双方并未选择会造成高成本和高风险的争端解决方式，而是试图通过调解的方式解决争端。为此，他们找到来自尼日利亚拉各斯的经验丰富的调解员 Agada Elachi博士和来自中国的韩正律师两位调解员，以及委托了大成资深合伙人周争平先生、墨西哥的. Ana Jaimes女士和美国的Peter Pettibon先生。
此调解过程向参与者展示了普通法管辖区首选的争端促进型方法（Facilitative Approach）与大陆法系国家普遍采用的更具评估性方法(Evaluative Approach)之间的区别。在本届专家调解员培训项目的最后一部分，专家评论员就模拟调解发表了意见。日本仲裁员协会主席Yoshihiro Takatori先生非常清楚地解释了这一差异。辅助性调解是指调解员尽可能避免涉及案情的实质性问题，而非采用评估式的方法向当事人表明对抗性程序的风险。Agada Elachi博士偏向于使用辅助性方法，而韩正先生则以评估性方法向各方提供咨询、说明影响案件的一些问题。中国政法大学教授覃华平教授也做了总结，并期待活动的长期开展。
3rd SCLA Mediation Expert Training Program Held on Last Saturday
On Saturday, March 27, 2021, the SCLA held its 3rd Mediation Training Program. Following the 15th Global Forum on Investment conditions between EU and China the training event was focused on investment disputes. SCLA is very grateful to Philip Hackett, QC, from the 36 Group in London for having prepared a comprehensive case study which was the basis of a mock mediation conducted between the parties‘ advocates and two mediators, one from the investor‘s state one from the host state. The investment originated from China, the project related to an infrastructure project in an imaginary country in Africa. The Chinese private investor had entered into a contract with the government of a Federal State of the African country regarding the delivery and installation of a water supply system. A dispute arose with regard to the legality of the contract under the laws oft he African country. This resulted in both a commercial dispute with the local government and an investor dispute with the Federal State under the assumed Bilateral Investment Treaty between that country and China.
Instead of resolving both disputes separately causing high costs and the risk of conflicting results the Parties attempted to resolve the disputes by way of mediation. For this purpose Dr. Agada Elachi, an experienced mediator from Lagos, Nigeria, and Mr. Max Han, a seasoned Chinese lawyer, were the two mediators. There were also renowned lawyers serving as advocates oft he parties, Mr. David Zhou, a senior partner from Dentons, Mrs. Ana Jaimes, from Mexico, and Mr. Peter Pettibone from the United States.
The mediation was structured in such way that first the mediators met with both parties to have a preliminary discussion of the case, the conduct oft he mediation and the position of the parties. The parties had previously exchanged their positions regarding the disputes in writing. The mock mediation then opened with both parties explaining their positions. Then the mediators met privately with each side separately to explore common ground for a settlement. After reconvening in plenary the broad terms of a settlement could be agreed between the parties. The mediators and the parties then agreed a timetable for the preparation and discussion ofthe settlement agreement between the parties. Once the parties had agreed on the terms ofthe agreement if should be presented to the mediators. It was assumed that a mediation agreement would be enforceable under the Singapore Mediation Convention to which China is already a party.
The mediation process showed to the participants the difference between a facilitative approach, as preferred by common law jurisdictions, and a more evaluative approach, as prevalent in civil law countreis. In the last part ofthe session in which expert commentators contributed their remarks to the mock mediationMr. Yoshihiro Takatori, a leading expert on mediation and arbitration from Japan, explained the difference in very clear terms. Facilitative mediation means that the mediator refrains to the largest extent possible from addressing any aspect ofthe mnerits ofthe case, whereas using an evaluative style the mediator may address substantive aspects to show the parties the risks of adversial procedures. Dr. Agada Elachi used a more facilitative style, whereas Mr. Max Hans acted in a more evaluative way by advising the parties also about apsects affecting the merits of the case.
In this regard Mr. Pettibone explained very wellthe advantages of Arb/Med procedures, wehre the parties start with an arbitration which shows the strengths and weaknesses of the respective positions and makes the parties more amenable to accept mediation.
It was agreed that the training shall continue with further events. The next event will most likely relate to a pure investor-state dispute. The purpose of these traning sessions is to discuss and experience from seasoned practitioners the procedure of medidation, not finding the reight result on the merits.