Legal Studies Research Paper Series No.

2022-33

Cross-cultural disputes and mediator strategies

(Chapter 2 IN: The Routledge Handbook of Intercultural Mediation, Edited By
Dominic Busch,
Forthcoming by Routledge, 2023, available on Taylor & Francis eBooks, 2022)

Carrie Menkel-Meadow
[email protected]

University of California, Irvine ~ School of Law

Georgetown Law Center

The paper can be downloaded free of charge from SSRN at:

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4230372

 2
CROSS-CULTURAL DISPUTES AND
MEDIATOR STRATEGIES
Carrie Menkel-Meadow

What is culture?
It is said about culture that as we are the fishes who swim in it, it is like the water we swim in—it is
all around us; it governs how we breathe, eat, interact with others, communicate, and live. While
‘in’ it and ‘of’ it, we are hardly aware of it, it is so much a part of our environment, beliefs, and
actions. But we are humans, not fishes (though like fish we come in many different kinds of groups
or ‘schools’), and we do observe others and ourselves, communicate with each other, most often to
survive and flourish together, but sometimes producing disputes and conflicts, as we often process
the world through our own cultural lenses. This chapter outlines some of the issues that emerge in
mediation when disputants are of different cultures and so have what we have come to call ’inter-
cultural conflicts’ (Chew 2001; Ross 1997; Avruch and Black 1993; Avruch 1998).
Culture is a product of ‘groupness’ including practices, beliefs, norms, rules, behaviors, and customs
which are often further identified with race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, and social groups (e.g.,
self-identifying non-binary, LGBTQ+) and even voluntary associations and affiliations (e.g., political
parties, gangs) and ‘status’ cultures (e.g., student, academic, legal, professional, ‘business’ capitalist culture,
working class). Culture affects the way we see and process the world, with language, images, assumptions,
norms, and the choices we see as acceptable and viable in particular situations.
However, most of us belong to several ‘cultures’ (Sen 2006; Crenshaw 1989), some by ascription
(assignment by birth, assumptions of others, laws or rules) and some by choice, affiliation, or
achievement (e.g., professional license, education, training, and attainment). How ‘we’ look to others
and how we ‘see’ ourselves may be quite different things. Though culture is assumed to be practiced in,
and often ‘policed’ by groups (social norms, religious rules, laws) it is enacted by individuals (and also
by group leaders or political officials representing nations, companies, or interest groups).
Thus, ‘intercultural conflict’ occurs as individuals, groups, and even nations enact behaviors that
cause misunderstandings, competitions, disputes, conflicts, and sometimes violence. Some conflicts
are ‘veridical’ (real disputes over scarce or limited resources, e.g., land or water, a job); others are
attitudinal (different values or belief systems), pretextual (the stated conflict actually masks a deeper
or different conflict), identity based (conflict based on perceived differences of persons, not ne-
cessarily related to concrete dispute), latent (under the surface and unexpressed but important), and
others are socially constructed (meaning possibly changeable or re-characterizable as conditions or
perceptions change). What a conflict is, is itself a cultural construct and the parties to any conflict
may define and see a conflict in very different ways. As the marriage counselor John Gottman

30 DOI: 10.4324/9781003227441-4

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4230372

 Cross-cultural disputes

(Gottman and Gottman 2018) has noted, it is not the amount of conflict in a marriage that will
predict its success or failure, but how the parties process their conflict (e.g., respectfully, rather than
dismissively) and as all relationships have some conflict, some reciprocity and joint decision making
may be more important than the quantity (or even intensity) of the conflict. As many famous
peacemakers have said, conflicts are made by humans, they can also be unmade (managed or re-
solved) by humans.
Scholars in many different fields (anthropology, sociology, psychology, and political science), in
studying the many ways in which culture is expressed have developed many controversial taxo-
nomies of culture. Samuel Huntington famously claimed a ‘clash of cultures’ was politically im-
minent (before 9/11) among and between Western ‘developed’ democracies, Japanese culture
(separate from), Asian (Confucian), Latin American, Islamic, and sub-Saharan African cultures be-
cause of different value systems and preferences which created institutions of different political,
religious, and economic goals, some of which were inherently incompatible with others
(Huntington 2011). Other commentators more optimistically hoped that with the end of the Cold
War and the fall of the Berlin Wall, with the end of most colonization (1989) we would begin a new
era of ‘cosmopolitanism’ and peace (Ignatieff 1993) or as Francis Fukuyama put it “the End of
History” (1992). This has not happened, either in international politics or at the group-ethnic-
political sub-national levels, as, in fact, we are now in a period of increased polarization in much of
the world (Menkel-Meadow 2018a).
Anthropologists, sociologists, and social psychologists have also developed a taxonomy of cultural
communication patterns, derived from national and religious cultural values that suggest that there is
a continuum of human behaviors (which can be predicted from membership in a particular culture)
on the following dimensions (Hofstede et al. 2010 (original publication of research from IBM,
Hofstede 1980)), later supplemented by others:

• individualism-collectivism,
• uncertainty avoidance (risk preferences),
• power distance (role of hierarchy or equality in culture and decision making),
• long vs. short term orientation,
• masculinity-femininity,
• emotional expressiveness (Hammer 2005),
• direct (literal) vs. indirect (euphemisms, assumed similar cultural norms) communication,
• high (assumption of homogeneity in cultural expectations) vs. low (heterogeneity) context
cultures (Hall 1959; 1976),
• physical distance in communication,
• time/deadline/punctuality sensitivity.

These characterizations of basic values and human communication (derived from surveys of first
IBM, then other multi-national corporation, employees) have been used in countless studies to
verify or test whether these categories comport with particular national (or professional) cultures in
business dealings, negotiation, management, and general cross-cultural communications and deci-
sion making (see e.g., Brett 2014), often employing stereotypic or patterned characterizations of
particular cultural practices in business dealings or dispute resolution (see Acuff 2008). As some
(problematic to this author) conclusions suggest, in high power distance cultures (Latin America,
Asia) deference will be paid to higher status, older, male superiors in both organizational and na-
tional hierarchies. Cultures with less social equality will be distrustful of younger, ‘minority,’ and
female participants. Low power distance (more ‘equality’ focused) cultures will enjoy greater
flexibility, creativity, and likely more direct communication and participation in the processes of
mediation and decision making.

