Archive for the ‘Conferences’ Category

The International Mediation Institute is conducting its biennial survey on mediation use and awareness. Your responses will assist in gathering a snapshot of mediation use:

Academia, business and governments universally declare mediation the most cost-effective and quickest manner to resolve conflicts. But do the majority of civil and commercial players even know the practical aspects of this game changer enough to use it with confidence? Have we done our best to let them know?

(see link at the bottom of the page)

The International Mediation Institute (IMI) invites YOU and YOUR COLLEAGUES to participate in a brief biennial survey to gather information about Mediation & ADR Awareness, IMI Performance, and YOU. IMI launches initiatives to promote worldwide growth of practical and sustainable conflict resolution systems. By completing the survey we can:

  • Find out what matters most to you about resolving conflicts,
  • Tell others what you are up against when it comes to conflict management,
  • Grow mediation by building awareness and support, and
  • Enhance the IMI organization to make it fit for YOUR needs.

Please forward the survey to people whose opinion you value!

If you participate in the survey by December 31, 2015 and leave your contact details at the end of the Survey, you will be included in a drawing for a free entrance into one of the unique IMI Global Pound Conference Seriesevents of your choosing in any of 36 cities in 26 countries (see http://globalpoundconference.org/) as our way of thanking you for making the time to give us your input.

Survey results will be sent to all who include their contact details in advance of being posted on the IMI Webportal.

We appreciate your time and participation.

About the International Mediation Institute (“IMI”)

IMI is a non-profit public interest initiative to grow mediation by driving transparency

and high competency standards into mediation practice across all fields, worldwide.
The basics of IMI in a Nutshell can be found here: 






Read Full Post »

I’m pleased to let you know that the Annual Singapore Mediation lecture will be held on Friday 26th September, at Singapore Management University. The speaker this year is Mr Brackett Denniston III, Senior Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel for General Electric Company (GE). His theme will be: “The Mediation Imperative: Why Successful Companies Embrace Mediation.”

The Singapore Mediation Lecture is proudly brought to you by Harry Elias Partnership LLP and Singapore Mediation Centre, in collaboration with the Singapore Management University.

Admission to the lecture is free but your registration is required, through the website address below.

For information on the lecture, please visit: http://law.smu.edu.sg/SML2014


Read Full Post »

International Arbitration : Private Parties and Public International Law

click here

Dear Friends and Colleagues,


It is with great pleasure that we invite you to the annual Herbert Smith Freehills – SMU Asian Arbitration Lecture.

Our distinguished speaker, The Rt Hon. the Lord Collins of Mapesbury, will be speaking on “International Arbitration : Private Parties and Public International Law”.


About the Speaker 

Lord Collins of Mapesbury (Lawrence Collins) was until 2011 a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Before that he was a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary (2009), a member of the Court of Appeal (2007-2009) and a judge of the Chancery Division (2000-2007) and of the Commercial Court (2006-2007). He now practises as an international arbitrator at Essex Court Chambers, London, and sits as a non-permanent member of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal.

He qualified as a solicitor and was a partner in Herbert Smith & Co (later Herbert Smith, and now Herbert Smith Freehills) from 1971 to 2000. He was appointed a deputy High Court judge and a Queen’s Counsel (one of the first two solicitors to be so appointed) in 1997.

Lord Collins is the author of books and articles on private and public international law, and he has been since 1987 the general editor of Dicey and Morris (now Dicey, Morris & Collins) on the Conflict of Laws, currently in its 15th edition, 2012. He is also a Professor at University College London; emeritus and honorary Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge; and has recently been a visiting professor at New York University Law School and Columbia Law School.

He is a Fellow of the British Academy and a member of the Institut de Droit International.


Synopsis of Lecture

The lecture will deal with the increasing importance of public international law in disputes involving private parties. This is not a new phenomenon, and the lecture will trace the history of the impact of state immunity in international commercial arbitration and the choice of public international law in choice of law and in arbitration agreements. Today there is controversy over the role of principles of diplomatic protection and state responsibility in arbitrations involving private parties and states, including the scope of fair and equitable treatment, expropriation; and there are unresolved questions on the relationship between international arbitration and foreign relations law. This lecture will endeavour to highlight the problems and suggest some solutions.



Admission is free.  Please click here to register by 12 September 2013.  Attendance is by registration only.

