Question

select one type of third party party involvement in negotiation.like medarb or arbmed and desribe its contributions and limitations,using examples to illustrate your answers and identify and discuss relevant conditions and contigency factors.when are such negotiations useful

Answer 1

To settle any dispute negotiation is a better option, the negotiation can be direct or indirect communication for the already-existing problems.  

The Med-arb is a dispute resolution process where an arbitrator (an independent person or an officially appointed person) acts as a mediator between the two disputed parties. The med-arb can be the choice of the disputed parties or appointed by the arbitral tribunals.

The mediator starts the negotiation procedure and tries to motivate and bring the parties to negotiate, this can save time and long proceedings. The possibility of a successful negotiation is more when both parties try to adopt a more interest-based approach so that they can come to an amicable and accepted solution. The mediator has to be unbiased.

If the parties do not come to any negotiation the arbitrator ceased to act as a mediator. In case of failed negotiation, he acts as an arbitrator and the proceedings are taken as the act of arbitration. He is in the capacity to impose a resolution and give the final binding award to the party concerned.

The award and the judgment are based on the information received from both parties during the negotiation session.

Most of the civil cases are done through the mediator, where the amount of dispute is low and cheaper compared to the full proceedings that can be expensive and out of proportion.

The cases like a divorce where the chances of settling the dispute by negotiation are brighter the parties should opt for Med-arb.

The positive point of the med-arb is that it is less expensive and can be solved in a shorter period. The negotiation should be done separately to know an individual's views and causes of a dispute as well as it should be done together with both the parties to avoid prejudice. The parties should take the final settlement done through the mediator in writing to avoid future disputes.

The negative point can be the mediator shifting his loyalty to one party can cause damage to the other party.