In the context of mediation, is safeguarding mediator neutrality and party autonomy more important than ensuring a fair settlement?

Purpose: Explores the appropriate role and approach of mediators and investigates whether mediator neutrality and party autonomy should prevail over mediators' obligations to remain neutral where non-intervention would result in unfair settlements. Design/methodology/approach: Arises from polarising and paradoxical opinions of the legitimacy of mediator intervention. This paper relies upon theories proposed in peer-reviewed journals, together with secondary data. Findings: Mediator neutrality has no consistent or comprehensible meaning and is not capable of coherent application. Requirements for mediator neutrality encourage covert influencing tactics by mediators which itself threatens party autonomy. Mediator intervention ensures: (a) ethical and moral implemention of justice; (b) removal of epistemological implications of subjective fairness; (c) compensation for lack of pure procedural justice in the mediation process. Party autonomy requires mediators to intervene ensuring: (a) parties adequately informed of the law; (b) equal balance of power. Research limitations/implications: Peer-reviewed journals and secondary data giving meaningful insight into perceptions, opinions and beliefs concerning mediator neutrality, party autonomy and fair outcomes. This data comprised of unstructured-interviews and questionnaires containing ‘open-ended’ questions. Practical implications: Mediator neutrality and party autonomy are less important than fair settlements. Originality/value: This paper exposes the myth of mediator neutrality - a popular concept demanded by and anticipated by the parties but which is practically impossible to deliver. It also shows the need for mediator intervention to ensure a fair outcome.

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/...