INTER-STATE DISPUTES
Trade disputes, refugee and immigration disputes, economic disputes, passport disputes, territorial disputes, military disputes, river and sea disputes, water disputes, natural resource disputes, legal disputes, compensation disputes, terrorism / anti terrorism disputes, ethnic conflicts, religious conflicts, protection of cultural or spiritual heritage disputes, linguistic minority rights disputes, human rights disputes, disputes over nomenclature and language use (e.g. in state titles), political disputes etc. In general, the definition of a dispute is open ended - whatever is regarded by one or both parties as a “dispute” - and in which at least one party is a state (in the internationally accepted use of this term, i.e. a recognised international state, a member of the United Nations etc.)
INTRA-STATE DISPUTES:
Internal disputes within European nations, such as disputes about ethnic, religious, cultural or linguistic identity, and nationhood itself, could also be referred to the EUMS including disputes involving non-state actors seeking recognition from or within or across existing European or Mediterranean nation states. In these disputes, the parties need not be states, but may be peoples, groups, ethnicities, linguistic minorities etc. The EUMS would be dealing with collective disputes however rather than individual mediation cases. Normally, the states in which such disputes are ongoing would be expected to endorse the involvement of the EUMS, and subject to normal rules of confidentiality, would be kept informed of progress in resolving the disputes. The incentive for states to encourage EUMS resolution of disputes on their territories, and with their support, would be that it is in the long term interest of citizens in their countries that all such disputes should be resolved peacefully, non-violently, through diplomatic dialogue, negotiation and mediation - for the long term well being, prosperity and security of all its citizens.
Right of referral:
Any and all member states of the EU would have the right of referral for disputes to the EUMS. The referring country need not be a country in which the dispute is situated. Once referred the EUMS would by treaty be bound to investigate and offer mediation to both parties concerned. The EUMS would be a service available for all EU citizens, who would also have the right to refer cases, through appropriate protocols to ensure the actuality and seriousness of the dispute being referred, and also through their Euro MP’s. In most cases, if referred by citizens, their own governments could be expected to endorse and support the referral, but not in all cases, since some disputes might be intra-state disputes.
Trade disputes, refugee and immigration disputes, economic disputes, passport disputes, territorial disputes, military disputes, river and sea disputes, water disputes, natural resource disputes, legal disputes, compensation disputes, terrorism / anti terrorism disputes, ethnic conflicts, religious conflicts, protection of cultural or spiritual heritage disputes, linguistic minority rights disputes, human rights disputes, disputes over nomenclature and language use (e.g. in state titles), political disputes etc. In general, the definition of a dispute is open ended - whatever is regarded by one or both parties as a “dispute” - and in which at least one party is a state (in the internationally accepted use of this term, i.e. a recognised international state, a member of the United Nations etc.)
INTRA-STATE DISPUTES:
Internal disputes within European nations, such as disputes about ethnic, religious, cultural or linguistic identity, and nationhood itself, could also be referred to the EUMS including disputes involving non-state actors seeking recognition from or within or across existing European or Mediterranean nation states. In these disputes, the parties need not be states, but may be peoples, groups, ethnicities, linguistic minorities etc. The EUMS would be dealing with collective disputes however rather than individual mediation cases. Normally, the states in which such disputes are ongoing would be expected to endorse the involvement of the EUMS, and subject to normal rules of confidentiality, would be kept informed of progress in resolving the disputes. The incentive for states to encourage EUMS resolution of disputes on their territories, and with their support, would be that it is in the long term interest of citizens in their countries that all such disputes should be resolved peacefully, non-violently, through diplomatic dialogue, negotiation and mediation - for the long term well being, prosperity and security of all its citizens.
Right of referral:
Any and all member states of the EU would have the right of referral for disputes to the EUMS. The referring country need not be a country in which the dispute is situated. Once referred the EUMS would by treaty be bound to investigate and offer mediation to both parties concerned. The EUMS would be a service available for all EU citizens, who would also have the right to refer cases, through appropriate protocols to ensure the actuality and seriousness of the dispute being referred, and also through their Euro MP’s. In most cases, if referred by citizens, their own governments could be expected to endorse and support the referral, but not in all cases, since some disputes might be intra-state disputes.
Success / Failure - Outcomes of cases referred:
In the event of one party refusing to take up the offer of mediation, and another party accepting the offer, the case would remain live until such time as both parties had accepted mediation. The proportion of successes to failures of mediation interventions would be analysed and improvements would be constantly sought, including using methodological flexibility in mediation styles, and keeping the Mediation Panel up to date in new thinking about mediation. Ongoing work by the Research Office of the EUMS would also be expected to contribute to solving even the most intractable of conflicts, by thinking up new devices, and new strategies, to resolve even old embedded conflicts, in the end. No case would be formally closed, once accepted, until it had been satisfactorily closed to the benefit of both parties.
In the event of one party refusing to take up the offer of mediation, and another party accepting the offer, the case would remain live until such time as both parties had accepted mediation. The proportion of successes to failures of mediation interventions would be analysed and improvements would be constantly sought, including using methodological flexibility in mediation styles, and keeping the Mediation Panel up to date in new thinking about mediation. Ongoing work by the Research Office of the EUMS would also be expected to contribute to solving even the most intractable of conflicts, by thinking up new devices, and new strategies, to resolve even old embedded conflicts, in the end. No case would be formally closed, once accepted, until it had been satisfactorily closed to the benefit of both parties.