31

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4230372

 Carrie Menkel-Meadow

This literature and the lucrative business and dispute resolution cultural consulting apparatus (see
e.g., Schuler 2016), including even the International Mediation Institute’s (2022a; 2022b) Cultural
Competency Certification process, which attempts to teach about these cultural differences and then
‘certify’ those who are interculturally competent (including language, residency, and knowledge of
different legal and social systems) is also widely criticized, on both academic and practical grounds.
‘Intercultural training’ often presumes the ‘otherness’ of some who are not at the center or core of
the activity, e.g., common or civil law business contracting, employment in multi-national (and
increasingly diverse) companies, operating around the world (with whose rules, languages, and work
cultures as the norms?). One could ask—how much intermediation of these more diverse re-
lationships is ‘inter-cultural’ (assuming some equality of communication, practices, and decisions/
resolutions) and how much is expected ‘assimilation’ to the dominant culture by learned manip-
ulation of cultural ‘differences’? As John Barkai has put it—the “Popeye Problem” (“I am what I am
and that’s all that I am”), seeing the world from within one’s own cultural assumptions (Barkai
2008). For a few examples of sensitivity to more ‘integrative’ or culturally specific and context
specific mediation models see Ting-Toomey (1994) (for Asian or more ‘collectivist’ cultures) and
Smolyaninova and Popova (2019) for a more ‘integrative’ model of mediation in migrant, culturally
diverse educational environments in Russia and Europe.
Anthropologists, such as Kevin Avruch, working in the conflict resolution field note that culture
is not a ‘thing’ (monolithic, unchanging, homogeneous, or uniform within any grouping) and that
any particular individual may have memberships in several cultural groups so that which ‘culture’
will be salient in any particular conflict may not be so easily determined. With the advent of
international mediation, negotiation, and dispute resolution (and business management) education
and training, a more professional culture of a transnational nature (e.g., all those who have studied at
Harvard’s Program on Negotiation or the UK’s CEDR mediation training) may share a more
cosmopolitan culture of ‘canons’ of dispute resolution (including language, interventions and
structures) which may be more salient than other social, national, ethnic or gendered identities
(Rubin and Sander 1991; Menkel-Meadow 2003). On the other hand (see below), the assumptions
of the universality of such canons as Getting to Yes (Fisher, Ury, and Patton 1991: focus on interests,
not positions, invent options for mutual gain, separate the people from the problem, and use ob-
jective criteria) are increasingly challenged as culturally ethnocentric (assuming rationality, pragmatic
problem solving, and excluding other processes and measures of agreement, focus on feelings, re-
lationship, community, and morality and ethical factors: Menkel-Meadow (2016)).

What is mediation culture?

Does mediation have a culture all its own? Mediation is derived historically from the Bible (it was
Solomon who was going to cut the baby in half to resolve a dispute between two mothers mediating
or arbitrating when the ‘real’ mother said “give it her, rather than cut it in half”?), Confucian
‘harmony’ culture (Lee and Hwee 2009; Chew and Lim 2006), sulha (peace or ‘resolution’) in
Islamic and Middle Eastern cultures (Abu-Nimer 1996), and various forms of African community
dispute resolution processes (“it takes a village”; Ubuntu (Akinola and Uzodike 2018), gacaca).
Mediation as a conflict resolution process actually has several cultures—is it its goal to produce a
settlement (a ‘task’ focus), to encourage understanding and recognition and improve the relations of
the parties (Bush and Folger 2005) or to preserve harmony and peace for the larger community, in
addition to resolving the particular disputes of the parties? Mediation has been successfully used to
create new norms and provide communities (e.g., gay, migrants, religious groups) with little to no
access to conventional courts a dispute resolution process of their own (Freshman 1997; Waldman
1997). These days, mediation processes are being used to clear dockets (mandatory court mediation
programs) or increase access to justice (the argument now being made for online mediation). Is

