In the context of mediation, party self-determination refers to the ability of disputants to have power, control, and autonomy in the process. There are numerous process design questions involved in running a mediation, no matter its subject matter. Consider just one example: “Should the mediation be conducted in-person, or virtually?” The answer to this question can have a profound impact on the direction and course of a mediation, including its outcome. Yet, in the context of court-connected mediation, disputing parties are not consistently provided the opportunity to give input on how such process design questions are resolved. In fact, these decisions are typically made by mediators, courts, program administrators, counsel, or others--all of which conflicts with the MODEL STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR MEDIATORS' declaration that disputing parties may exercise self-determination at any stage of a mediation, including process design. In effect, this dynamic represents a significant failure regarding one of mediation's core promises. The paper proposes a novel solution to this unfulfilled promise: the institution of an Opening Negotiation Session at the start of every court-connected mediation. This joint meeting would involve all participants (mediators, disputants, and counsel) to ensure party interests are accounted for in deciding how four specific process design questions, all explored in the paper, will guide the mediation. This opening negotiation can immediately impact how the mediation will be run as it moves forward, thereby dramatically enhancing party self-determination and leading to a more tailored, empowering, and accountable resolution process for all participants.

The volume takes a broad view of recent social, political, and economic developments in Latin America. It contains six essays, focused on salient and cross-cutting themes, that try to construct a thread or narrative about the highly diverse region, highlighting its main idiosyncrasies and analyzing where it might be headed in coming years. While the essays recognize considerable advances, they also point out setbacks and missed opportunities that have stood in the way of sustained progress. Strengthening state capacity emerges as a significant challenge.

10 The right to life

Motivation is key to substance use behavior change. Counselors can support clients' movement toward positive changes in their substance use by identifying and enhancing motivation that already exists. Motivational approaches are based on the principles of person-centered counseling. Counselors' use of empathy, not authority and power, is key to enhancing clients' motivation to change. Clients are experts in their own recovery from SUDs. Counselors should engage them in collaborative partnerships. Ambivalence about change is normal. Resistance to change is an expression of ambivalence about change, not a client trait or characteristic. Confrontational approaches increase client resistance and discord in the counseling relationship. Motivational approaches explore ambivalence in a nonjudgmental and compassionate way.

This book compares the unique features of workplace mediation to other contexts of mediation, as well as the specific competences each situation requires of the mediator. It covers many important issues related to workplace mediation and discusses interventions by managers, such as conflict coaching and informal mediation. It proposes a new model to assess the effectiveness of mediation, and discusses the impact of legal systems, HRM policies, as well as power structures, and cultural differences. The book takes into account perspectives from multiple disciplines, such as management, business, psychology, law and sociology. It also discusses mediation aspects from a variety of cultural and regional contexts. The book advances knowledge about the application, process and effects of workplace mediation and includes practical tips for scholars, practitioners, mediators and managers to enhance their mediation practice or to foster constructive conflict management in organizations.

Freedom in the World, the Freedom House flagship survey whose findings have been published annually since 1972, is the standard-setting comparative assessment of global political rights and civil liberties. The survey ratings and narrative reports on 192 countries and a group of select territories are used by policy makers, the media, international corporations, and civic activists and human rights defenders to monitor trends in democracy and track improvements and setbacks in freedom worldwide. Press accounts of the survey findings appear in hundreds of influential newspapers in the United States and abroad and form the basis of numerous radio and television reports. The Freedom in the World political rights and civil liberties ratings are determined through a multi-layered process of research and evaluation by a team of regional analysts and eminent scholars. The analysts used a broad range of sources of information, including foreign and domestic news reports, academic studies, nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, individual professional contacts, and visits to the region, in conducting their research. The methodology of the survey is derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and these standards are applied to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographical location, ethnic or religious composition, or level of economic development.