|
|
|
|
ACTING IN A NEUTRAL POSITION
If we star to act in a neutral position, because it’s asked us by all parties involved in a dispute, we are compelled to mention, keep and preserve it.
This statement implies that:
Whenever negotiation fails within the chosen ADR system and it’s inevitable to have a compelling decision in order to solve the dispute, always keeping our neutrality, we can assist all parties to choose together the best effective way to have the compelling decision:
- suggesting an expertise, if the dispute is essentially focused around technical matters: in this view, we can also:
- help parties to negotiate the most proper questions to submit to the neutral expert;
- offer the expertise or helping parties to find elsewhere the neutral expert of the institution that can provide the expertise
- proposing the arbitral solution that more suits parties interests, at the light of:
- costs;
- parties dimensions, having in mind the specific problems of little and medium enterprises (they can not operate in a globalised market with the same force and resources than a big company);
- business location;
- dispute object;
- parties nationalities and cultural backgrounds;
- experience and neutrality of arbitral institutions different that us;
- regulations of the arbitral institution;
- offer the same arbitration (it will be «ad hoc») or helping parties to find elsewhere the needed arbitral institution
It must be underlined again that, if we have started to act in a neutral position, we never accept to play rules that implies to leave our neutrality.
Consequently, in such circumstances, we never accept to do something in the exclusive interest of one part only, as serving him as lawyer, consultant or part expert.
|
|
|