32

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4230372

 Cross-cultural disputes

mediation a new ‘lingua franca’ or Esperanto language of common or more ‘universal’ customs or
practices of dispute resolution to be used in cross-border international disputes, where both different
languages and different legal systems may make traditional court-based dispute resolution more
difficult (Menkel-Meadow 2018b; 2015a; 2016). Does mediation require compromise, the seeking
of ‘joint gain,’ and creative tailored solutions of substance while focusing on mutual understanding,
empathy, party participation, self-determination, dialogue, and consent in process, to distinguish it
from more rule and command based processes of adjudication and arbitration?
Different goals and purposes of mediative processes in turn affect the techniques, tools, and
interventions particular mediators might use—e.g., facilitative, or evaluative (Riskin 2003), trans-
formative and communication enhancing (Bush and Folger 2005; Friedman and Himmelstein 2008),
or decisional and arbitration-like for political purposes (Fu and Palmer 2017; Lubman 1997; Cohen
1966). Each mediation process or system may use different kinds of mediators—volunteers from a
community, law trained lawyers or judges, sitting judges, or other judicial officers, ‘wise elders’ in
religious or other communities, experts in highly technical mediations (e.g., patent or tax disputes),
psychologists, architects, engineers, accountants, family members, or totally ‘lay’ mediators. As the
song says, “different strokes for different folks” (Stewart 1969)—different purposes and goals and
different kinds of mediators will approach mediation processes differently—what I call ‘process
pluralism’ in choices about forms of decision making (2016).
Yet modern mediation and the standard form of mediation training occurring in courts and
private organizations today is likely to use a relatively common format and template for
behaviors—one that I (1995) and others (Gunning 1995; Press and Deason 2021) have called an
overly ‘Westernized’ (and White) assumption of a ‘neutral’ third party (mediator) presiding over or
facilitating an individualized ‘talking cure’ with protocols of story/claim narration, agenda creation,
and managed into ‘re-framed’ solvable issues, facilitated brainstormed negotiated agreements, and a
pragmatic sense of problem solving and future oriented solutions. This ideology and practice of
mediation can be both highly effective, but also culturally very specific, all while generating a variety
of critiques for ‘privatizing’ justice (removing disputes from the transparency of public court settings
for accountability) or ignoring past injustices (Gunning 1995; Izumi 2010; Menkel-Meadow 2004).
As one of the founders of the modern Alternative, Appropriate, Accessible, Aspirational dispute re-
solution movement I was asked to begin to train mediators in many other countries, beginning in
the early 1980s. I turned down requests to train (others accepted) in such places as the former Soviet
Union and Haiti in the early years either because I felt I did not know enough about the relevant
(legal) culture (Russia) or because I feared corruption (Haiti) in both the legal and alternative dispute
resolution systems. In my view, the quality of mediation does depend on the quality of the legal
system which either supports or supplements mediation (and may have to be used to enforce
mediation agreements). In the late 1980s, at the request of a colleague with whom I had taught
before, I went to Norway to teach mediation to law students, lawyers, government officials, and
some diplomats (what chutzpah—Norwegian diplomats are masters of mediation—see Oslo
Accords!). I assumed that as the daughter of a German-born engineer, I knew enough about (‘ra-
tional’) Northern European culture (growing up in a multi-cultural European-American home with
multiple languages) to teach others how to use this form of legal and social problem solving. To my
then (1988) surprise and intercultural education I saw that despite cultural dimension indices of
many analysts and stereotypic assumptions, the Norwegians I encountered were as ‘high context’
(indirect, reticent, hierarchical, and tradition based) as any measure of assumed ‘Asian’ (I do not
approve of ‘pan’ continental categories such as Asian or African or Latin American, where there are
so many differences within such categories) traditional high context harmony culture. At that time
the Norwegians I encountered (highly educated and of several generations) were not taken with
American ‘talking cures’ in settings that were too informal for significant legal matters (which would
eventually require notarization and other legal formalities). This is not to say the Norwegians did not

33

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4230372

 Carrie Menkel-Meadow

use therapy and meditation (and lots of drinking!) to explore and express feelings in other (non-legal
contexts), but the Americanized ‘talking cure’ did not then catch on in Norwegian legal circles.
Some of that has changed now (Sperr 2013), but it is important to note that much of the motivation
for the development of mediation in many societies has been due to docket-clearing where there are
long queues for court proceedings (Ali 2018)—that was not true in Norway at the time. So, mo-
tivations to mediate can come from very different sources (legal reform, social and political problem
solving, transnational dispute resolution (European Directive 2008/52/EC 2008), community, fa-
mily, and psychological relationship issues). Many countries came to mediation first through labor
conciliation (a different, often government-managed process) with includes more active interven-
tion (and solution suggestions or commands).
About a decade later (late 1990s) I was asked to train and teach mediation in Paraguay, Argentina,
Brazil, and later Chile. After learning enough Spanish to understand and to do some teaching (always
with both language translators and co-teachers from the countries in which I was working) I saw
cultural differences not quite measured by the anthropologists and sociologists studying intercultural
negotiations and mediations. The Argentines took to mediation like fish to water. Not only had
some of their judges (former Appellate Judge Gladys Alverez) done some training in the United
States, but Buenos Aires had the highest per capita ratio of therapists and psychologists to population
of almost any nation (due to many factors, including immigration pre- and post-WWII from
Freudians and others from the European continent). The café society, then examining its political
transition from dictatorship to democracy and exploring some forms of human rights restitution and
restorative justice, was verbal, voluble, and wanting to talk about problems—both national and
personal. In Chile, mediation came not as fast—a more reticent culture, still reeling from some
‘social amnesia’ about the Pinochet dictatorship (Menkel-Meadow 2015b) and also generally more
formal took somewhat to mediation, but more slowly and more motivated by legal system reforms
in both civil and criminal law. Chile, however, had very successful labor conciliation programs and a
unique mediation program for the settlement of indigenous land claims, using very different
methods and techniques in different settings.
The country of my parents’ birth, Germany, eventually has also taken to mediation—both to deal
more honestly and directly with its Nazi past and to formalize reforms to the legal system to en-
courage, if not require, mediation prior to litigation (Hess and Pelzer 2013). Over the last 20 years I
have worked with mediation promoters/trainers/teachers in Germany, Belgium, France, the
Netherlands, Ireland, Italy, Spain, the UK, Switzerland, Israel, Singapore, China, Hong Kong,
Australia, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, Costa Rico, Paraguay, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, and Russia.
Italy tried to mandate mediation in all civil cases (de Palo and Oleson 2013), which then was ruled
unconstitutional by the Italian Cour di Cassione but now requires parties to attend informational
meetings about mediation in all civil cases.
As I have written elsewhere (Menkel-Meadow 2015a), the uptake of various forms of mediation
in different countries may depend on varied legal cultures. Some legal cultures are not unitary. The
United States, the UK, Australia, Canada and Israel, for example, have highly adversarial legal
cultures with a great deal of litigation. At the same time, legal reformers, social workers, psychol-
ogists and others have developed very effective mediation programs—some mandatory, some
supplementary to more contested legal processes (Alexander 2009; Steffek et al. 2013). Other legal
cultures direct parties to more conciliatory processes as a condition precedent to other forms of
dispute resolution (China, Japan) some of which is now mirrored in international treaties requiring
parties to climb a ladder of tiered dispute resolution processes (e.g., Law of the Sea) and the three
regional human rights courts of the world (African, European, and Inter-American) all provide for
some form of amiable settlements achieved through mediatory or conciliatory processes. These are
settings in particular where intercultural mediation is a necessity as parties will frequently be of
different national, social, and legal cultures. Newer nation states (coming out of colonialism or from

34

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4230372

 Cross-cultural disputes

transitions from dictatorships or civil wars) are creating newer, more hybrid systems of dispute
resolution and, in including such processes as Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (e.g., South
Africa, Liberia, Bolivia) may provide more hybrid dispute resolution systems internally to create
more mediation like processes for dispute resolution within different groups of the population.
Intercultural mediation is just as important in domestic disputes as in the international disputing of
nations or transnational commercial and familial dealings.

