Multi-tier dispute resolution, a combination of mediation and arbitration or litigation, has recently been gaining in importance in international business transactions. While arbitration has the advantages of being confidential, professional and effective across borders owing to the 1958 New York Convention, mediation, geared towards amicable settlements, is time- and cost-efficient and supportive of preserving commercial relationships. Both methods can complement each other in ‘med-arb’, ‘arb-med’ or ‘arb-med-arb’. This chapter discusses cardinal issues surrounding multi-tier dispute resolution in Japan, particularly the enforcement of agreements to mediate as a condition precedent to arbitration or litigation, and the methods of combining mediation and arbitral procedures. At the same time, this contribution sheds light on recent developments and efforts being made in Japan to enhance international arbitration and mediation. This trend will soon bring about legislative reforms and may possibly result in the ratification of the 2019 Singapore Convention on Mediation.

This chapter provides a high-level comparative overview of how states around the world have regulated hybrid processes (med-arb or arb-med) involving the same neutral. Drawing on a database of national mediation and arbitration laws from 195 jurisdictions, it elicits broad regulatory patterns and seeks to determine whether they can be explained by reference to geographic region, legal tradition or a state’s level of development (measured by income level). The findings show that fewer than half of all jurisdictions surveyed legislate around same neutral hybrid processes. Of those that do, most are concentrated in Africa and Asia. Common law jurisdictions are less likely than civil law jurisdictions to regulate in this space, but when they do, they tend to be more thoughtful and innovative.

Although it is often said that combining mediation and arbitration using the same neutral is widely accepted in Continental European, Latin American, and Eastern Asian cultures, this is only somewhat borne out by national legislation. Assuming lawmaking mirrors culture, the study’s findings lend qualified support only to the idea that Eastern Asian cultures are receptive to same neutral arb-med.