Conciliation

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2007)

This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (September 2007)

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Types

Arbitration Collaborative divorce Collaborative law Conciliation Conflict resolution Dispute resolution Mediation Negotiation Online dispute resolution Party-directed mediation Restorative justice

See also

Litigation

v • d • e

Conciliation is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process whereby the parties to a dispute (including future interest disputes) agree to utilize the services of a conciliator, who then meets with the parties separately in an attempt to resolve their differences. He does this by lowering tensions, improving communications, interpreting issues, providing technical assistance, exploring potential solutions and bringing about a negotiated settlement.

Conciliation differs from arbitration in that the conciliation process, in and of itself, has no legal standing, and the conciliator usually has no authority to seek evidence or call witnesses, usually writes no decision, and makes no award.

Conciliation differs from mediation in that the main goal is to conciliate, most of the time by seeking concessions. In mediation, the mediator tries to guide the discussion in a way that optimizes parties needs, takes feelings into account and reframes representations.

In conciliation the parties seldom, if ever, actually face each other across the table in the presence of the conciliator.

Effectiveness

Recent studies in the processes of negotiation have indicated the effectiveness of a technique that deserves mention here. A conciliator assists each of the parties to independently develop a list of all of their objectives (the outcomes which they desire to obtain from the conciliation). The conciliator then has each of the parties separately prioritize their own list from most to least important. He/She then goes back and forth between the parties and encourages them to "give" on the objectives one at a time, starting with the least important and working toward the most important for each party in turn. The parties rarely place the same priorities on all objectives, and usually have some objectives that are not listed by the other party. Thus the conciliator can quickly build a string of successes and help the parties create an atmosphere of trust which the conciliator can continue to develop.

Most successful conciliators are highly skilled negotiators. Some conciliators operate under the auspices of any one of several non-governmental entities, and for governmental agencies such as the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in the United States.

Conciliation in Japan

Japanese law makes extensive use of conciliation (調停, chōtei^?) in civil disputes. The most common forms are civil conciliation and domestic conciliation, both of which are managed under the auspices of the court system by one judge and two non-judge "conciliators."

Civil conciliation is a form of dispute resolution for small lawsuits, and provides a simpler and cheaper alternative to litigation. Depending on the nature of the case, non-judge experts (doctors, appraisers, actuaries, etc.) may be called by the court as conciliators to help decide the case.

Domestic conciliation is most commonly used to handle contentious divorces, but may apply to other domestic disputes such as the annulment of a marriage or acknowledgment of paternity. Parties in such cases are required to undergo conciliation proceedings and may only bring their case to court once conciliation has failed.