.
31
www.altenburger.ch
Clause Med-Arb des « Swiss Mediation Rules »
Médiation suivie d’un arbitrage international
Tous litiges, différends ou prétentions nés du présent contrat ou se rapportant à celuici, y compris la validité, la nullité, d’éventuelles violations du contrat ou sa résiliation,
seront soumis à la médiation conformément au Règlement suisse de médiation
commerciale des Chambres de commerce suisses en vigueur à la date à laquelle la
requête de médiation est déposée conformément audit Règlement. Le siège de la
médiation sera … [ville en Suisse, sauf si les parties ont convenu d’une ville à
l'étranger], bien que les séances pourront se tenir à … [spécifier le lieu]. Le processus
de médiation se déroulera en … [spécifier la langue souhaitée]. Dans le cas où le
litige, le différend ou la prétention n’ont pu être complètement résolus par la
médiation dans un délai de 60 jours à compter de la date de confirmation ou de
nomination du/des médiateur(s) par les Chambres, ils seront tranchés par voie de
l’arbitrage conformément au Règlement suisse d’arbitrage international des Chambres
de commerce suisses en vigueur à la date à laquelle la notification d’arbitrage est
déposée conformément audit Règlement. Le nombre d’arbitres est fixé à ... [un ou
trois]; Le siège de l’arbitrage sera ... [ville en Suisse, sauf si les parties ont convenu
d’un siège à l’étranger]; L’arbitrage se déroulera en ... [spécifier la langue souhaitée].
L’arbitrage se déroulera selon les règles de la Procédure Accélérée [si les parties le
souhaitent].
32
www.altenburger.ch
IV. Règles de procédure
Article 15 – Conduite du processus de médiation
1. La médiation se déroulera de la manière convenue par les parties. A défaut d’accord, le médiateur conduira le
processus de médiation comme il le considère approprié, en tenant compte des circonstances du cas particulier, des
souhaits exprimés par les parties et de la nécessité d’un règlement rapide du litige.
2. Avec l’accord des parties, le médiateur détermine le lieu des séances, la langue de la médiation, la possibilité de
caucus séparés (Article 15, paragraphe 3), l’éventuel calendrier, l’éventuelle soumission d’écritures et de documents,
ainsi que la possibilité commune pour les parties d’être assistées par des tierces personnes. Le médiateur peut
demander aux parties de signer un accord de médiation.
3. Le médiateur peut, s’il le considère approprié, entendre les parties séparément. Toute information divulguée dans ces
séances séparées (caucus) est confidentielle et ne pourra être révélée à l’autre partie sans autorisation préalable.
4. Lorsqu’il le juge nécessaire, le médiateur peut, avec l’accord des parties qui prennent en charge les frais, requérir
l’avis d’un expert sur les aspects techniques du litige.
5. Le médiateur peut mettre fin à la médiation lorsque, de son avis, des efforts supplémentaires ne contribueraient pas à
la résolution du litige entre les parties. Le médiateur peut alors suggérer d’autres instruments de résolution de conflit
aux parties, parmi lesquels : a) un avis d’expert sur l’une ou l’autre question particulière du litige; b) la
communication de dernières offres de règlement du litige; c) l’arbitrage.
Article 21 – L’accord transactionnel
Sauf accord contraire écrit des parties, aucun règlement du litige n’est réputé atteint avant d’avoir été rédigé par écrit
et signé par toutes les parties concernées.
Article 22 – Procédure subséquente
1. Sauf accord contraire exprès des parties, le médiateur ne peut pas agir comme arbitre, juge, expert ou encore comme
représentant ou conseil d’une partie dans une procédure subséquente dirigée contre l’une ou l’autre des parties à la
médiation, initiée après le début de la médiation.
2. Si les parties décident de désigner un médiateur comme arbitre, juge ou expert dans une procédure arbitrale
subséquente, ce dernier peut prendre en compte les informations reçues pendant le processus de médiation.
33
www.altenburger.ch
VI. Médiation et arbitrage
Article 23 – Recours à l’arbitrage
1. Dans les médiations internationales, les parties peuvent, à tout moment pendant leur médiation, convenir
conjointement par écrit de soumettre leur litige ou une partie de leur litige à un tribunal arbitral en application du
Règlement suisse d’arbitrage international des Chambres de commerce suisses afin qu’il soit tranché par
arbitrage. Chaque partie peut alors initier la procédure d’arbitrage selon ce Règlement, y compris les règles sur
la Procédure Accélérée de l’article 42 du Règlement, en soumettant une Notification d’arbitrage conformément
à l’Article 3 de ce Règlement. Si les parties transigent leur litige pendant la procédure arbitrale, l’article 34 du
Règlement suisse d’arbitrage est applicable pour la reddition d’une sentence d’accord parties.
2. Dans les médiations internes, les parties peuvent, à tout moment pendant leur médiation, convenir
conjointement par écrit de soumettre leur litige, ou une partie de leur litige, à l’arbitrage interne de l’une des
Chambres afin qu’il soit tranché par arbitrage. Chaque partie peut alors initier la procédure d’arbitrage selon le
Règlement concerné, y compris les règles de procédure accélérée si elles sont prévues par ledit Règlement, en
soumettant une requête ou notification d’arbitrage conformément à ce qui est prévu par le Règlement interne
concerné. Si les parties transigent leur litige pendant la procédure arbitrale et que le Règlement d’arbitrage
interne le prévoit, celui-ci règle la procédure pour la reddition d’une sentence d’accord parties.
Article 24 – La médiation pendant une procédure arbitrale
1. Dans toutes les procédures arbitrales pendantes devant les Chambres dans lesquelles la médiation semble
valoir la peine d’être tentée, en tout ou en partie, les Chambres, l’arbitre ou les arbitres, peuvent suggérer aux
parties de résoudre amiablement leur litige, ou une partie de celui-ci, en ayant recours à un médiateur.
2. Si les parties acceptent d’avoir recours à la médiation en application du présent Règlement, à réception
d’une requête en médiation déposée conformément à l’article 2 et des frais d’enregistrement, les Chambres
procèdent au choix du médiateur conformément au Chapitre II du présent Règlement.
34
www.altenburger.ch
Les clauses sur mesure: le principe « Clause & Effet »
Storebaelt, DK
Source: Tina Monberg
Oresund, DK & SE
Le même Conflict Management System (“CMS”) a été proposé dans 2 cas
PROPOSITION DE PETER LUNDHUS
LUNDHUS PROPOSAL ACCEPTÉ
Musketeer bonus + Steering group
•
•
•
•
1.
