WHAT’S WRONG WITH MEDIATION?

Öz

Mediation is one of the oldest dispute resolution mechanism. Throughout history, the practice of mediation was not the greatest or higher than its counterparts. Despite always being on the table, it was not preferred because either it is found as a useless attempt or most of the time perceived as a waste of time. Due to its voluntary and non-binding nature, it is always deemed wide open to abuse when there is bad faith. This article right here presents the assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of mediation at the international dispute resolution platforms. There are certain reasons of mediation that encourage parties to perform mediation while at the same time there are particular weaknesses which lead parties towards more secured methods of dispute resolution when it comes to their interests. At the international level, it was also asked in this article whether a Singapore-like Convention might suit the investment disputes considering the positive and negative features of mediation. Suggestions were made as to what extent the mediation should stay loyal to its characteristics and on what occasions the practice could leave being conservative via hybrid means of settling agreements.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Investment Law
• Investment Mediation
• Investment Disputes
• Mediation
• Singapore Convention.

Etik Beyan

There is no requirement of Ethics Committee Approval for this study.

Arabuluculuğun Nesi̇ Yanlış?

Öz

Arabuluculuk, en eski uyuşmazlık çözüm mekanizmalarından biridir. Tarih boyunca, arabuluculuk uygulaması emsallerinden daha büyük veya daha çok değildi. Her zaman masada olmasına rağmen ya boş bir girişim olarak görülmesi ya da çoğu zaman vakit kaybı olarak algılanması sebebiyle tercih edilmemiştir. İhtiyari ve bağlayıcı olmayan niteliği nedeniyle, kötü niyet söz konusu olduğunda her zaman suistimale açık olduğu kabul edilmiştir. İşte bu makale, uluslararası uyuşmazlık çözümü platformlarında arabuluculuğun avantaj ve dezavantajlarının değerlendirilmesini gözler önüne sermektedir. Arabuluculuğun, tarafları arabuluculuk yapmaya teşvik eden belirli nedenleri olmakla birlikte, aynı zamanda tarafların çıkarları söz konusu olduğunda onları daha güvenli uyuşmazlık çözüm yöntemlerine yönlendiren bazı zayıflıkları da vardır. Uluslararası düzeyde, arabuluculuğun olumlu ve olumsuz yönleri dikkate alınarak Singapur benzeri bir Sözleşmenin yatırım uyuşmazlıklarına uygun olup olmayacağı da bu makalede araştırılmıştır. Arabuluculuğun ne ölçüde karakteristik özelliklerine sadık kalması gerektiği ve uygulamanın hangi durumlarda muhafazakarlıktan çıkarak uyuşmazlıkların hibrit yöntemlerle çözüleceği konusunda da önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Kaynakça

1. Alexander N M, International and Comparative Mediation: Legal Perspectives, Global trends in dispute resolution (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2009).
2. Amado J D, “From Investors’ Arbitration to Investment Arbitration: A Mechanism for Allowing the Participation of Host State Populations in the Settlement of Investment Conflicts” University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series [2014].
3. Bishop D, “A Practical Guide for Drafting International Arbitration Clauses”, International Energy Law & Taxation Review Volume 16 (2000).
4. Blackaby N, Partasides C, Redfern A and Hunter M, Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration, 6th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015)
5. Caluori C, “Guidelines for Mediation in Investor-States Disputes”, Transnational Dispute Management Volume 15, no. Issue 1 (2018).
6. Cameron P D, International Energy Investment Law: The Pursuit of Stability (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).
7. Chua E, “A Contribution to the Conversation on Mixing the Modes of Mediation and Arbitration: Of Definitional Consistency and Process Structure”, Transnational Dispute Management Mediation & ADR, no. Issue 5 (2018).
8. Claxton J, “Compelling Parties to Mediate Investor-State Disputes: No Pressure, No Diamonds?”, Journal of Japanese Law, no. Issue 47 (2019).