Further details can be found at the Herbert Smith Freehills – SMU Asian Arbitration Lecture website.


Read Full Post »

From the Centre for Dispute Resolution at SMU:


It is with great pleasure that we invite you to the 2nd Singapore Mediation Lecture.

The Singapore Mediation Lecture series aims to enhance the understanding and use of mediation in resolving cross-border commercial disputes.

Our distinguished speaker, The Right Honourable the Lord Woolf will speak on “Mediation: The Way Forward.”

Lord Woolf has been at the forefront of the development and mainstream acceptance of mediation as the preferred way to deal with disputes. His name is particularly associated with the promotion of access to justice, not only through the improvement of access to conventional legal services, but also through encouraging the pursuit of alternatives to litigation.

Lord Woolf’s lecture will deal with why mediation is the way forward, and the factors that have been holding it back. In particular, the lecture will deal with training and standards of mediators, and the role of lawyers as gatekeepers of dispute resolution processes. It will also touch on compulsory mediation, med-arb, and role of mediation from the perspective of the client. Lord Woolf will also consider the prospects for the further development of mediation in Singapore and the neighbouring region.

The Singapore Mediation Lecture is proudly brought to you by Harry Elias Partnership LLP and Singapore Mediation Centre, in collaboration with the Singapore Management University.

For registration: https://www.regonline.com/Register/Checkin.aspx?EventID=1272890

Read Full Post »

At a conference on negotiation (and mediation) pedagogy held in Beijing this past April, I was struck by one key irony in the questions we were asking ourselves. The ongoing project, on re-thinking negotiation pedagogy, has been an important one, in redirecting our thinking about the practice and teaching of negotiation in a globalised world, and especially as we work across borders, or work in international commerce, or take training programmes to other countries. The objective continues to be to develop what is called, in this project, Negotiation 2.0 pedagogy. The programme started in Rome, moved two years later for the second conference to Istanbul, and then this year to Beijing.

And this is where the irony of the inquiry struck me. The question we’re asking ourselves is, at least in part, what changes and adaptations do we need to make to our models of ‘conventional’ negotiation when we work in non-Western contexts. The starting assumption – which makes sense – is that the bulk of negotiation pedagogy and theory is Western in origin and orientation. But here are two starting questions:

  1. For those who have been around this field – especially mediation rather than negotiation – for long enough, you’ll recall that much of the inspiration for the development of non-judicial forms of dispute resolution came from comparative and ethnographic studies of non-industrial societies. Without producing a string of citations at this stage, we know that, in addition to the inspiration that came from community-based activism (Alinsky and others) and from critiques of legalism in the early days of Critical Legal Studies, considerable impetus came from looking at mediation in China (pre- and Post-Mao); Liberia (the people’s courts); the Kpelle moots of the Tiv, Barotse and Nuer of Africa; the panchayats of India; and from work of legal anthropologists like Nader, Roberts, Diamond, Benedict and so on. Here’s the first version of the irony: having drawn on that inspiration and having, in the last nearly 40 years, developed a practice of mediation that has shifted from being marginal and “alternative” to mainstream and closely embedded in many legal systems, we’re now in the business (often literally) of re-exporting mediation back to the countries and regions from which we borrowed it in the first place.
  2. The second issue is possibly less an irony than a conceptual problem: if we are looking at what happens to “our” models of mediation when we take the practice and pedagogy into, say, China, there’s not just the matter of bringing mediation back to a place where it is already 5000 years old, but rather the conceptual issue – albeit unconscious – of taking the Western models as the “norm” and asking how these might need adaptation. This has resonances with the ideological challenges of early Fem-Crit and Race-Crit theory, pointing out the implicit assumption that the “male” and the “white” was the norm to which might be added any refining touches from the hitherto marginalised communities.
So, this is a preliminary observation about the ironies of re-exporting mediation to, and even reinventing it in, the regions where it has a long and enduring history. One of the other facets of this irony is that the “new” versions of mediation are often seen as appealing – perhaps strategically, so that those in non-Western nations have a better idea of how Westerners will negotiate; but also because of the success of branding, not least if there’s the name of a major University attached to the “product”.
I hear anecdotally from colleagues also who have been asked to provide mediation services or training in a country in, say, South East Asia, that they need to spend some time exploring and explaining what is meant by “mediation” – and once they describe the core elements of the process (especially the role of the trusted intermediary) it all becomes clear . . . only it’s not always known as “mediation”.
The point of this? Initially, I’m concerned that we don’t assume that “mediation” is a unique product that can be exported but with necessary modifications for a new market – along the lines of shifting the steering wheel, or ensuring that the brand name of the product doesn’t create unexpected offence or hilarity. This then involves the recognition that the “standard” model is one of a line-up of options. Further implications will follow.

