Originially from: World Arbitration and Mediation Review (WAMR) 

The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation
An interview of Mr. Jernej Sekolec, Secretary of UNCITRAL and Chief of the International
Trade Law Branch of the UN Office of Legal Affairs in Vienna, Austria. Conducted by Nadja
Alexander on September 29, 2003.
[Nadja Alexander has recently been appointed Professor of Dispute Resolution at the
Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (ACPACS) at the University of Queensland,
Australia. In her previous role, she was foundation Director of the Dispute Management Centre
within the University’s law school. ACPACS is a multi-disciplinary centre committed to
research excellence in dispute resolution and peacebuilding in cross-cultural, comparative, and
international contexts. At the same time, the Centre is dedicated to playing an effective role in
practical ADR and other forms of conflict resolution.
Professor Alexander’s most recent book is Global Trends in Mediation, an edited
collection of articles describing mediation trends throughout the world. She is currently
completing a book on international ADR with a specific focus on the UNCITRAL Model Law
on Conciliation. The volume will be published by Juris Publishing, Inc. in 2004. She is also
working on a German language text on the mediation process and law. Other forthcoming
publications include: “Mediation on Trial: Ten Verdicts on Court-Related ADR” (Law in
Context, Federation Press, Sydney, 2004) and “The Chameleon Mediator” (ADRB, Richmond,
Sydney, 2004).]
Alexander
Throughout the world when people talk about conciliation and mediation in a global
context there is a tension between diversity and consistency. On one hand, there is the desire to
experiment, develop mediation as a flexible process with a diversity of styles; on the other hand,
there is the aim to ensure consistent quality by regulating mediation. How has UNCITRAL
approached this tension?
Sekolec
UNCITRAL treaded lightly on this issue. The general philosophy of UNCITRAL is to
avoid over-regulation and rigid procedural recommendations. We are dealing with international
mediation. It is referred to by various terms, including conciliation, but there is no difference in
the essential concept, at least from the legislative point of view. The Intergovernmental Working
Group that prepared the Model Law on Conciliation (MLC) was conscious that the Model Law
would need to be grafted on an existing legal system in any given country. There will, in fact, be
a number of legislative rules in existing legal systems that will complement the body of the
Model Law. So we were aware that we did not have to regulate everything. We just regulated
the primary pillars of mediation. The reasons for this were, firstly, that the Model Law is part of
a larger picture of international dispute resolution and, secondly, we believed that at this stage in
the development of mediation procedural regulation would not be beneficial. I believe that the
development of quality in mediation should come from education and promotion rather than
through procedural safeguards.