What strategies, techniques, and tools for mediation are in intercultural settings?
There is no shortage of scholarship, training manuals, and advice from professionals on how to
conduct intercultural mediations, both in obviously international contexts, but also in domestic
inter- or multi-cultural settings (e.g., Barkai 2008; Gunning 1995; Press and Deason 2021; Izumi
2010; LeBaron and Pillay 2006; International Mediation Institute 2022a; 2022b). This section
highlights some of the strategies, interventions, techniques, tools, skills, and interpersonal ac-
countability devices presented in the literature, followed by a brief review of some of the current
critiques of standard mediation practices and schemas.
To begin, every mediation that has an intercultural element (isn’t that all mediations where
parties have some dispute and see the world and their particular situation differently?) needs to begin
with a serious intercultural analysis (Avruch and Black 1993). Who are the parties? How many of
them are there? From where do they come? What is the dispute about (it’s ‘res’)? How might each of
the parties see or interpret the dispute differently? How might context and type of dispute matter?
Commercial, employment, family, identity, education, health, housing, injury, personal, or com-
munity? What is the desired outcome of the parties? Peace treaty, contract, settlement of a lawsuit or
dispute, making a new relationship, forging a new country, family, setting borders and boundaries?
All of these are variations on what kinds of disputes might require different sets of interventions or
choices of behaviors. Then, in multi-cultural settings, the preparation must also include as much
learning as possible about both the particular ‘cultures’ involved (which may include not only na-
tionality, ethnicity, race, gender, political, but profession, class, education, and other ‘cross-cutting’
statuses and identities) and the subject matter of the dispute. Mediators of intercultural disputes must
develop ‘meta’ preparation as well—standing outside of the dispute, what processes, techniques,
tools, and interventions may be more appropriate for particular problems. Thus, there are at least
three layers to prepare for—process, substantive matter, and the intermediation of ‘differences’
however they are perceived, constructed, and enacted at individual, organizational, and even na-
tional levels.

Self-assessment
Any mediator beginning a multi- or intercultural mediation session of any kind should ask, “Am I
the right person for this job”? What competence do I have to offer the parties? Language, familiarity
with the culture, substantive expertise? Should I get a co-mediator to add diversity, knowledge,
assistance, ability to do several caucuses or separate meetings at the same time, aid with process
management? How was I invited into this process? By the parties themselves, by some authority or
mandated scheme (e.g., court mandated mediation), by the request of another third party or in-
stitution? Should there be ‘matching’ of mediator(s) to nationalities, race, ethnicity, or gender of the
parties (see e.g., LaFree and Rack 1996; Charkoudian and Wayne 2010, 2009; Press and Deason
2021)? What is my stance with respect to the parties—can I really be ‘neutral’ (can anyone?) or
‘unbiased’ or ‘without bias or prejudice’? As human beings we are all likely to have predispositions
and our own cultural identities in any dispute. How should these be described, disclosed, and
monitored? Are there any conflicts of interest—personal, professional? Am I aware of my own

35

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4230372

 Carrie Menkel-Meadow

implicit/unconscious biases and any cultural (White, Western, Northern, male?) characteristics that
assume I (or the methods I use) am the ‘norm’ by which the mediation will be conducted (Izumi
2010; Press and Deason 2021; Gunning 1995, Menkel-Meadow 1995)?

Case assessment
How might case type affect the kind of mediation which is offered: International crisis diplomats (see
the different approaches and styles of George Mitchell in Northern Ireland, contrasted to Richard
Holbrooke in Bosnia, Curran, Sebenius, and Watkins 2004), back-channel mediators, complex
business deals, family disputes, employment disputes, educational disputes. How many parties are
involved? Are all the stakeholders at the table—should others be invited? Consider such issues as
future generations in environmental disputes or children in divorce disputes, or insurers in con-
struction disputes. Are there serious power imbalances between or among the parties? How might
that affect who should be invited, how mediation is conducted (separate sessions, joint sessions) and
how decisions will be made about what is agreed to. Are the parties pro se (alone) or represented by
lawyers or other helpers? Are the parties from the same spoken language or will they need trans-
lators? Do the parties share culture(s) (religion, workplace, nationality, ethnicity, race, gender) or are
the parties demographically or culturally from ‘different’ situations or understandings? Are the parties
of close to equal statuses-titles, educational achievement, economic class, business partners—or will
the ‘power’ or class or race or ethnicity or gender or economic differences manifest in power and
communication differentials? Will the parties identify their own ‘differences’ or will mediators be
sensitive or oblivious to more subtle racial, class, gender, ethnic issues, and ways of communicating
(see Gadlin 1994; Ting-Toomey et al. 2000)?

Preparation and ground rules

Before any meeting of the parties, it is always advisable to consider what the parties’ expectations are
likely to be—is this a first encounter, with other parties, with mediation itself? Many suggest the use of
pre-meetings (done separately, either in person or on phone or video chat) to learn about parties and
their expectations, to develop trust, to answer questions and to begin to understand what is important to
the parties. Many mediators use pre-mediation written submissions but note this too could be a cultural
issue—is writing a favored form of communication, does a written document of any sort make positions
in a mediation more rigid, less flexible, advantage those with sophisticated professional helpers? How
should the physical space be structured (e.g., sitting on the floor or chairs, with a table or not, in a circle
or rectangular conference table)? How much physical/social distance between parties and with the
mediator(s)? How shall the parties be addressed (formally, or first names)? What food or drink should be
served (Liebman 2000)? What ground rules of engagement should be set in advance—is confidentiality
a need, can it be guaranteed, who will parties share information with? Complex international business
disputes will have to provide for some mediation of shared procedural rules (as international arbitrations
do in Terms of Reference meetings (see Menkel-Meadow 2008))—whose evidence rules will prevail
(discovery of documents, expert witnesses, privilege, all of which vary by legal (common law, civil law,
or mixed system) culture. Do ground rules of no interruptions, ‘tone control,’ and etiquette policing
‘privilege’ certain cultural communication practices?