9. Coe J, “Toward a Complementary Use of Conciliation in Investor-State Disputes - A Preliminary Sketch”, UC Davis Journal of International Law and Policy Volume 12.1 (2007).
10. Cole A and Hess G, Middle East – A Mediation Desert, Corporate Disputes Magazine, Jan-Mar (2019).
11. Constain S, “Mediation in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Government Policy and the Changing Landscape”, ICSID review Volume 29, no. Issue 1 (2014).
12. Cover M and von Kumberg W, “The Energy Charter Treaty and ADR in the Context of Investor/State and Other Disputes”, Energy Charter Secretariat Knowledge Centre - Occasional Paper Series [2014].
13. De Brabandere E, “The Settlement of Investment Disputes in the Energy Sector”, in Foreign Investment in the Energy Sector - Balancing Private and Public Interests, ed. Eric De Brabandere and Tarcisio Gazzini (2014).
14. Ekşi N, “Arabuluculuk Sonucunda Yapılan Milletlerarası Sulh Anlaşmaları Hakkında Birleşmiş Milletler Konvansiyonu (Singapur Konvansiyonu)”, UTTDER 1 (2020).
15. Ener M A, “Singapur Konvansiyonu: Arabuluculuk Anlaşmalarının New York Konvansiyonu”, AHBVÜHFD 4 (2019).
16. Energy ADR Forum Report by CAEM (The Centre for the Advancement of Energy Markets), Using ADR to Resolve Energy Industry Disputes: The Better Way (2006).
17. Erdoğan E, “Milletlerarası Arabuluculuk Anlaşma Belgelerinin İcrasına İlişkin BM Sözleşmesinin (Singapur Sözleşmesi) Değerlendirilmesi” Arabuluculuğun Geliştirilmesi Uluslararası Sempozyumu, 6-7 December (2018) Ankara.
18. Erkan M, Arabuluculuk ve Singapur Sözleşmesi (Oniki Levha Yayınları, 2020).
19. Franck S D, “Using Investor-State Mediation Rules to Promote Conflict Management: An Introductory Guide”, ICSID review Volume 29, no. Issue 1 (2014).
20. Goldberg S B, Sander F E A, Rogers N H, Cole S R, Dispute Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation, Arbitration, and Other Processes, Sixth edition. ed., Aspen casebook series (New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2012).
21. Ginnings A, Arbitration: A Practical Guide, Published by Gower ed. (England: 1984).
22. Green C, “ADR: Where did the ‘alternative’ go? Why mediation should not be a mandatory step in the litigation process”, ADR Bulletin of Bond University Volume 12, no. Issue 3 (2010).
23. Greiman V, Twenty-Seventh Annual International Law Symposium: The Public/Private Conundrum in International Investment Disputes: Advancing Investor Community Partnerships (2011).
24. International Mediation Institute, International Mediation & ADR Survey - Census of Conflict Management Stakeholders and Trends (2016).
25. Investor-State Disputes: Prevention and Alternatives to Arbitration. UNCTAD Series on International Investment Policies for Development. (2010).
26. Isaac K, “Pre-Litigation Compulsory Mediation: A Concept Worth Negotiating”, University of La Verne Law Review Volume 32, no. Issue 2 (2011).
27. Joubin-Bret A and Kalicki J, Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: Journeys for the 21st Century (Brill, 2015).
28. Kaster L, “Will There Be a Vast Worldwide Expansion of Mediation for International Disputes?”, Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation Volume 33, no. Issue 8 (2015).
29. Kaya T, “Singapur Sözleşmesi ve Uluslararası Ticari Arabuluculuk Sonucunda Ortaya Çıkan Sulh Anlaşmalarının Tanınması ve İcrası Meselesi” MÜHF-HAD 2 (2019), Prof. Dr. Ferit Hakan Baykal Armağanı.
30. Ludington C, “Med-Arb: If the Parties Agree”, Transnational Dispute Management Volume 14, no. Issue 1 (January 2017).
31. Maniruzzaman M, “The Problems and Challenges Facing Settlement of International Energy Disputes by ADR Methods in Asia: The Way Forward “ Journal of International Energy Law and Taxation, no. Issue 6 (2003).
32. Marriott A and Brown H, ADR Principles and Practice, 3rd ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2011).
33. McBrayer M, “The Singapore Mediation Convention: Could it apply to investor-state disputes?”, Corporate Disputes Magazine October-December (2019).
34. Merrills J G, International Dispute Settlement. (5th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
35. Moses M, The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
36. Moss G C, International Commercial Arbitration: Different Forms and Their Features (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).
37. Nabatchi T, Bingham L B, Senger J M and Jackman M S, “Dispute Resolution and the Vanishing Trial: Comparing Federal Government Litigation and ADR Outcomes”, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution Volume 24, no. Issue 2 (2009).
38. Newcombe A, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment (2009).