2.
3.
4.
Négociation
Dispute Resolution Board
Médiation
Arbitrage
LUNDHUS PROPOSAL REFUSÉ
•
•
Ouvert avec 9 mois d’avance
Dans les limites du budget
Aucun constructeur n’a perdu de l’argent
Pas de presse négative ou de plaintes
politiques
Relations positives
Moins d’accidents et aucun décès
Quantum Physique: Ceci peut s’appliquer à d’autre situations
35
www.altenburger.ch
Exemple 2: Une clause Arb-Med pour une évaluation
The parties agree to resolve the Valuation of the Assets by using the following process, the full costs of which shall be shared
equally by the parties.
1. Binding arbitration
In accordance with the CPR Rules for Non-Administered Arbitration (the “CPR N-AA Rules”) by one independent and impartial
arbitrator (the “Neutral”), modified to reflect the terms of this clause as follows:
(a)
The process shall be truncated to enable it to be completed in three hours, including the parties’ arguments,
rebuttals, summations and the preparation of the Award.
(b)
The Award made be the Neutral shall consist of a number, being the Neutral’s evaluation of the appropriate
Valuation of the Assets. The parties will permit the Neutral to consult by telephone in relation to valuation methodologies and
other valuation matters with [name and contact details of consultant].
(c)The Award shall not be disclosed by the Neutral to the parties except in accordance with paragraph 2 below but once made
shall be sealed in an envelope marked “Confidential – Not to be opened except with the consent of the Neutral upon the failure
by the parties to reach a mutually-agreed Valuation of the Assets pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Valuation Process”.
2. Mediation
In accordance with the CPR Model Mediation Procedure modified to reflect the terms of this clause as follows:
(a) The Neutral shall be the mediator.
(b) The process shall be truncated to enable it to be completed in less than three hours, including the Neutral’s introduction but
not including the preparation of any Memorandum of Understanding reflecting the parties’ agreement on the valuation. The
three hour period will not be extended by the parties.
(d)
In the event that the parties reach an agreement on the Valuation of the Assets within the three hour period
allocated for the Mediation and sign a Memorandum of Understanding, that agreement shall bind the parties. The Award shall be
destroyed and will not be disclosed verbally by the Neutral unless the parties all request the Neutral to disclose the Award to
them within one hour of having signed the Memorandum of Understanding.
(c)
In the event that the parties fail to reach an agreement on the Valuation of the Assets within the three hour period
allocated for the Mediation, the Neutral shall unseal and disclose the Award to the parties. Immediately upon that disclosure
having been made, the parties will be bound by the Award.
36
www.altenburger.ch
Arb-Med
•
But: Créer une « marmite à pression » pour arriver à
un accord quand les négociations deviennent bloquées
•
2 techniques successives: arbitrage (3 heures) et
médiation (3 heures)
•
Neutre(s) avec 2 chapeaux:
Exemple:
BAT
1. L’Arbitre rend une décision (placée dans une
enveloppe scellée)
2. Le Médiateur assiste les parties pour trouver une
solution négociée
37
•
Si un accord est trouvé: l’enveloppe reste fermée
•
Sinon, les parties sont liées par la décision (enveloppe)
www.altenburger.ch
MEDALOA (Hybride Arb-Med)
Exemple:
MEDALOA = Mediation and Last Offer Arbitration
« Arbitrage sur dernières offres »
38
•
But: Créer encore une « marmite à pression » plus
psychologique
•
Combinaison de médiation et d’arbitrage (même neutre)
•
Le « med-arbitre » ne peut choisir qu’entre les 2
dernières offres faites par les parties
•
Variantes
- «Baseball arbitration» («final offer arbitration»)
- «Night baseball arbitration»
Skyguide
www.altenburger.ch
Innover: Une clause “MEDALOA” intérim (11 jours)
“Should a dispute arise during the period of May 14-25, 2008, while the Conference is taking
place in Buenos Aires, Argentina, the Parties hereby further agree that the CMC may appoint
either Mr. XXX of the firm YYY (whose details are available at http://www.xxx.yyy.com.ar) or
Mr. YYY (whose details are available at http://www.wipo.int/.../yyy.pdf) as the mediator,
without having to pass through WIPO for an appointment. In this case, and whenever either
the CMC or the mediator believe this to be expedient or in the interests of time, the
mediator may resolve the dispute, or any portion of the dispute that remains, by mediation
followed by the submission of binding last offers, wherein the mediator shall act as the sole
arbitrator in selecting which last offer shall prevail, pursuant to Article 13(b)(iii) of the WIPO
Mediation Rules (hereinafter referred to as “Mediation followed by Last Offer Arbitration” or
“MEDALOA”). The Parties hereby consent to such MEDALOA proceedings whenever
recommended by the mediator or requested by the CMC. The Parties hereby agree that
they shall use their best efforts at all times to complete such MEDALOA proceedings within
twenty-four (24) hours from the appointment of the mediator by the CMC, unless otherwise
agreed to by all of the Parties and the mediator. The Parties further agree that any decision
made by the mediator acting as sole arbitrator regarding which last offer shall prevail
pursuant to the MEDALOA process shall be legally binding and enforceable as a foreign
arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Awards dated June 10, 1958, and that any Party seeking legal redress on the
basis of such a decision shall be entitled to specific performance of that decision, even if only
one party provided a last offer, or a party refused to participate in the final phase of the
MEDALOA (in which case the mediator’s determination as to the prevailing last offer may be
treated as a judgment in default). The seat of any such MEDALOA proceedings shall be
Buenos Aires, Argentina, and the language of the proceedings shall be English, although the
Parties shall be allowed to present evidence in Spanish, without need for translation. In the
event that the CMC or the mediator believes that the dispute should not be fully resolved by
MEDALOA, the parties shall revert to mediation followed by expedited arbitration in Geneva,
Switzerland, in accordance with the general provisions of Section 11 of this Agreement.”
39
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Principles
Create or use model?
KISS?
48 hours outcome
MEDALOA
What institution?
Use its models?
Sequential or Hybrid?
Deadlines prior to
next phase?
Default provisions?
Med. upon request v.
mandatory?
Repeatable ?
Same language,
applicable law and
seat?
Number of neutrals?
www.altenburger.ch
Quand sauter une étape de médiation ?