Mediator role(s)
Mediators have different approaches—facilitative, evaluative, narrative, transformative, and hybrid
combinations of all these. In situations where parties may not all share understandings of what
mediators do, it is especially important for mediators to describe what they do and where appropriate

36

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4230372

 Cross-cultural disputes

to negotiate particular roles with the parties. While the American conception of a ‘third-party
neutral’ became an expected norm in many kinds of mediations, many parties now choose ‘expert’
mediators (as in intellectual property or high-tech disputes) who may know the parties and operate
more like the ‘wise elders’ (in suggesting possible solutions and outcomes) that looks more like
traditional mediation in Asian or African practices. Community mediation and various forms of
indigenous and religious mediation have panels of ‘elders’ or facilitators (often too patriarchal in
some contexts) or more ‘inclusive’ participation by whole communities in facilitating dispute
processes (see e.g., Harmon-Darrow et al. 2020).

Communication/facilitation
In intercultural disputes, mediators are likely best advised to use more elicitive (asking questions and
drawing out from the parties) approaches than more directive statements to encourage parties to
express what is important to them on their own terms. It is especially important to consider the
order of talk—who goes first often sets the terms and terrain (primacy and controlling the narrative,
Gunning 1995). A skilled mediator should be able to sensitively ‘reframe’ issues and create agendas
that do not privilege or give primacy to particular parties. Active listening, restating, and confirming
what is being said is always important, but is especially important in settings where the parties may
need not only language translations, but conceptual and interest translations. For some parties,
decision making will be ‘rational’ and ‘principled,’ for others emotions, religious, or ethical com-
mitments will be most salient, and others may simply want to accomplish what is most ‘practical’
(what I call the head, heart, and stomach discourses of dispute resolution, Menkel-Meadow 2018a).
Caucuses are likely to be needed, especially in situations of different expectations of privacy, decision
making, and information sharing. One of the great ironies of intercultural mediation is often that
where mediators might prefer ‘face to face’ dialogues and empathic communication to encourage
mutual understanding, the need for ‘face saving’ is often best achieved through the use of caucus
meetings where the parties are not face to face and mediators can more ‘neutrally’ present proposals
and reduce the reactive devaluation that occurs when parties devalue what is offered by their ad-
versaries. When communication patterns (direct vs indirect modes of communication) are not
‘matched’ by the parties, mediators can literally either ‘sit in the middle’ of communications, help to
interpret meanings or offer proposals, whether in separate rooms or in joint sessions. Consider how
many international crises and peace agreements have been accomplished by shuttle diplomacy and
‘go-betweens’ without the principal parties being in the same room at the same time (e.g., Viet Nam
Paris Agreement, U.S.-Iranian hostage crisis ‘resolution,’ Oslo Accords, Dayton Accords).

Bargaining/problem solving
Modern (Western) approaches to mediation prefer to facilitate party agency and autonomy by using
such specific techniques as brainstorming, storyboarding, nominal voting procedures, and exercises
to create joint gain and shared solutions to problems. In some settings this pressure to ‘create’ and
openly share is just the opposite of what some parties will want (closer to an evaluative, command
idea coming from a wise elder). Some parties in mediation (whether from individual preferences or
cultural expectations) will be collaborative, active, and keen to resolve problems—others will be
adversarial, seeking to ‘win’ even in what is supposed to be a consensual setting. A culturally sen-
sitive mediator has to be able to navigate different negotiation styles, again often by using
questions—“what would happen if […],” “If you don’t like X, what would you propose instead?,”
“Who else do you need to consult to see if Y will be acceptable?” Where the parties come from
different negotiation traditions and practices, interventions (e.g., power balancing) and mediator
suggestions or proposals are tools that can move things forward. Modern critiques of the mediator’s

37

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4230372

 Carrie Menkel-Meadow

‘neutral’ stance (see below) suggest mediators may need to take responsibility for and ‘call out’
improper behavior or unfair proposals (Menkel-Meadow and Wheeler 2011). For many mediators
the challenge is to ‘mediate’ the different discourses of reason/principle, political, ethical, and re-
ligious commitments, as well as practical deal making and necessary compromise (Menkel-Meadow
2017) for mediation to function as a process that produces some improved conditions for the parties.

Reaching agreements
There are often different understandings of the appropriate time for reaching agreements. In
complex international settings, time for relationship building, socializing, gift giving, rituals and
ceremonies, or banquets may be expected. Task-oriented Americans often want to conclude deals
quickly and see the transaction as more important than the relationship. A culturally skilled mediator
needs to conduct, orchestrate, and manage the timing of negotiations and deal making, and to
confirm in many different ways that agreements (and the procedures for their realization and ex-
ecution are clear—‘reality testing’) are understood by all parties (and committed to writing, if
culturally or legally mandated) and approved by those with authority to do so. ‘The devil is often in
the details’ as we say and the mediator of a dispute with parties who don’t always share world views
will have to work doubly hard to be sure there actually is a mediated outcome that will be complied
with. Good agreements may have contingent provisions for adaptation to new conditions, new
evidence or data (consider environmental and economic disputes) or re-evaluation of terms (con-
sider agreements made in restorative justice or transitional justice settings.) Good mediators plan
ahead with the parties to craft dispute resolution provisions for any issues that may arise from a
mediation agreement.

