Alternate Dispute Resolution And Global Trend And Impact Of Commercial Mediation
- YourLawArticle
- Nov 27, 2025
- 2 min read
Written by: Adv Kavita N Solunke , BA, BSL, LLM, MBA, GDC&A, PG(ADR), CCIO, Additional Government Pleader, Arbitrator, Mediator& Conciliator High Court Mumbai & Notary Govt of India
&
Dr Rashmi Solunke M.B.B.S., DNB (Anesthesia), Aakash Healthcare Super Specialty Hospital, Dwarka, New Delhi
Abstract
The increasing prevalence of commercial mediation globally marks a significant shift in dispute resolution practices, characterised by its emphasis on compromise, collaboration, and efficiency. Mediation is defined as a process in which a neutral third-party facilitator assists disputants in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement, aligning with the World CC Principles. Unlike arbitration, where outcomes are determined by objective legal standards, mediation preserves parties’ decision-making authority, creating an interest-based rather than rights-based procedure. The mediator guides discussion but does not issue binding decisions; any resolution only becomes binding if the party’s consent in writing. Settlement agreements, once reached, are documented and may be enforceable under instruments like the Singapore Convention. This flexibility allows parties to discontinue mediation if it no longer serves their interests.
Globally, mediation is increasingly incorporated into commercial dispute resolution, offering a constructive alternative to traditional courtroom and arbitration settings. Its benefits include efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and the preservation of business relationships. Courts in countries that have ratified the Singapore Convention support the enforceability of mediated settlements, making mediation an attractive choice for organisations seeking amicable solutions.
In the domain of cross-border insolvency, ADR—including mediation and arbitration—provides a practical approach to complex legal challenges spanning multiple jurisdictions. Traditional litigation can be inefficient due to divergent laws and procedural complexities. While frameworks like the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency foster international cooperation, they often exclude explicit ADR mechanisms, complicating the recognition and enforcement of settlements. Hesitation among stakeholders and inconsistency in enforcement remain obstacles. Nonetheless, successful mediation in high-profile cases, such as Lehman Brothers, and ongoing legal reforms in countries including Singapore, the UK, and the US highlight ADR’s growing role. Organizations like the World Bank and International Bar Association advocate ADR integration to streamline insolvency resolutions.
In conclusion, commercial mediation and ADR are vital for resolving international and insolvency-related disputes, supporting global business interests through efficient, mutually beneficial solutions.
Key Words: Alternate Dispute Resolution, ADR, arbitration, Commercial mediation, World CC Principles, neutrality, interest-based procedure, rights-based procedure, enforceability, Singapore Convention, cross-border insolvency, UNCITRAL Model Law, legal frameworks, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, collaboration, settlement agreement, insolvency proceedings, international commerce, stakeholder hesitation, World Bank, International Bar Association.
Comments