39. Nurick L and Schnably S J, “The First ICSID Conciliation: Tesoro Petroleum Corporation v. Trinidad and Tobago”, ICSID Review: Foreign Investment Law Journal Volume 1, no. Issue 2 (1986).
40. Özbek M S, Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözümleri (Yetkin Yayınları, 2022).
41. — — “Arabuluculuk İle Tahkim Yöntemlerinin Kesişme Bölgesi: Arabuluculuk-Tahkim” Yargıtay Dergisi 1 (2017).
42. — — Tahkim Hukuku (Yetkin Yayınları, 2022).
43. Özel S, “Arabuluculuk Sonucunda Yapılan Milletlerarası Sulh Anlaşmaları Hakkında Birleşmiş Milletler Sözleşmesi: Singapur Konvansiyonu” MÜHF-HAD 2 (2019), Prof. Dr. Ferit Hakan Baykal Armağanı.
44. Posin D, “Mediating International Business Disputes”, Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law Volume 9 (2004).
45. Radulescu D M, “Mediation–An Alternative way to Solve Conflicts in the International Business Environment”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 62, (2012).
46. Reif L, “Conciliation as a Mechanism for the Resolution of International Economic and Business Disputes”, Fordham International Law Journal Volume 14, no. Issue 3 (1990).
47. Reisman M, “International Investment Arbitration and ADR: Married but Best Living Apart”, ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal Volume 24 (2009).
48. Reynolds J, “Foreword: ADR for the Masses”, Oregon Law Review Volume 90, no. Issue 3 (2012).
49. Robins N, “Use of Mediation for Investment Disputes”, OGEL 2 (2004).
50. Salacuse J, “Is There a Better Way? Alternative Methods of Treaty-Based, Investor-State Dispute Resolution”, Fordham International Law Journal Volume 31, no. Issue 1 (2007).
51. — — “Mediation in International Business”, in Studies in International Mediation, ed. Jacob Berkovitch (Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2002).
52. Salehijam M, “A Call for a Harmonized Approach to Agreements to Mediate”, Transnational Dispute Management Volume 15, no. Issue 1 (2018).
53. Schnabel T, “The Singapore Convention on Mediation: A Framework for the Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Mediated Settlements”, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, Volume 19/1, (2019).
54. Simpson M, “Enforcement of Arbitral Awards: Be Alive to the Rule Against Re-litigation”, Corporate Disputes Magazine October-December (2017).
55. Smeureanu I M, Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration, International arbitration law library, (Alphen aan den Rijn Biggleswade: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2011).
56. Stevens M, “Investor-State Mediation: Observations on the Role of Institutions”, in Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation - The Fordham Papers [2009].
57. Stone M, Representing Clients in Mediation: A New Professional Skill (London; Edinburgh: Butterworths, 1998).
58. Strong S, Use and Perception of International Commercial Mediation and Conciliation: A Preliminary Report on Issues Relating to the Proposed UNCITRAL Convention on International Commercial Mediation and Conciliation, Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 2014-28 (2014).
59. Student Notes, ”Mediation of Investor-State Conflicts Bottom-up Systems for Dispute Resolution”, Harvard Law Review Volume 127, no. Issue 8 (2014).
60. Telford E, Med-Arb: A Viable Dispute Resolution Alternative (IRC Press, 2000).
61. The ICSID Caseload Statistics (ISSUE 2023-2).
62. Tuna M O, “Alternative Dispute Resolution in Energy Industries”, (Routledge, 2022).
63. United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation “Singapore Convention On Mediation”, Information Brochure, Signing Ceremony, Singapore, 7 August 2019.
64. United Nations Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, 2018 (amending the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation, 2002).
65. Vicuna F O, “Arbitration in a New International Alternative Dispute Resolution System”, News from ICSID Volume 18, no. No 2 (2001).
66. Walde T, “Efficient Management of Transnational Disputes: Case Study of a Successful Interconnector Dispute Resolution”, OGEL 8 Volume 4 no. Issue 2 (2006).
67. — — “Mediation/Alternative Dispute Resolution in Oil, Gas and Energy Transactions: Superior to Arbitration/Litigation from a Commercial and Management Perspective”, OGEL 2 (2003).
68. — — “Pro-Active Mediation of International Business and Investment Disputes Involving Long-Term Contracts: From Zero-Sum Litigation to Efficient Dispute Management”, OGEL 4 (2003).
69. accessed 01 January 2024.
70. accessed 01 January 2024.
71. accessed 01 January 2024.
72. accessed 01 January 2024.
73. accessed 01 January 2024.
74. accessed 01 January 2024.
75. accessed 01 January 2024.
76. accessed 01 January 2024.
77. accessed 01 January 2024.