BONNES RAISONS
• Il faut créer un précédent / une jurisprudence
• Il y a une inégalité abusive dans les pouvoirs
• Une des parties est malhonnête / n’agit pas de bonne foi
• Le neutre parait être dangereusement incompétent
• Il faut une expertise technique dans des échéances strictes
• Besoin d’exequatur sous la Convention de New York de 1958
MAUVAISES RAISONS
• « La médiation est un signe de faiblesse »
• « Il est trop top pour essayer une médiation »
• « Nous avons négocié en vain, un médiateur n’y changera rien »
• « On ne peut pas négocier avec des pirates »
40
www.altenburger.ch
Merci
BESOINS
SOLUTIONS
PROBLEMES
VALEURS
Options
Intérêts
Positions
Bases fondamentales
Contraintes
Stratégies
Cible
Alternatives
Birgit SAMBETH GLASNER
[email protected]
Rue Rodolphe-Toepffer 11bis
CH - 1206 Genève
Tel. +41 22 789 50 20
[email protected]
Jeremy LACK
[email protected]
41
www.altenburger.ch
The New Swiss Rules of Commercial Mediation
The New Swiss Rules of Commercial
Mediation of the Swiss Chambers of
Commerce and Industry: Possible
Links to Arbitration
Jeremy Lack*
Contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
*
Introduction: ADR In Switzerland
Combining ADR Processes
The Swiss ADR Rules
Switching Hats
Conclusion
The author would like to thank DAVID PLANT, CHRISTOPHE IMHOOS, BIRGIT
SAMBETH-GLASNER and ANTONIO RIGOZZI for their feedback when preparing
this article. The ideas contained in this article are solely the author’s and
are intended to provoke reflection and debate. They should not be interpreted as being the views of any individual, organization or firm.
105
Jeremy Lack
I.
Introduction: ADR In Switzerland
Switzerland has a proud reputation in the field of international conflict
prevention and resolution. From the time of the Alabama arbitration in
1871 to the present, it has established itself as a leading jurisdiction in
the field of international arbitration, and it has enacted one of the most
comprehensive and modern laws of international arbitration in effect today, which is set out in Chapter 12 PILS of 1987. In addition to arbitration, however, Switzerland is re-discovering one of its other traditions:
mediation. Although it is already known in international diplomatic and
humanitarian circles as a country of mediators, Switzerland and the
commercial world have tended to forget about its roots and skill sets in
civil and commercial mediation, as a way of preventing and resolving domestic as well as international commercial disputes, which go back to the
middleages1. This is all beginning to change, as demonstrated by two recent examples: (a) new provisions in the Swiss Federal Code of Civil Procedure (to be enacted in 2011) that will endorse civil mediation for the
first time in Switzerland as a judicially-recognised means of dispute resolution; and (b) a recent move by the Swiss Chambers of Commerce and
Industry (the «Chambers») to promote commercial mediation in addition
to arbitration.
This paper will examine the links between mediation and arbitration and
how the Chambers’ new Rules of International Arbitration («Swiss Arbitration Rules» or «SAR») of January 2006 and their even newer Rules of
Commercial Mediation («Swiss Mediation Rules» or «SMR») of April 2007
(collectively, the «Swiss ADR Rules») provide for a new paradigm in dispute resolution mechanisms, by combining the best of both worlds: the
business certainty and norms-based tradition that arbitration has to offer,
with the subjective and future interests-based approach that mediation
has to offer.
Prior to discussing these links, however, it is important to make a distinction between three types of dispute resolution that are common in Switzerland, and are sometimes grouped together under the heading of Alternative Dispute Resolution («ADR»). These are (i) arbitration, (ii)
conciliation, and (iii) mediation, which can be distinguished from one another as follows:
1
106
GLÄßER/VON SINNER, pp. 64-68.
x
Arbitration is an adjudicative process, in which the neutral is
evaluative, and decides both procedural and substantive issues. Although arbitration is more flexible in many ways than litigation in
national courts, it is a norms-based system wherein the arbitration
tribunal is constrained to some extent. The tribunal is expected to
limit itself to looking only at issues of fact, which have occurred in
the past, and at issues of law, dismissing extraneous information
such as the parties’ needs, wants or feelings as irrelevant. The tribunal has a «sacred duty» to apply a norms-based legal syllogism
whereby «facts + law = outcome» (or «conclusions» in French).
Arbitrators have the onerous responsibility of getting their outcomes «right», as an arbitral award is usually non-appealable and
internationally enforceable under the New York Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958.
x
Conciliation is an evaluative but non-adjudicative norms-based
process, in which the neutral tends to decide on procedural issues,
and can make non-binding proposals as to substantive issues. The
parties are encouraged to reach an agreement based on proposals
formulated by a conciliator in view of doctrine, the law and jurisprudence, which are objective and «legal rights-based». Conciliation is thus an evaluative process, like arbitration, which also seeks
to apply the legal syllogism, and is typically backward looking, as it
seeks outcomes based on norms and on what would likely happen
in an adjudicatory context. It is for this reason that many arbitrators are comfortable with and practice conciliation in the course of
arbitration, and have been doing so for many years, sometimes
prompting the parties to settle within a zone of possible agreement
(«ZOPA») that is based on what the law would provide for, before
issuing an award.
x
Mediation is a non-adjudicative process, which is meant to be
based on subjective interests, not on objective norms, and where
options can be generated that go beyond the range of relief that is
available to an arbitrator or that would normally be contemplated
in conciliation. It has been defined as «[t]he process by which the
participants, with the assistance of a neutral person or persons,
systematically isolate disputed issues in order to develop options,
consider alternatives and reach a consensual agreement that will
107
Jeremy Lack
accommodate their needs»2. The parties are encouraged in this
process to explore solutions that are oriented towards the future
and not just the past. Although the past remains relevant, and the
parties’ legal rights remain relevant to assess their Best Alternative
to a Negotiated Agreement (their «BATNA»), the mediator is free
to explore with the parties their subjective interests, wants and
needs, and the reasons behind their legal positions. A mediator will
usually focus on issues that a tribunal would normally seek to
avoid, sometimes in private meetings (caucuses) with only one of
the parties, which is something that is not possible in arbitration as
it would be deemed to contravene natural justice or the principe du
contradictoire. A mediator may meet with the parties separately or
together, and can suggest, but does not control procedural issues.
He or she does not make substantive decisions or recommendations on issues of fact or law either. The parties thus have complete autonomy and flexibility at all times.
