The Evolution of the Joint Session

Recently, Kim Taylor, COO of JAMS, questioned the survival of the long-held practice of commencing mediation conferences with a joint session of all parties and their counsel. Usually, that provides an opportunity for each viewpoint of the case to be expressed to the other side and to outline the settlement process with participants, before breaking into individual caucuses. Over eighty percent of mediators surveyed earlier this year used such sessions twenty years ago. Lately, a resistance to joint sessions is reported to have arisen. That survey of neutrals revealed a decline in the use of the joint sessions. Regionally, some seventy percent of neutrals based in the east said they still regularly use joint sessions. I find them to be helpful and estimate that I start that way over ninety percent of the time. However, the report from Southern California is that joint sessions are held merely a quarter of the time. Perhaps the process has become confrontational or maybe both sides already understand the positions and everyone just wants to get down to the business of negotiating, supposedly saving costs. Of course, there are certain cases where a joint session is not productive and could actually prove detrimental to the process. Ms. Taylor suggests that because of self-determination, most mediators will not insist on a joint session if the parties do not want one. However, to skip an initial joint session could impact the process that follows, limiting options for settlement or finding common ground and the path to a deal. I try to use it regularly, as our rules require disclosures and I find it assists in laying some foundation for the process and expectations. Caucuses can remain confidential and the parties retain control over information to be shared. Using the open ended question in joint session to get positive responses from the parties at the outset on areas where there already may be overlap in agreement on facts or damages is essential to reaching a successful outcome. See more here-- http://bit.ly/1KajjyN

Syrian Mediation

This week, a second round in the fragile peace talks resumed in Geneva between Syria’s government and opposition representatives. United Nations mediator, Lakhdar Brahimi, has reportedly maintained a cautious style, structuring meetings with opposition delegates of armed groups fighting in Syria, and later with the Assad government. Interestingly, the UN mediator presented both sides with a memorandum ahead of the mediation, proposing four main principles for dialogue: ending the violence and fighting terrorism; forming a transitional governing body; defining the relationship between the government and security services; and starting some form of national reconciliation. This time, Mr. Brahimi has apparently avoided bringing the warring parties together face to face, to avoid some rancorous exchanges that occurred during prior direct meetings. Rather, it is said he desires to keep the best chance of progress on confidence-building measures previously proposed, including cease-fires and prisoner exchanges. Meanwhile, humanitarian agencies have been evacuating civilians trapped for two years in the Old City of Homs and delivering food and medicines to those remaining during an extended cease-fire there. Additionally, the international effort to destroy Syrian chemical weapons has stalled with recent deadlines missed. Later this week, Mr. Brahimi meets Russia's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, hopefully having made more progress. See story here-- http://nyti.ms/1fe1xaa