The Global Dispute Resolution Conference 2026 was held on 5 February 2026 in Paris, France, bringing together a diverse community of international experts in mediation, arbitration, and conflict resolution. The conference aimed to advance global dispute resolution practice by exploring emerging developments in alternative dispute resolution, technological innovation, and the interaction between legal systems, professional culture, and institutional trust in shaping modern justice.
The conference was curated by Rissiane Goulart and Marina Gouveia, whose vision transformed the initiative into a global platform dedicated to high-standard ADR dialogue. The event gathered practitioners, scholars, and institutional leaders from multiple jurisdictions, reflecting the conference’s commitment to knowledge exchange, professional excellence, and international collaboration.
Opening Remarks and Keynote Reflection
The conference opened with welcoming remarks introducing participating organizations, sponsors, and attendees, including IMI. Representing the host institution, University Paris-Est Créteil Val de Marne, Marie-Elodie Ancel highlighted the increasing academic and institutional recognition of mediation in Paris, where dispute resolution training programs and professional interest in ADR continue to expand.
Support from the International Academy of Mediators was emphasized by President Jonathan Lloyd-Jones, who reaffirmed the organization’s dedication to strengthening mediation professionalism worldwide. The future leadership vision was further expressed by IMI Certified Mediator Claude Amar, who underscored the importance of advancing mediation practice, institutional credibility, and professional standards. The keynote address was delivered by Lela Porter Love, who reflected on the evolving identity of dispute resolution professionals in a world marked by uncertainty and institutional tension. She described mediators as peace-builders and bridge-makers, distinguishing the symbolic roles of judges, arbitrators, and mediators. Judges were associated with state authority and impartial enforcement of justice. Arbitrators were portrayed as decision-makers standing between parties to deliver final, binding outcomes that enable commercial continuity. Mediators, in contrast, were presented as facilitators who sit with parties, creating safe environments for dialogue and enabling conflict transformation through communication. Her central message was that mediation is fundamentally about “making talk work.” Rather than imposing solutions, mediators help parties develop their own understanding, rebuild communication, and pursue mutually acceptable outcomes.
Glocal Dispute Resolution: Global Frameworks and Local Traditions
The first panel, featuring Bianca Longo, Yuri Mantilla, Corrado Mora, and Tat Lim, explored the relationship between global dispute resolution frameworks and local legal cultures. The discussion emphasized that dispute resolution is influenced not only by legal doctrine but also by institutional confidence, professional incentives, and cultural behavior. Legislative reform can encourage mediation adoption, as demonstrated in Italy, where mediation usage increased following regulatory changes. However, the panel consistently emphasized that legal reform alone is insufficient. Sustainable mediation development requires education, professional training, and practitioner acceptance. Within this context, mediators must also balance client interests with broader dispute resolution objectives. As Bianca Longo noted, “Initially, lawyers resisted mediation. But post-mediation surveys showing high client satisfaction convinced them to change [their] approach.”
Tat Lim presented the Singapore model as a system built on enforceability, efficiency, and institutional trust. He explained, “Our model is built on trust, enforceability, and technology. It’s not just about rules, it’s about making mediation work in real commercial contexts across cultures.”
Singapore was highlighted as an example of successful integration between mediation, court systems, and professional incentives. At the same time, panelists cautioned against direct transplantation of dispute resolution models. As Corrado Mora noted, “International disputes are rarely just about law; they are about culture, perception, and communication.” He further emphasized the mediator’s role as a bridge-builder, while arbitrators function as boundary-setters within defined legal structures.
Technological innovation was also discussed as a transformative force in dispute resolution. Digital platforms and AI-assisted tools are increasingly improving accessibility, document processing, and cross-border communication. Nevertheless, technology was consistently viewed as a supporting mechanism rather than a replacement for human mediation. Trust-building, confidentiality, and professional judgment remain central to successful outcomes. Tat Lim summarized this perspective by stating,“Mediation is about people, not just law. The rules, technology, and incentives support them, but the human element decides success.”
From Breakdown to Breakthrough: Financial Crisis, Arbitration, and Mediation
The session featuring Liana Goldberg, Francisco Alarcon, Ricardo Loretti, and Maria Bejan examined dispute resolution strategies in situations of financial distress and insolvency. The panel distinguished between financial distress and financial crisis. Financial distress allows room for negotiation and restructuring, while financial crisis situations often accelerate creditor pressure and adversarial escalation. Participants agreed that mediation is most effective when introduced early, before dispute positions become rigid and commercial value is lost.