The Swiss Mediation Rules define mediation consistently with these distinctions as follows:
«Mediation is an alternative method of dispute resolution
whereby two or more parties ask a neutral third party, the
mediator, to assist them in settling a dispute or in avoiding future conflicts. The mediator facilitates the exchange of opinions between the parties and encourages them to explore solutions that are acceptable to all the participants. Unlike an
expert the mediator does not offer his or her own views
nor make proposals like a conciliator, and unlike an arbitrator he or she does not render an award»3 (emphasis
added).
2
3
108
FOLBERG/TAYLOR, pp. 7-8.
See
<https://www.sccam.org/sm/download/swiss_mediation_rules_version
_2007_english.pdf> at «Introduction».
Figure 1 below summarizes these differences between mediation, conciliation and arbitration, in a graphical manner:
FIGURE 1: ARBITRATION, CONCILIATION & MEDIATION4
Arbitration v. …
Resolution
A
P1
32
P2
© Jeremy Lack 2006-07. All rights reserved.
… Conciliation v. …
Resolution
C
Precedent
Justice
Statute
P1
P2
OBJECTIVE
FAIRNESS
33
… Mediation
Resolution
P1
P2
M
SUBJECTIVE
FAIRNESS
34
4
The author is grateful to Ms. JOANNA KALOWSKI of JOK Pty Ltd., Australia,
for her consent to the use of these slides.
109
Jeremy Lack
I.
Combining ADR Processes
Although arbitration, conciliation and mediation are well known and have
been practiced for many years, they tend to be viewed and treated as
independent procedures. Because of their evaluative and norms-based
nature, most arbitrators are comfortable acting as conciliators, in particular in Switzerland where there is a long tradition of conciliation, and some
arbitrators have somewhat blurred the distinction between these two
forms of private dispute resolution. Some Swiss arbitrators thus also act
as conciliators (as opposed to mediators, as defined above) within the
confines of their arbitrations, by making suggestions prior to issuing their
awards5. Arbitrators and conciliators, however, are often uncomfortable
with the non-evaluative nature of mediation, due to the perceived lack of
objectivised norms, and the need to take into account individual needs
and probe for subjective and future-looking interests that are part of a
typical mediation process. Given that such probing sometimes takes place
in one-on-one caucuses (depending on the mediator’s training or the parties’ preferences), which also raises the natural justice issues raised
above, this activity often jars with these evaluative neutrals’ procedural
instincts, where the principle of adversarial hearings requires that the opposing party be present whenever a party is heard by the neutral.
Although there are some issues that require special consideration (e.g.,
the use of caucuses in mediation), there is an increasing body of literature recently suggesting that mediation, conciliation and arbitration are
fully compatible, and should be used and combined more often6. International arbitration is also undergoing increasing pressures in a flattening
and increasingly technologically-dependant world, and some of its users
are beginning to complain openly that arbitration has become slower,
5
6
110
For a thorough discussion of the use of conciliation in arbitration, see:
SCHNEIDER, pp. 57-99, and more recently, KAUFMANN-KOHLER, also at
<http://www.ialecture.com/2007.html>. In both of these papers, however, the authors do not make a distinction between mediation and conciliation, treating them as equivalent processes. They do not discuss possible differences between evaluative and norms-based conciliations as
opposed to non-evaluative and subjective interests-based mediations,
which may be highly relevant in certain contexts when considering combined ADR processes, or having the same neutral wear both hats.
For recent publications on combining mediation with arbitration, see (i)
DENDORFER/LACK, (also published in SchiedsVZ 4/2007, pp. 195-205); (ii)
PHILLIPS, pp. 73-79; (iii) VORYS, pp. 871-898; and (iv) BUHRINGUHLE/KIRCHHOFF/SCHERER, Chapters VIII – IX.
more cumbersome, more expensive and less user-focused, at a time
when cost-efficiency, commercial pragmatism, and speed are increasingly
important in resolving transnational disputes. Several leading international arbitrators have themselves been calling for reforms in arbitration
practice, admitting that they too see international arbitration as becoming
unduly costly, legalistic and rigid7. This sometimes makes arbitration too
lengthy or expensive for some claimants, who although wishing to invoke
their rights to initiate arbitration discover that they cannot afford to do
so8. These same users also will not resort to conciliation as a process per
se, preferring to opt for the certainty of outcome that arbitration has to
offer. These growing complaints about arbitration are partly justified and
are the reason why the ICC has recently set up a Task Force on Reducing
Time and Costs in Arbitration, whose findings and recommendations are
presented elsewhere in this publication by BERNHARD F. MEYER9. It is interesting to note, however, that the ICC Task Force’s paper apparently does
not refer to mediation or conciliation as possible methods for addressing
some of these concerns, despite the ICC’s recent re-issuance of its own
Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules in July 2001, which provide for
commercial mediation10. This demonstrates how arbitration, conciliation
and mediation continue to be seen and treated as disparate and separate
ADR proceedings, even by institutions that provide ADR services in each
of these fields.
Although several ADR institutions are beginning to buck this trend by offering both mediation and arbitration rules, the majority of these institutions, provide only for sequential mediation and arbitration, that is to
say mediation followed by arbitration («MED-ARB»), or arbitration followed by mediation («ARB-MED»)11. These combined proceedings are in-
7
8
9
10
11
For a recent discussion on customer satisfaction, costs and the possible
need for reform of modern arbitration see RUSHTON, pp. 16-21.
This is, paradoxically, seen in some cases as a benefit. It is known that
certain arbitration clauses are inserted in certain agreements to act as a
deterrent against any form of future litigation, since neither party expects
it will ever be able to afford to apply them, or it will not be cost-effective
to do so.
See pp. 1 et seq. of this publication.
For
a
copy
of
these
ICC
Rules
and
Guidelines,
see
<http://www.iccwbo.org/court/adr/id4452/index.html>.
In MED-ARB proceedings, these are sequential processes, by which the
parties will first try to resolve a dispute through mediation, and if the dispute is not fully resolved within a fixed period of time, it will be submitted
to arbitration. In ARB-MED the steps are inversed, although the arbitration is normally completed and the arbitral tribunal’s award is already
111
Jeremy Lack
teresting in their own rights, and will be discussed further below. But
some organisations have gone a step further, by providing specific rules
for the running of mediation and arbitration proceedings simultaneously, in parallel (e.g., «MED//ARB»). The Chambre de Médiation et
d’Arbitrage de Paris (CMAP), for example, is one of these ADR institutions. It has adopted specific rules for parallel mediation and arbitration
proceedings in its «Règlement de MED-ARB simultanés» in 2006, which
can be found on its website12. These rules, however, forbid the mediation
and arbitration processes from ever overlapping. For example, Article 9 of
these rules provides for the independence of these two procedures by
stating that the two should occur independently of one another and that
CMAP will not provide the names of the neutrals involved in these proceedings to one another. The provision goes so far as to even forbid the
mediator and arbitrator(s) handling these proceedings from ever having
any interactions with one another, should they come to learn of one another’s existence13. Another example of this is the creation of a mediation
window or a carve-out from one process into another, where for example,
certain procedural or substantive issues are removed from an arbitration
or mediation, and a new process is commenced to resolve those issues,
with the neutrals in the first process only being informed of the outcomes
of the carved-out or window proceedings.
