skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 97344 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Intervention and Self-Determination in Environmental Disputes - A Mediator's Perspective
Journal: Resolve  Dated:(Winter 1982)  Pages:1,3-7
Author(s): G W Cormick
Date Published: 1982
Page Count: 6
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America

NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This paper focuses on the role of the mediator and on mediation as an intervention process in environmental disputes, with attention to three ethical principles that should guide the mediator.
Abstract: Three intervention processes being applied to environmental disputes -- facilitation, mediation, and policy dialogue -- are described, and similarities are noted. Some similarities are that (1) the intervener claims to be impartial about the disposition of the dispute, (2) intervener expertise relates to the processing of the dispute rather than to scientific or technical knowledge related to the dispute, and (3) the intervener seeks to achieve mutually derived and acceptable outcomes. The basic ethical principle that the intervener should espouse, self-determination for all parties to a conflict, is emphasized. Additionally, three elements that ensure true self-determination for the parties are described: information, relative power or influence, and opportunity for involvement. Finally, three ethical caveats are presented for the intervener. First, when the disputants are inexperienced in the use of an intervention process, the intervener has a particular ethical responsibility to guide them. Second, the less equal the relative power of the parties, the greater is the ethical responsibility of the intervener. Third, the greater the impact of the settlement on those not 'at the table,' the greater is the ethical responsibility of the intervener. Ten footnotes are provided.
Index Term(s): Alternative dispute settlement; Intervention; Mediation; Mediators; Professional conduct and ethics
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.