Evaluation, feedback, and assessment

No mediation is complete until the parties and mediators assess what they have done and engage in
any mutually agreed to feedback process. The best mediators are self-reflecting (and reflexive) and
seek to de-brief, not only particular interventions (with co-mediators and participants where pos-
sible) they have engaged in, but consideration of ‘what went well,’ ‘what might have been done
differently,’ and what other possible options were available for substantive solutions. Where parties
agree, mediators might meet again after the mediation is concluded to learn about implementation
and reactions to the process. A learning model would allow the parties to consult with others to
assess what they have accomplished. Perhaps a mediator will learn s/he/they need some further
training in diversity, equity, and cultural inclusion sensitivity and methods or to be updated on
substantive matters, law or uses of technology. A spirited debate in the largely unregulated field of
mediation is the extent to which mediators should be ‘accountable’ for the agreements they facil-
itate. For many mediators the accountability is in the parties’ consent and agreement to whatever
outcome is reached (Mayer, Stulberg, Susskind, and Lande 2012) as a core value of ‘self-
determination.’ For others, mediators have a responsibility to ensure that agreements reached with
their assistance should not be unjust, unfair, unenforceable, or unlawful (Menkel-Meadow and
Wheeler 2011). In many jurisdictions around the world, some case law and court decisions now
adjudicate some claims of unfair influence, coercion, or defective contracting as some check on
mediation processes (Coben and Thompson 2006).

Critiques of the ‘standard’ mediation templates

In recent years, much of the ‘standard’ template of mediation has been criticized from a number of
quarters. As mediation began to gain currency in both court and legal settings, as well as private

38

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4230372

 Cross-cultural disputes

commercial settings, it moved out from its initial sources in community and indigenous models and
practices of dispute resolution. Some were concerned about the privatization of justice, with pro-
cesses and agreements occurring in secret without transparency or the application of the rule of law,
often used in settings where the parties in dispute were of unequal ‘arms’ (economic status, access to
lawyers and legal advice, race, gender, ethnicity, immigration status, etc., Delgado et al. 1985; Grillo
1991). From the beginning, there was criticism of specific tools, techniques, and strategies that were
considered derived only from Western-Northern cultures (e.g., the notion of a ‘neutral’ third party,
the requirement to talk directly in narrative form, to search for future-oriented pragmatic solutions
and relinquish the ‘past’ and claims of hurt, harm, or anger “for the good of the […] future”
(children, company, country, community)). There have been specific charges of some mediation as
being manipulative (Greatbatch and Dingwall 1989) as mediators use ‘selective facilitation’ tech-
niques to move parties toward the mediator’s desired outcomes. More recently, some have claimed
that mediation is not only Western or ‘northern’ but White (Press and Deason 2021), not permitting
voice for subordinate groups, particularly Blacks in cultures (like the United States) with systemic
racism. Others see the potential promise of mediation for interpersonal communication and un-
derstanding and practical business agreements, as well as international law disputes between countries
in some cases, but express concerns that mediative approaches to highly polarized societies cannot be
so easily ‘scaled up’ to whole societies, even with many groups organizing town halls, living room
conversations, and other deliberative democracy events that use mediative tools for facilitating
dialogue in search of mutual understanding.
At an institutional level, truth and reconciliation processes have used mediative techniques of
narrative, apologies, requests for forgiveness, and amnesty even when reparations and restitution (as
in smaller scale restorative justice (Menkel-Meadow 2007) victim-offender settings have worked)
are rare.
Most mediators of cross-cultural disputes are optimists (and realists!). Where some see intractable
differences between and among people of different faiths, political systems, races, genders, and
ethnicities, most of us see hope in the curiosity that we feel about different approaches to the
problems that humans must confront. A well-conducted intercultural mediation is one committed
to learning, curiosity, empathy, some creativity, and some forms of human communication.
Intercultural mediation is talk in service to human understanding and peaceful co-existence and
hopefully, human flourishing. Mediation is a sensibility to approach others with whom one is in
conflict to understand them (and ourselves) better and to seek a better situation than one was in
before the mediation (and with solutions that may be specifically tailored to parties’ needs and
interests). We try to make lemonade or lemon pie out of lemons. (Or think of all the uses of lemons
in different cultures!!) It is not simple or easy in many cases, but without it we may be doomed. As
one who grew up in the shadows of the United Nations, I still harbor a belief that we have more
similarities as humans than differences—at least enough to try to resolve our many disputes without
unnecessary harm or violence.

References
Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. 1996. “Conflict Resolution Approaches.: Western and Middle Eastern Lessons and
Possibilities.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 55 (1): 35–52. 10.1111/j.1536-7150.1996.tb02706.x
Acuff, Frank L. 2008. How to Negotiate Anything with Anyone Anywhere around the World. 3rd ed. New York:
AMACOM/American Management Association.
Akinola, Adeoye O., and Ufo Okeke Uzodike. 2018. “Ubuntu and the Quest for Conflict Resolution in
Africa.” Journal of Black Studies 49 (2): 91–113. 10.1177/0021934717736186
Alexander, Nadja Marie. 2009. International Comparative Mediation: Legal Perspectives. Global Trends in Dispute
Resolution. Austin, Frederick, MD: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