What is currently unknown and underdeveloped, pending further discussions within the ADR community, is the creation of new hybrid processes, which would fully integrate mediation and arbitration. One example of a hybrid is MEDALOA (Mediation and Last-Offer Arbitration),
whereby if the parties have not reached an outcome through mediation
by a predetermined time, they must each submit a final binding offer to
the other party, and it is the mediator, now acting as an arbitrator, who
will decide which of these two final offers is accepted. Although MEDALOA
12
13
112
drafted and sealed, but not issued, pending the outcome of the mediation
process. The great debate for both of these processes is whether the
same neutral can or should be allowed to act as both arbitrator and mediator, or whether a different neutral should be used. This is briefly discussed in Section IV.
<http://www.cmap.fr/dl.php?table=ani_fichiers&nom_file=cmap_reglt_
medarb.pdf&chemin=uploads/_cmap>.
Art. 9 reads as follows in its original language, French: «La médiation et
l’arbitrage se déroulent indépendamment l’une de l’autre. Le Centre ne
fait pas connaître au médiateur le nom du ou des arbitres et vice versa.
Le médiateur et le ou les arbitres ont interdiction de s’entretenir de
l’affaire s’ils viennent à se connaître».
may be seen to be a sequential process, it is slightly more complex in
that the same neutral is expected to become the arbitrator at the end of
the mediation, and his or her discretion is limited to choosing only one of
two offers when acting as an arbitrator. He is presumably supposed to
take into account information received and knowledge gained during the
mediation proceedings when choosing between these last offers, including
in private caucuses, which puts psychological pressure on the parties to
put whatever they think the arbitrator will find to be a more reasonable
offer based on what happened in mediation. Thus the second step is not a
true arbitration to some extent, in that the arbitrator is not looking at
only the law and the facts, but also at the dispute and the process as a
whole, and the parties behaviours. It could still be seen as a sequential
process, however, if the second part is viewed as a new dispute, framed
in terms of which of two last offers should be accepted, and where the
arbitrator has been authorised to act ex aequo et bono in selecting only
one of these offers. Another example of a hybrid procedure, which has
not yet been used (to the author’s knowledge) is a process involving
hearings that are co-chaired by two neutrals, who co-mediate the dispute
and depending on the occurrence of a triggering event or date, can either
split (with one neutral becoming a mediator and the other a sole arbitrator), or become co-arbitrators, with the additional requirement that they
must reach any decision as a tribunal by unanimity, and continue to use
mediation to resolve any issues that they cannot reach consensus on.
The new Swiss ADR Rules are particularly modern and pragmatic in that
they not only allow for sequential and parallel ADR proceedings, but they
do not restrict possible hybrid structures, and seem to provide for party
autonomy in choosing procedural constructs and the selecting of neutrals14. These rules thus appear to allow for sequential, parallel and hybrid ADR procedures, in ways that few others would permit (although the
Swiss ADR Rules do provide recommendations and warnings to safeguard
arbitration and to create additional formalities if the same neutral will be
wearing more than one hat, as discussed below).
14
See, e.g., Art. 15(5) SMR on hybrid processes, discussed further below.
113
Jeremy Lack
FIGURE 2: THREE TYPES OF COMBINED ADR PROCEEDINGS
(a)
Sequential ADR proceedings (e.g., MED-ARB, ARB-MED, ARB-MED-CONMED-ARB15)
(b)
(c)
Parallel ADR proceedings(e.g., MED//ARB or Mediation Windows)
Hybrid ADR Proceedings(e.g., MEDALOA, co-«medarbitration»)
The Chambers of Basel, Bern, Geneva, Ticino, Vaud, Zurich and most recently Neuchatel adopted the Swiss Arbitration Rules that were drafted in
2004 and revised in 2006 in order to promote institutional arbitration in
Switzerland and to harmonise the existing rules of arbitration throughout
Switzerland. These Swiss Arbitration Rules replaced the different rules of
international arbitration that some of these Chambers used to apply prior
to that date. The result was a «federalised» set of uniform but flexible
rules, based on the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, which account for modern best practices and take into account forward-looking cross-border
dispute resolution issues in a pragmatic way.
15
114
See below, IV., for a discussion of this process.
The new Swiss Mediation Rules were subsequently adopted by the Chambers in April 2007 to go one step further than the Swiss Arbitration Rules,
by adding a new procedural option in a manner that is flexible and fully
compatible with arbitration, encompassing sequential, parallel and hybrid
ADR proceedings. The Swiss Mediation Rules are thus somewhat unique
in that they were written with the recent Swiss Arbitration Rules in mind,
in such a way as to provide for compatibility between both sets of rules at
all times, and to provide arbitrators and mediators with a greater range of
tools for resolving disputes under institutional supervision using ADR.
Unlike many other institutional rules for arbitration, the Swiss Arbitration
Rules allow a great degree of flexibility, choice, and party autonomy
across and between ADR processes, and explicitly state that the neutrals
in both proceedings should be able to refer any portions of the disputes
they are resolving to another ADR process16.
The rest of this paper will focus on these provisions in the Swiss ADR
Rules and the range of possibilities that these rules create.
II.
The Swiss ADR Rules
The Swiss Arbitration Rules («SAR») were adopted in 2004, before the
Swiss Mediation Rules («SMR») were being considered. As a result, there
is no mention of mediation within the SAR. On the other hand, the SAR
already contained a number of flexible features that would allow for combining mediation with arbitration in new ways.
