This contribution examines how the Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters is transposed in various member states of the European Union, or how the discussion about the transposition is conducted or is still ongoing in some countries. The following seven countries are examined: Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, England, France, Germany and Austria.

Recently the Dutch Mediation Institute (NMI) evaluated the Code of Conduct for mediators, which originally was issued in 2001. The NMI introduced a revised Code in 2011. ‘The mediator shall refrain from any judgments regarding the dispute.’ What will be the impact of this article for evaluative mediators, who want to be engaged both in the mediation process and the content of the dispute? This article seems to be based on the American approach of evaluative mediation. During the last decade Dutch mediators tend to mix various mediation styles to a specific personal blend. The author argues that the Dutch approach of evaluative mediation does not interfere with crucial demands in the Code like the impartiality of the mediator and the autonomy of decision of the parties involved.

From an international point of view the double hybrid nature of ‘med-arb’ – imagined as a ‘guarantee’ for a ‘prompt’ resolution of business disputes – is out on a limb. The contractually planned transition from a failed mediation towards the ascertainment of procedural fairness in the subsequent arbitration under the guidance of the same Neutral poses indeed delicate questions.Not more than two – by the way federally ruled – countries – the USA and Australia – have endeavored – in some of their States – to tackle the problems related to confidentiality which determine the viability of ‘med-arb’ (beside the basic behavioral problem of negotiating with the assistance of a Neutral who unexpectedly may become your arbitrator). The validity of the – domestic – solutions devised in the USA and Australia is subject to caution in the light of the 1958 New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

The goal of this article is to examine key problems of training standards for mediators in Russia and to identify possible solutions that may address these issues. In considering the question of mediation training in the context of mediation development in Russia, one can distinguish two periods: (1) before the enactment of the Law on mediation, or the period of private initiatives, and (2) after this Law entered into force, which can be entitled as the period of governmental regulation.During the first period, there were no special legal regulations and thus, private institutions had been offering their own diverse and numerous mediation training programs. The situation has changed due to the active force of the Federal Law on mediation by implementing provisions that require creation of a special unified training program for professional mediators and approval by the Government of the Russian Federation. This program was adopted on 14 February 2011. The approach of the Russian legislature to the establishment of a consistent educational standard for Russian mediators can be considered as the implementation of the woldwide shift toward standards unification. However, the Law itself contains some contradictions, and also contains a number of provisions that cast serious doubts upon the success of this effort.