39

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4230372

 Carrie Menkel-Meadow

Ali, Shahla F. 2018. Court Mediation Reform: Efficiency, Confidence and Perceptions of Justice. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Avruch, Kevin, and Peter W. Black. 1993. “Conflict Resolution in Intercultural Settings: Problems and
Prospects.” In Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application, edited by Dennis J. D.
Sandole and Hugo van der Merwe, 131–45. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Barkai, John. 2008. “What’s a Cross-Cultural Mediator to Do? A Low-Context Solution for a High-Context
Problem.” Cadorzo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 (1): 43–89.
Brett, Jeanne M. 2014. Negotiating Globally: How to Negotiate Deals, Resolve Disputes, and Make Decisions across
Cultural Boundaries. Third edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bush, Robert A. Baruch, and Joseph P. Folger. 2005. The Promise of Mediation: The Transformative Approach to
Conflict. Rev. ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Charkoudian, Lorig, and Ellen Kabcenell Wayne. 2009. “Does It Matter If My Mediator Looks like Me? The
Impact of Racially Matching Participants and Mediators.” Dispute Resolution Magazine, Spring 2009: 22–4.
Charkoudian, Lorig, and Ellen Kabcenell Wayne. 2010. “Fairness, Understanding, and Satisfaction: Impact of
Mediator and Participant Race and Gender on Participants’ Perception of Mediation.” Conflict Resolution
Quarterly 28 (1): 23–52. 10.1002/crq.20011
Chew, Irene K. H., and Christopher Lim. 2006. “A Confucian Perspective on Conflict Resolution.” The
International Journal of Human Resource Management 6 (1): 143–57. 10.1080/09585199500000007
Chew, Pat K., ed. 2001. The Conflict and Culture Reader. New York: New York University Press.
Coben, James Richard, and Peter N. Thompson. 2006. “Disputing Irony: A Systematic Look at Litigation
About Mediation.” Harvard Negotiation Law Review 11: 43–146.
Cohen, Jerome Alan. 1966. “Chinese Mediation on the Eve of Modernization.” California Law Review 54 (3):
1201–26. 10.15779/Z38MR10
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of
Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1: 139–67.
Curran, Daniel, James K. Sebenius, and Michael Watkins. 2004. “Two Paths to Peace: Contrasting George
Mitchell in Northern Ireland with Richard Holbrooke in Bosnia-Herzegovina.” Negotiation Journal 20 (4):
513–37. 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2004.00041.x
Delgado, Richard, Chris Dunn, Pamela Brown, Helena Lee, and David Hubbert. 1985. “Fairness and
Formality: Minimizing the Risk of Prejudice in Alternative Dispute Resolution.” Wisconsin Law Review
(1985): 1359–404. https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_articles/584
De Palo, Giuseppe, and Ashley E. Oleson. 2013. “Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Italy: The Bumps in the
Road to Successful ADR.” In Regulating Dispute Resolution: ADR and Access to Justice at the Crossroads, edited
by Felix Steffek, Hannes Unberath, Hazel Glenn, Reinhard Greger, and Carrie Menkel-Meadow, 239–68.
Oxford: Hart Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781474200219.ch-010
European Directive 2008/52/EC (2008). Directive of the European Parliament on Certain Aspects of Mediation
in Civil and Commercial Matters (with European Code of Conduct for Mediators, May 21, 2008).
Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. 1991. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.
2nd edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Freshman, Clark. 1997. “Privatizing Same-Sex ‘marriage’ through Alternative Dispute Resolution:
Community-Enhancing versus Community-Enabling Mediation.” UCLA Law Review 44: 1687–771.
Friedman, Gary J., and Jack Himmelstein. 2008. Challenging Conflict: Mediation through Understanding. Chicago,
IL: American Bar Association.
Fu, Hualing, and Michael Palmer. 2017. Mediation in Contemporary China Continuity and Change. London:
Wildy, Simmonds and Hill.
Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.
Gadlin, Howard. 1994. “Conflict Resolution, Cultural Differences, and the Culture of Racism.” Negotiation
Journal 10 (1): 33–47. 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1994.tb00004.x
Gottman, John Mordechai, and Julie Schwartz Gottman. 2018. The Science of Couples and Family Therapy: Behind
the Scenes at the “Love Lab.” New York: W. W Norton.
Greatbatch, David, and Robert Dingwall. 1989. “Selective Facilitation: Some Preliminary Observations on a
Strategy Used by Divorce Mediators.” Law & Society Review 23 (4): 613–42.
Grillo, Trina. 1991. “The Mediation Alternative: Process Dangers for Women.” The Yale Law Journal 100:
1545–610.
Gunning, Isabelle R. 1995. “Diversity Issues in Mediation: Controlling Negative Cultural Myths.” Journal of
Dispute Resolution 1: 55–93.
Hall, Edward Twitchell. 1959. The Silent Language. Garden City. NY.: Doubleday.