Read Full Post »

The Asia Pacific Mediation Leadership Summit is being collaboratively designed and hosted by the Asia Pacific Mediation Forum (APMF), Thailand’s renowned King Prajadhipok Institute for Peace and Democracy (KPI), Ministry of Justice (MoJ), Ministry of Public Health’s Center for Peace in Health Care (MoPH), Chulalongkorn University’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, The Rotary Peace Centre and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

Summit website: http://www.mediation-leadership.com

Read Full Post »




The ODR Working Group has met annually since 2002 in a wide variety of locations around the world:

2002 – 1st – Geneva (UN Palais des Nations)

2003 – 2nd – Geneva (UN Palais des Nations)

2004 – 3rd – Melbourne, Australia

2005 – 4th – Cairo, Egypt

2006 – 5th – Liverpool, UK

2007 – 6th – Hong Kong, China

2008 – 7th – Victoria, Canada

2009 – 8th – Haifa, Israel

2010 – 9th – Buenos Aires, Argentina
Each conference has grown in size and expanded the number of countries represented among the attendees.  The last few conferences included participants and speakers from:

USA Canada Ireland Italy Switzerland
UK Mexico Spain Denmark Israel
Czechoslovakia Germany Netherlands Singapore China
Philippines Indonesia Japan Korea Australia
Argentina Brazil Ecuador Chile Uruguay
Egypt India Hong Kong Sri Lanka Malaysia
Pakistan Venezuela Peru Nigeria Uganda

This is the first time India will play host. Because this is our first meeting in India we expect a very strong turnout from the Indian legal, information technology, commercial and mobile community.  With the expansion of the Internet and the growing reach of technology, the need for effective and ethical online dispute resolution is growing in importance. We expect that this meeting will enable the world to learn from India, as well as enabling India to learn from the world.


Tens of millions of disputes are resolved using ODR tools every year.  The volume of cases handled through ODR systems dwarfs the volume of cases handled through face-to-face dispute resolution processes by an order of magnitude, and on a total filings basis it’s safe to say that more matters are resolved through ODR each year than through the Indian and American judicial systems combined. ODR was started for ecommerce and now has spread its wings to every facet of dispute prevention, resolution and transformation.

The ODR Working Group Meeting always embraces the full spectrum of these issues.  Speakers at the meeting will address labor/management issues, cease fire monitoring, domain names, environmental conflict, and customer support, to name only a few application areas.  Governments around the world are already funding ODR experiments in many of these areas, and as our global society becomes more wired, the number of applications leveraging ODR will inevitably continue to grow.

This year is particularly important in the realm of eCommerce ODR because the UN has agreed to explore the creation of a global eCommerce ODR system to provide redress to all online consumers.  This meeting of the ODR Working Group will be the first time the ODR field will hear from officials working at UNCITRAL (the UN Agency tasked with harmonizing global laws) on this proposal.

Global interest in Online Dispute Resolution is at an all time high.  After more than a decade of experimentation, with many well documented successes, ODR is finally ready to move into the mainstream.  The trends that underlie ODR (e,g. technology, eDemocracy, dispute resolution, and public participation) all seem to be cresting at this moment.  Convening the leading minds in the field of ODR from around the world to explore current research and share best practices will help to define how justice will be achieved in the coming century.


The conference takes place over two days.  There are several plenary and keynote sessions, and several break-outs with multiple concurrent sessions.  A half-day post-conference session aimed to provide an introduction to ODR for individuals who might not know much about ODR’s history, tools, or applications will be held with Chambers of Commerce and Industry. Another session for the UNCITRAL working group on Global Consumer Online Dispute Resolution is also being planned post conference.

This gathering will be sponsored by PayPal, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution, and the Institute for International Commercial Law.

Conference Website and Registration:  http://odr2011.org

Participation: Free of Charge

If you have any further questions, please contact Chittu Nagarajan at cnagarajan@paypal.com, or visit the conference website at http://odr2011.org.


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »