Purpose -The purpose of this research is to paint a picture of the current utility of mediation in the Scottish construction sector; determine the willingness of Scottish construction lawyers to shift away from traditional dispute resolution approaches towards mediation; and ascertain the drivers towards the adoption of mediatory techniques and the barriers to change. Design/methodology/approach -Drawn from a questionnaire survey, this paper seeks to add to the dispute resolution literature by identifying the attitudes of construction lawyers on the use and effectiveness of mediation to resolve construction disputes in Scotland. Findings -The findings suggest that there is a core of Scottish construction lawyers in Scotland that recognize the promise of mediation as a useful dispute resolution tool. Respondents generally profess knowledge of the process and some measure of positive practical experience and espouse positive views on mediation. Their response to mediation then does not appear to be one of cultural conservatism or fear of the unknown as opposed to traditional dispute resolution mechanisms, which for all their imperfections lawyers understand unequivocally. Research limitations/implications -It is recognized that the introduction of mediatory techniques into construction disputes will have a cumulative effect on the Scottish legal fraternity over time. Cross-sectional studies are often unable to yield information about the direction of causal relationships between variables that are interrelated in a complex way. Neither do cross-sectional studies permit researchers to assess the effectiveness of intervention strategies. Originality/value -This is the first empirical work ascertaining the views and experiences of Scottish construction lawyers on mediation. While the research reveals evidence of a modest bottom-up growth of construction mediation in Scotland, it also provides insight into key policy issues which will require to be resolved if mediation is to move from the margins to the mainstream of construction disputing practices in Scotland.

No abstract

No abstract

This article analyses the aims and key findings of a recent, questionnaire-based research project carried out by the authors into the experiences and attitudes of commercial litigators in Scotland towards Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes. The study uncovered a small but significant measure of generally successful commercial mediation practice in Scotland and revealed a legal profession that in the main was well-disposed towards ADR and its role within it. The research suggests that much still remains to be achieved, however, in terms of court-referral of mediation, legal professional body promotion, effective marketing to clients and further research regarding the suitablilty of mediation to different case-types if commercial mediation is to move from the sidelines into the mainstream.

This paper explores the purpose and efficacy of the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (‘Singapore Convention’ or ‘Convention’). The Convention’s genesis was premised on the notion of alleviating the enforceability issues that are annexed to settlement agreements arising from cross-border mediation (IMSA). While such enforceability issues are not entirely unfounded, the way in which the Convention has been drafted to address such issues has been the subject of criticism. In view of such criticisms, this paper explores the empirical research upon which the Convention’s introduction is based and queries whether the structure of the instrument heralds an unnecessary juridification of the mediation process. In particular, a close review of the research highlights the unintended consequences that can flow from the Convention’s uptake, suggesting that the introduction of the Convention may lead to an increase in issues pertaining to IMSA enforcement. It is in this context in which this paper submits that the Convention may be regarded as a solution in search of a problem.