40

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4230372

 Cross-cultural disputes

Hall, Edward Twitchell. 1976. Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Books.
Hammer, Mitchell R. 2005. “The Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory: A Conceptual Framework and
Measure of Intercultural Conflict Resolution Approaches.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29
(6): 675–95. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.08.010
Harmon‐Darrow, Caroline, Lorig Charkoudian, Tracee Ford, Michele Ennis, and Erricka Bridgeford. 2020.
“Defining Inclusive Mediation: Theory, Practice, and Research.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 37 (4):
305–24. 10.1002/crq.21279
Hess, Brukhard, and Nils Pelzer. 2013. “Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Germany: Cautious Steps to-
wards the Construction of an ADR System.” In Regulating Dispute Resolution: ADR and Access to Justice at the
Crossroads, edited by Felix Steffek, Hannes Unberath, Hazel Glenn, Reinhard Greger, and Carrie Menkel-
Meadow, 209–38. Oxford: Hart Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781474200219.ch-009
Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage.
Hofstede, Geert H., Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the
Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. 3rd edtion. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Huntington, Samuel P. 2011. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Ignatieff, Michael. 1993. Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism. New York: Farrar, Straus, and
Giroux.
International Mediation Institute (2022a). Criteria for QAP Intercultural Competence, available at https://
imimediation.org/orgs/cag-icc/
International Mediation Institute (2022b). Criteria for Approving Programs to Qualify Members for IMI Inter-
cultural Certification, available at [email protected]
Izumi, Carol. 2010. “Implicit Bias and the Illusion of Mediator Neutrality.” Washington University Journal of Law
& Policy 34 (1): 71–155.
LaFree, Gary, and Christine Rack. 1996. “The Effects of Participants’ Ethnicity and Gender on Monetary
Outcomes in Mediated and Adjudicated Civil Cases.” Law & Society Review 30 (4): 767–798.
LeBaron, Michelle, and Venashri Pillay, eds. 2006. Conflict across Cultures: A Unique Experience of Bridging
Differences. Boston: Intercultural Press.
Lee, Joel, and Hwee Hwee Teh, eds. 2009. An Asian Perspective on Mediation. Singapore: Academy Pub.
Liebman, Carol B. 2000. “Mediation as Parallel Seminars: Lessons from the Student Takeover of Columbia
University’s Hamilton Hall.” Negotiation Journal 16 (2): 157–182. 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2000.tb00211.x
Lubman, Stanley B. 1997. “Dispute Resolution in China after Deng Xiaoping: Mao and Mediation Revisited.”
Columbia Journal of Asian Law 11 (1): 229–391.
Mayer, Bernard, Joseph B. Stulberg, Lawrence Susskind, and John Lande. 2012. “Panel Discussion—Core
Values of Dispute Resolution: Is Neutrality Necessary?” Marquette Law Review 95 (3): 805–828.
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 1995. “Book Review: The Many Ways of Mediation: The Transformation of
Traditions, Ideologies, Paradigms, and Practices.” Negotiation Journal 11 (3): 217–42. 10.1111/j.1571-9979.
1995.tb00065.x
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 2003. “Correspondences and Ontradictions in International and Domestic Conflict
Resolution: Lessons From General Theory and Varied Contexts.” Journal of Dispute Resolution 2 (2003):
319–352.
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 2004. “Remembrance of Things Past? The Relationship of Past to Future in
Pursuing Justice in Mediation.” Cadorzo Journal of Conflict Resolution 5 (2): 97–115.
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 2007. “Restorative Justice: What Is It and Does It Work?” Annual Review of Law and
Social Science 3 (1): 161–87. 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.110005
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 2008. “Are Cross-Cultural Ethics Standards Possible or Desirable in International
Arbitration?” In Mélanges en l’honneur de Pierre Tercier, edited by Peter Gauch, Franz Werro, and Pascal
Pichonnaz, 883–904. Genève, Zurich, Bâle: Schulthess Médias Juridiques.
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 2011. “Mediating Multiculturally: Culture and the Ethical Mediator.” In Mediation
Ethics: Cases and Commentaries, edited by Ellen Waldman, 305–37. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 2015a. “Variations in the Uptake of and Resistance to Mediation Outside of the
United States.” In Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers 2014,
edited by Arthur W. Rovine, 189–221. Leiden: Nijhoff.
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 2015b. “Process Pluralism in Transitional-Restorative Justice. Lessons from Dispute
Resolution for Cultural Variations in Goals beyond Rule of Law and Democracy Development (Argentina
and Chile).” International Journal of Conflict Engagement and Resolution 3 (1): 3–32.
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 2016. Mediation and Its Applications for Good Decision Making and Dispute Resolution.
Cambridge, UK: Intersentia. 10.1017/9781780687568

41

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4230372

 Carrie Menkel-Meadow

Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 2017. “The Morality of Compromise.” In The Negotiator’s Desk Reference. Vol. 2,
edited by Christopher Honeyman and Andrea Kupfer Schneider, 13–22. Saint Paul, MN: DRI Press.
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 2018a. “Why We Can’t ‘Just All Get Along’: Dysfunction in the Polity and Conflict
Resolution and What We Might Do About It.” Journal of Dispute Resolution 18 (1): 5–25.
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 2018b. “Mediation 3.0: Merging the Old and the New.” Asian Journal on Mediation 1
(2018): 1–20: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3312971
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie J., and Michael Wheeler. 2011. What’s Fair: Ethics for Negotiators. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Press, Sharon, and Ellen E. Deason. 2021. “Mediation: Embedded Assumptions of Whiteness?” Cadorzo Journal
of Conflict Resolution 22 (1): 453–98.
Riskin, Leonard L. 2003. “Decisionmaking in Mediation: The New Old Grid and the New New Grid
System.” Notre Dame Law Review 79 (1): 1–53.
Ross, Marc Howard. 1997. “The Relevance of Culture for the Study of Political Psychology and Ethnic
Conflict.” Political Psychology 18 (2): 299–326. 10.1111/0162-895X.00059
Rubin, Jeffrey Z., and Frank E. A. Sander. 1991. “Culture, Negotiation, and the Eye of the Beholder.”
Negotiation Journal 7 (3): 249–54. 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1991.tb00620.x
Sen, Amartya. 2006. Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. New York, NY: Norton.
Schuler, Susanne (2016). Intercultural Mediation at Work. Available at bookboon.com
Smolyaninova, Olga G., and Julia V. Popova. 2019. “Specific Issues of Training Intercultural Mediators for
Education in Europe and Russia.” Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 12 (2):
247–60. 10.17516/1997-1370-0392
Sperr, Anneken Kari. 2013. “Regulation of Dispute Resolution in Norway. Vertical and Horizontal
Regulatory Strategies.” In Regulating Dispute Resolution: ADR and Access to Justice at the Crossroads, edited by
Felix Steffek, Hannes Unberath, Hazel Glenn, Reinhard Greger, and Carrie Menkel-Meadow, 329–62.
Oxford: Hart Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781474200219.ch-013
Steffek, Felix, Hannes Unberath, Hazel Glenn, Reinhard Greger, and Carrie Menkel-Meadow, eds. 2013.
Regulating Dispute Resolution: ADR and Access to Justice at the Crossroads. Oxford: Hart Bloomsbury. 10.5040/
9781474200219
Stewart, Sylvester (Sly and the Family Stone). 1969. “Everyday People.” Stand! New York: Epic.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. 1994. “Managing Intercultural Conflicts Effectively.” In Intercultural Communication: A
Reader, edited by Larry A. Samovar and Richard E. Porter, 7th edition, 360–71. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Ting-Toomey, Stella, Kimberlie K. Yee-Jung, Robin B. Shapiro, Wintilo Garcia, Trina J. Wright, and John G.
Oetzel. 2000. “Ethnic/Cultural Identity Salience and Conflict Styles in Four US Ethnic Groups.”
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (1): 47–81. 10.1016/S0147-1767(99)00023-1
Waldman, Ellen A. 1997. “Identifying the Role of Social Norms in Mediation: A Multiple Model Approach.”
Hastings Law Journal 48 (4): 703–69.

42

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4230372