An ongoing challenge to mediation as a means of resolving an international trade dispute is that the result of successful mediation is an international mediation agreement (or IMSA) that traditionally does not have a better legal status than any other treaty. At present, there is no mechanism for direct implementation of IMO at the international level. This means that if one of the parties to the IMSA refuses to respect the parties` agreement, the other party must rely on one of the available methods that will be discussed below. there has been a serious violation of the Ombudsman`s standards for the mediator or mediation, without which a party would not have been included in the transaction treaty Perhaps the real question we need to ask is: do we want an international mechanism to speed up the implementation of IMS? If the answer is yes, we need to determine what formal requirements must be met before expedited implementation can be granted. This notice of practice examines the terms and conditions of a transaction agreement reached at the end of the proceedings. It examines the implementation of transaction agreements in various scenarios, including liquidation by order of approval, the tomlin order and Part 36. If an IMSA can be turned into a judgment, this method faces the same difficulties in managing law enforcement by the parties outside the original jurisdiction. The convention defines „mediation” overall. Under the agreement, „mediation” is defined as „a procedure, regardless of the term used or the basis on which the proceedings are conducted by which the parties attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute through a third party or a person (hereafter the mediator), without being able to impose a resolution on the parties to the dispute.” Whatever the style – . B ease or evaluation – or the name given to the procedure, it is likely that the agreement will enter into the framework of the agreement as long as the parties settle their dispute with the help of a third party who is not the final decision maker. Most participants in the UNCIT working group appear to support an international mechanism for IMSA.
This view is not universal: some participants expressed concern about the lack of a fundamental difference between inconclusive agreements and agreements arising from mediation or conciliation. In other words, the legal status of an IMSA is no different from any other contract and, therefore, it is doubtful that such contracts should have special status. Another option to weigh is the idea of terminating the original agreement and engaging in litigation. This would essentially ignore the transaction agreement and continue the original remedy. However, litigation generally has higher financial costs than a tally, which must be taken into account. Take, for example, Zimmerman v. McColley. In Zimmerman, Opal and Edward McColley authorized their granddaughter to negotiate on their behalf with Auto-Owners Insurance Company to settle their rights to assault following a car accident. During the pre-complaint period, the granddaughter communicated several times by telephone with the recipient of the claims, and her communication culminated in a conversation in which the manager asked the granddaughter if the claim could be paid for $115,000.
After speaking to the McColleys, the granddaughter agreed to accept the money and inquired about signing publications and obtaining a cheque.