The Challenges of Drafting Mediator Standards

By Professor Laurence Boulle, Thomas More Law School, Australian Catholic University
  

This piece complements the post by Associate Professor Bobette Wolski introducing the Australian National Mediator Accreditation System (NMAS) published on this blog earlier this month. 

Background

Version 2.0 of the NMAS became effective on 1 July 2015. It is designed to enhance the quality of mediation practice by up-dating and simplifying the previous standards and provide some structure to RMABs and the MSB.

This version had a painful and protracted parturition. Drafting should be easy but having been involved in these standards, and in a similar system abroad, I know this is not the case.

The political context

It is challenging to keep all interest groups within the tent, particularly lawyers who approach the practice standards from a risk perspective and are concerned that any specificity in regard to the mediation procedures could leave them exposed. Indeed, the legal profession might yet elect to set up its own standards.

The indeterminacy of words

As HLA Hart told us decades ago, all words have a core of certainty and a penumbra of uncertainty. As soon as one starts drafting the core seems to shrink and the penumbra to expand. Drafters spend hours pondering over the meanings of words. Fortunately the NMAS is not a bilingual document.

Definitional challenges

We all thought, post-NADRAC, that definitional conundrums were behind us. Sadly they are not. Drafters, at the risk of their health, endlessly revisit definitions of ‘mediation’, ‘conciliation’, ‘blended process’, ‘impartiality’, and the like. Thanks to the work of a few radical revolutionaries ‘neutrality’ was not defined but banned from the discourse.

Organisational challenges

Volunteers work in bursts of frenetic activity, followed by weeks and months during which the momentum is lost. In the eventual pursuant meeting they start again: definitions, words, politics and the rest. Not to mention the ego challenges which surface in the interstitial crevices of drafting projects.

The evidence question

Has the NMAS improved quality in the provision of mediation? As usual the evidence is meagre. Will version 2.0 enhance knowledge, skills and knowledge in the area? Time might tell. But it might not. Social science surveys tell us that social science can only survey 20% of the variables in human variables. Mediation is a social science.

The result

For the above reasons all Standards, and all drafting, involve many compromises and many are reflected in the NMAS version 2.0. Now it’s over to the research scholars to analyse the contribution they make to dispute resolution practice. However please mind your definitions.

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized by Dr Becky Batagol. Bookmark the permalink.

About Dr Becky Batagol

Dr Becky Batagol is a senior lecturer in law at the Faculty of Law, Monash University. In 2017, she is the President of the Australian Dispute Resolution Research Network. She is a researcher and teacher with a focus on family law, family violence, non-adversarial justice, dispute resolution, gender, child protection and constitutional law. Becky is the co-author of Non-Adversarial Justice (2nd ed, 2014), Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law? The Case of Family Mediation (2011) and the author of many academic articles. Becky is the chief-editor of the ADR Research Network blog and tweets regularly under the handle @BeckyBatagol.

Post your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s