Article 15 SAR (General Provisions) provides that the «the arbitral tribunal may conduct the arbitration in such manner as it considers appropriate, provided that it ensures equal treatment of the parties and their right
to be heard»17 and that «[a]t any stage of the proceedings, the arbitral tribunal may hold hearings for the presentation of evidence by witnesses, including expert witnesses, or for oral argument. After consulting
with the parties, the arbitral tribunal may also decide to conduct the pro-
16
17
Another institution that seems to have equally flexible rules, allowing for
sequential, parallel or hybrid ADR procedures and whose rules have influenced the drafting of the Swiss Mediation Rules, is the World Intellectual
Property Organisation (WIPO), with its Rules of mediation and arbitration,
dated October 2001. For further information on these rules, see
<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/wipo-adr.html>.
Art. 15(1) SAR.
115
Jeremy Lack
ceedings on the basis of documents and other materials»18. Although this
does not refer to mediation, there is no reason for it to be excluded from
the tribunal’s discretion (subject to the parties’ consent)19.
Article 27 SAR (Tribunal-Appointed Experts) also allows the tribunal, of its
own volition (but after consulting with the parties), to appoint its own experts, for the submission of written reports. This could arguably encompass the appointment of a third party neutral to mediate discovery or
other procedural issues, which although fully within the arbitral tribunal’s
scope of jurisdiction may be handled more effectively by third party neutrals in certain circumstances (e.g., where counsel and the parties come
from both common law and civil law jurisdictions, and the tribunal does
not wish to resolve these evidential issues first, but encourage the parties
to come up with joint solutions for the hearing of witnesses, e.g., the use
of witness conferencing).
Finally, Article 31 SAR (Decisions) provides that the presiding arbitrator,
subject to the consent of the arbitral tribunal, may decide matters of procedure on his own, subject to revision, if any, by the arbitral tribunal20.
These provisions, when taken together, suggest that an arbitral tribunal
has broad discretion in managing its own proceedings under the Swiss
Arbitration Rules, and that it should be able to issue procedural orders
suggesting faster, cheaper or better ways of reaching a decision, delegating certain issues to the presiding arbitrator if necessary, which could include mediation. Thus, suggesting a mediation window or carving out a
topic for mediation during an arbitration may be useful to resolve certain
issues before a final award is granted (even if such issues are within the
scope of the tribunal’s jurisdiction), given that subjective interests may
be more important in certain circumstances than objective norms (e.g.
where issues of «face» or reputation may be at stake). Ordering the parties to attempt mediation may help to streamline the arbitration process,
and it is difficult to see how this could be damaging to the process itself
or the interests of the parties, since mediation proceedings are without
prejudice and tend to have a 70-80% success track record according to
18
19
20
116
Art 15(2) SAR (emphasis added).
The requirement that the tribunal «ensures equal treatment of the parties
and their right to be heard» raises a possible issue with respect to the
use of caucuses in mediation, although if both parties are given equal opportunities to caucus then arguably this requirement is also met/has also
been met.
Art. 31(2) SAR.
most ADR centres. Furthermore, the principle of party autonomy would
suggest that the arbitral tribunal should follow all joint requests made by
the parties (save where they may be illegal). A mediation may provide
the parties with an opportunity to report back to the tribunal with a
unanimous request on a given issue, or to resolve a particularly problematic issue that the tribunal would prefer to have the parties work out on
their own.
The arbitral tribunal, however, is constrained to some extent as to how it
can exercise its discretion and its powers. Not only must it act to ensure
at all times «equal treatment of the parties and their right to be heard»,
which may require special consideration in the context of caucuses, but
Article 32 SAR (Form and Effect of the Award) specifies that any award
must be in writing21 and that it «shall state the reasons upon which the
award is based, unless the parties have agreed that no reasons are to be
given»22. Article 33 SAR (Applicable Law, Amiable Compositeur) further
provides that the arbitral tribunal shall decide the case «in accordance
with the rules of law agreed upon by the parties or, in the absence of a
choice of law, by applying the rules of law with which the dispute has the
closest connection»23. The tribunal can only act as amiable compositeur
or ex aequo et bono if the parties have expressly authorised the arbitral
tribunal to do so24 and the arbitral tribunal must decide all cases in accordance with the terms of the contract, taking into account the usages of
the trade applicable to that transaction25. It is thus clear that a tribunal
must operate on the basis of laws and norms, although in cases where it
has been expressly authorised to do so by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may dispense with the law to some extent and come to a decision
based on what it considers to be fair and equitable in the circumstances
at hand.
Article 34 SAR (Settlement or Other Grounds for Termination) provides a
notable exception, however, to the normal constraints under which the
arbitral tribunal must operate. It states as follows: «If, before the
award is made, the parties agree on a settlement of the dispute, the
arbitral tribunal shall either issue an order for the termination of the arbitral proceedings or, if requested by both parties and accepted by the tri-
21
22
23
24
25
Art.
Art.
Art.
Art.
Art.
32(2)
32(3)
33(1)
33(2)
33(3)
SAR.
SAR.
SAR.
SAR.
SAR.
117
Jeremy Lack
bunal, record the settlement in the form of an arbitral award on
agreed terms. The arbitral tribunal is not obliged to give reasons for
such an award»26. The arbitral tribunal thus has the discretion of accepting any settlement proposals jointly submitted to it by the parties, and
recording it as an arbitral award, without having to give any reasons for
doing so. There are no restrictions on the sorts of settlement agreements
that the parties may propose, and Article 34 SAR would thus appear to be
applicable to any settlement agreement that has been reached through
mediation. The only constraints on such a consent award or an award on
agreed terms (collectively, «Settlement Awards»), are that it be in writing
in accordance with Article 32(2) SAR and that it comply with the formalities of signature, publication and the handling of originals imposed by Article 32(4)-(6) SAR27. Scholars, the UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration28, as well as some national courts recognise such
Settlement Awards as genuine arbitral awards that can be enforced under
the New York Convention of 195829. Their enforceability subsequent to
mediation, however, may be subject to local formalities and may be controversial if they can be perceived as no longer resolving a conflict at the
time they were entered into30. This can easily be resolved, however, by
suspending the signature of a settlement agreement that has been obtained through mediation until an arbitral tribunal has been appointed,
and presenting the arbitral tribunal with the draft text of the settlement
agreement for approval prior to signing it, or making its execution conditional upon the ratification of an arbitral tribunal31.
26
27
28
29
30
31
118
Art. 34(1) SAR (emphasis added).
Art. 34(3) SAR.
Art. 30 (Settlement) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration provides as follows: «(1) If during arbitral proceedings, the parties settle the dispute, the arbitral tribunal shall terminate
the proceedings and, if requested by the parties and not objected to by
the arbitral tribunal, record the settlement in the form of an arbitral
award on agreed terms» and «(2) An award on agreed terms […] has
the same status and effect as any other award on the merits of
the case» (emphasis added).
LEW/MISTELIS/KRÖLL, pp. 636-37; BUHRING-UHLE/KIRCHHOFF/SCHERER, pp.
240-41.
For a discussion on this, see HEMPEL, and SESSLER, pp. 229-236.
Although this may appear to be a controversial proposition, it is in fact
fully supported by Art. 21 SMR (Settlement Agreement), which states:
«Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing, no settlement is
reached until it has been made in writing and signed by the relevant parties» (emphasis added). So long as no agreement has been
signed, the dispute continues to exist. Thus, a draft settlement agree-
These provisions of the SAR, taken on their own, already provide for
compatibility between mediation and arbitration as distinct ADR proceedings.
The Swiss Mediation Rules of April 2007, however, go further by making it
clear that this compatibility with arbitration can be used at any time and
that mediation can also take place in parallel with and at the request of
an arbitral tribunal.
Article 23 SMR (Recourse to Arbitration) states that in both domestic and
international mediations, «the parties may jointly agree in writing at any
time during the course of their mediation» (emphasis added) to refer
their dispute or any part of it for resolution by arbitration. These requests
may be made under expedited procedure (Art. 42 SAR) or such other
fast-track rules as may apply. They may also be expressly in the form of
a Settlement Agreement: «[i]f the parties settle the dispute during the
arbitral proceedings» based on a petition «for the rendering of an award
on agreed terms». Thus Article 23(1) SMR makes express reference to
Article 34 SAR stating: «If the parties settle the dispute during the arbitral proceedings, article 34 of those Rules shall be applicable for the rendering of an award on agreed terms».
Furthermore, Article 24 SMR (Mediation During the Course of Arbitration
Proceedings) provides that «[i]n all arbitral proceedings pending before
the Chambers where mediation appears to be worth trying, whether in
whole or in part, the Chambers or the arbitrator(s) may suggest to the
parties to amicably resolve their dispute, or a certain part of it, by having
recourse to a mediator» (emphasis added). Although this provision cannot be found in the SAR, where it really belongs, it suggests that the
Chambers will interpret both sets of rules, which they administer, as al-
ment reached through mediation has no legal impact on the parties under
the SMR until such time as it has been signed, which can be done after
the tribunal has been appointed. Furthermore, Art. 34(1) SAR specifies
that such an agreement must be accepted by the tribunal before it becomes an arbitral award on agreed terms, and an arbitrator can refuse to
endorse such an agreement, meaning that the dispute would still exist as
well. This could be an excellent way of reassuring the parties that their
draft settlement agreement will be carried out, as any breach of such an
agreement, once it becomes an arbitral award on agreed terms, would
normally be entitled to immediate execution under the New York Convention, and it would thus seem a reasonable precaution for both parties to
have their agreement ratified by an independent arbitrator before it becomes binding if it really reflects their negotiated solution.
119
Jeremy Lack
lowing an arbitral tribunal to suggest to the parties to submit all or part of
their dispute to mediation (whether in parallel, separate or hybrid proceedings), so long as this is consistent with the scope of the arbitral tribunal’s discretion under Article 15 SAR.
Further provisions in the SMR with respect to arbitration are as follows:
x
Article 6 SMR (Arbitration Agreement) provides that where the parties do not completely resolve a dispute by mediation and are
bound by a pre-existing arbitration agreement under the rules for
arbitration of one of the Chambers, the matter may be automatically submitted to binding arbitration by a party filing a Notice of
Arbitration, as provided for by the applicable arbitration rules of
that Chamber32.
x
Article 15 SMR (Conduct of the Proceedings) states that a mediator
may end a mediation whenever, in his/her opinion, further efforts
would not contribute to a resolution of the dispute between the
parties, at which time the mediator may then suggest other dispute
resolution tools to the parties, including: a) an expert determination of one or more particular issues of the dispute; b) the submission of last offers (i.e., MEDALOA); or c) arbitration33.
x
Article 22 SMR (Subsequent Proceedings) provides that where the
parties agree (and only if so), a mediator can act as arbitrator,
judge, expert, or as representative or advisor of one party in any
subsequent proceedings initiated against one of the parties to the
mediation after the commencement of the mediation34, and if so,
the neutral may take into account information received during the
course of the mediation35.
Finally, in their model mediation clauses, the SMR provide the following
ADR clause for mediation followed by international arbitration36:
32
33
34
35
36
120
Art. 6 SMR.
Art. 15(5) SMR.
Art. 22(1) SMR.
Art. 22(2) SMR. This article must be interpreted, however, together with
Art. 18 SMR (Confidentiality), which also states that written consent is
required, rendering it advisable to have a written agreement to that effect
signed by the parties. See the discussion of waivers below, Section IV.
SMR model clauses, as amended on 2 July 2008.
«Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in relation to this contract, including the validity, invalidity, breach
or termination thereof, shall be submitted to mediation in
accordance with the Swiss Rules of Commercial Mediation of
the Swiss Chambers of Commerce in force on the date when
the request for mediation was submitted in accordance with
these Rules. The seat of the mediation shall be … [name of a
city in Switzerland, unless the parties agree on a city
abroad], although the meetings may be held in ... [specify
place]. The mediation proceedings shall be conducted in …
[specify desired language]. If such dispute, controversy
or claim has not been fully resolved by mediation
within 60 days from the date when the mediator(s) has
(have) been confirmed or appointed by the Chamber, it
shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the
Swiss Rules of International Arbitration of the Swiss Chambers of Commerce in force on the date when the Notice of
Arbitration was submitted in accordance with those Rules.
The number of arbitrators shall be … [one or three]. The seat
of the arbitration shall be in … [name of a city in Switzerland,
unless the parties agree on a city abroad]. The arbitral proceedings shall be conducted in … [specify desired language].
The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the
provisions for Expedited Procedure [if so wished by the parties]» (emphases added).
