Abstract
AbstractMediators teach new trainees that the process of mediation requires impartiality and neutrality, but in some contexts the actual practice of mediation does not seem to be as neutral as stated. New concepts in the field, such as that of transformational rather than problem‐solving approaches, require us to look again at the concepts of neutrality. Whether or not a mediator will use certain techniques or modes, and how this relates to the level of emotions that are dealt with during the mediation, will depend on not only the model the mediator uses but also on the mediator's concept of what constitutes undue influence, impartiality, and neutrality. In this article, the author sorts out the terminology and the historical basis for our concepts of neutrality and relates this to the other issues that affect mediators. She advances the idea that neutrality needs to be seen on a continuum and that ethical practice of neutrality may vary depending on the context of the dispute and the mandate given by the participants.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