The SMR thus suggest a classic MED-ARB model clause. This model clause
does not state, however, that the mediation process is automatically terminated after 60 days, but only that arbitration proceedings should not
commence before that date. The 60 days time limit is not necessarily a
termination time-limit set by the parties in accordance with Article
20(1)(c) SMR. Article 15(5)(c) SMR also provides that the mediator
should only exercise his discretion in terminating a mediation for a subsequent arbitration «whenever, in his/her opinion, further efforts would not
contribute to a resolution of the dispute between the parties». The clause
should not be automatically interpreted, therefore, as providing for the
termination of initial mediation proceedings, but as a possible opening of
parallel arbitration proceedings after 60 days, which is appropriate if the
mediator and the parties still think it worthwhile to keep the mediation
process ongoing (for example to seek agreement on procedural issues
linked to the arbitration, such as submission of evidence, witness hear121
Jeremy Lack
ings, deadlines, cost allocations, etc.). In any event, this is a matter of
free choice for the parties, and all it takes is for one party to withdraw
from the mediation should it wish to end it at that stage, given the voluntary nature of mediation proceedings37.
III.
Switching Hats
The greatest issue that arises whenever combined ADR processes are
considered is whether the same neutral can act as mediator, conciliator
and/or arbitrator. This is primarily a matter to be left to party autonomy
according to the Swiss ADR rules, and for each individual neutral to consider. One leading Swiss arbitrator, who routinely sits as the chairman on
large international arbitrations and has trained as a mediator as well, has
stated that he often offers the parties the possibility of creating windows
for mediation and conciliation within his arbitration proceedings. He has
thus conducted ARB-MED-CON-MED-ARB proceedings, starting as the
chairman of the arbitral tribunal, subsequently holding mediation sessions
with the parties and their counsel (including caucuses), then offering proposals or a non-binding assessment of the legal situation in conciliation,
and then reverting to mediation, and ultimately, back to arbitration. At
each step of the process, the parties are informed of the issues and risks,
and are asked to sign a written waiver, accepting that the neutral may
continue to act on this basis at each stage of the process. As it turns out,
37
122
In fact, it is not clear whether the Chambers’ model MED-ARB clause
would be entitled to specific performance under Swiss law at present,
since it is not clear whether a party can be compelled to mediation process prior to arbitration, even where a contractual MED-ARB clause exists.
Until the Swiss Code on Civil Procedure comes into effect in 2011, it is not
even clear whether mediation is a form of judicial proceedings (save, possibly, in the Canton of Geneva) that can be imposed on a party. The
Swiss Federal Tribunal recently held on 6 June 2007 that the parties to a
MED-ARB clause could skip the mediation process step and proceed
straight to arbitration, although the case seems to have been decided
primarily on its specific facts, and the atypical language of the ADR clause
in that agreement (DFT of 6 June 2007 (4A_18/2007)). Although this
MED-ARB clause therefore may not be specifically enforceable per se, failing to respect it would, however, be a breach of contract for which damages could be requested. Determining quantum for this may be difficult,
but damages could arguably be assessed as non-payment of legal fees in
case of losing in arbitration, or 100% reimbursement of all legal fees and
management time in case of winning in arbitration, given mediation’s 7080% settlement rate.
this neutral states that he has never had to go back to arbitration, as the
cases have always succeeded in settling (on faster, and better terms, according to those involved). Although this is only anecdotal, and it is impossible to generalise based on one person’s experience, the institution
that has handled these cases as well as the parties have expressed their
satisfaction with the process, and their willingness to do it again.
Certainly, many of these issues are also addressed by mediators resisting
caucusing with the parties, and doing everything in joint session. Although working only in joint sessions is not a technique commonly used
in Anglo-Saxon mediations, it is quite common in some other jurisdictions
(e.g., in Austria and the Netherlands) and is growing in popularity in the
USA38. This should not create a problem, therefore, for a mediator who is
trained in one of these schools, who has agreed to act as a sole arbitrator
subsequent to mediation, where no caucuses have taken place and the
parties have agreed to his/her taking on an adjudicative role.
The Swiss ADR Rules specifically provide for this issue at Article 22 SMR
as follows:
«Article 22 – Subsequent Proceedings
1. Unless the parties expressly agree otherwise, the
mediator cannot act as arbitrator, judge, expert, or as representative or advisor of one party in any subsequent proceedings initiated against one of the parties to the mediation after the commencement of the mediation.
2. If the parties decide to designate the mediator as arbitrator, judge or expert in any subsequent arbitral proceedings,
the latter may take into account information received during
the course of the mediation» (emphasis added)
The Swiss Mediation Rules specifically provide for this issue by expressing
a concern that the mediator should not take on an evaluative role unless
the parties have expressly agreed to this. When this happens, the neutral
is allowed to take into account information received during the course of
38
For an example of this form of commercial mediation, see FRIEDwhose most recent book explains the advantages of not
caucusing in mediation to gain a deeper understanding of the conflict,
and gives several examples of how sensitive matters were actually resolved in joint sessions in actual cases, without the mediator having to
meet separately with the parties.
MAN/HIMMELSTEIN,
123
Jeremy Lack
the mediation, although in order to avoid possible contradictions with Article 18 SMR, it is recommended that the parties sign written waivers to
this effect39.
The primary question in all of these combined processes, however, is not
whether the neutral feels comfortable in changing hats, but whether the
parties are able to differentiate between the same person when acting in
each role. The September 2005 Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators
issued by the American Arbitration Association, the American Bar Association, and the Association for Conflict Resolution contain some sensible
provisions to that effect, which any neutral should consider before changing roles40.
IV.
Conclusion
The Swiss ADR Rules are modern and pragmatic, opening up a broad
spectrum of new dispute prevention and resolution processes in Switzerland for both international and domestic disputes. The SMR were written
to integrate seamlessly with the SAR, and this has been well achieved,
opening up new prospects and choices for disputants and neutrals, who
can now combine commercial mediation with arbitration. It is important,
however, as this field evolves, that the parties, their counsel and the neutrals understand the processes they subscribe to, and the issues and opportunities that combined ADR processes will present in the future.
39
40
124
Art. 18(1) SMR (Confidentiality) reads as follows: «Mediation is confidential at all times. Any observation, statement or proposition made before
the mediator or by him/herself cannot be used later, even in case of
litigation or arbitration, unless there is a written agreement of all
the parties» (emphasis added).
For
a
copy
of
these
standards,
see
<http://www.abanet.org/dispute/news/ModelStandardsofConductforMedi
atorsfinal05.pdf>.

Les clauses Marc/ADR - Université de Neuchâtel

Transcription

Similar documents

AN ANALYSIS OF COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA CODE OF

Westney Heights Plaza Ajax - December 10, 2015

July 2014 - Central Susquehanna Valley Mediation Center, Inc.

The Baroness

UDAF Resources - Utah Farm Bureau

Annuel Report 2014

the press-release here!

mod a

Annual Report - Dispute Resolution Center of Thurston County