From a commercial perspective, Francisco Alarcon emphasized the limitations of arbitration when enforcement is uncertain. Winning an arbitral award against an insolvent party may not guarantee recovery, whereas mediation can help preserve commercial relationships and secure partial settlements. Clear, stepped dispute resolution clauses were identified as important tools for encouraging early mediation.
From a structural legal standpoint, financial distress cases often involve complex creditor negotiations, restructuring mechanisms, and voting arrangements. Temporary suspension of enforcement actions can provide space for meaningful settlement discussions. In one example, mediation conducted during a statutory stay enabled a corporation and its creditors to reach a restructuring agreement later ratified by the court.
Maria Bejan explained that arbitration proceedings may continue during insolvency unless domestic law provides a stay. However, obtaining an arbitral award does not automatically guarantee enforcement, as recovery depends on asset availability, jurisdictional enforcement mechanisms, and insolvency frameworks.
Across sessions, a consistent message emerged: dispute resolution professionals must move beyond a narrow focus on procedural victory and instead prioritize solving the client’s underlying commercial challenge. Effective dispute management requires strategic timing, transparency, appropriate legal structuring, and the thoughtful use of mediation before value erosion occurs.
Designing ADR in the Digital Age: Process Architecture and Technology
The panel featuring Joana Carvalho, Jeremy Lack, Gali Menkes, Juliana Loss, and Guillaume Tattevin, explored how technological tools, particularly artificial intelligence, can support the design and management of dispute resolution processes. The discussion emphasized that technology should complement rather than replace mediators, arbitrators, and lawyers, helping them design more efficient and accessible procedures. Panelists highlighted how digital tools can assist in conflict diagnostics, case preparation, document review, and the selection of appropriate dispute-resolution mechanisms, whether mediation, arbitration, or hybrid approaches. They also noted that AI can help analyze information about parties, identify suitable arbitrators based on past cases, and assist in organizing hearings or mediation sessions, including determining when online formats may be more appropriate in sensitive disputes. While acknowledging concerns about AI’s growing role in legal practice, the speakers stressed that AI should be viewed as a supportive tool built on human reasoning, with human judgment remaining essential. The panel also underscored the importance of ethical considerations and transparency regarding the use of AI in ADR processes to maintain fairness and trust.
Reverse Panel – Mediation Fees: Success Fee, Contingency-Fee, Hourly Rate or Fixed Fee? Pros and Cons
During the discussion, Hannah Tümpel and Maximiliano Marzetti reflected on the complex issue of remuneration in mediation. They noted that mediators may occasionally provide their services pro bono, particularly where parties face financial hardship or where there is a strong public-interest dimension, but emphasized that mediation must also remain a sustainable professional practice supported by clear and fair fee structures. The speakers invited the participants to explore how remuneration models might better incentivize lawyers to support mediation, for example, through fixed mediation fees or arrangements that reward early settlement rather than prolonged litigation. A central part of the discussion focused on contingency fees for mediators. They highlighted that in many jurisdictions, such arrangements are discouraged or even ethically prohibited because they may compromise a mediator’s neutrality and create potential conflicts of interest if payment depends on reaching a settlement. Consequently, contingency fees for mediators remain rare exceptions, and alternative fee structures that preserve independence are generally preferred.
Closing Insight
The Global Dispute Resolution Conference 2026 reaffirmed that modern dispute resolution is not solely about legal systems or procedural mechanisms. The discussions throughout the conference reaffirmed that modern dispute resolution is not defined solely by legal systems or procedural mechanisms, but equally by people, communication, and trust. As globalization continues to shape commerce and international relationships, both mediation and arbitration must continue to adapt to increasingly complex cross-border disputes while remaining sensitive to cultural differences and local legal contexts. Ultimately, the conference highlighted a shared vision for the future of the field: effective dispute resolution will depend on striking the right balance between global standards and local realities. Achieving this balance will require continued investment in education, the thoughtful integration of technology, and the ongoing professional development of mediators and dispute resolution practitioners. Together, these elements will help ensure that mediation and arbitration remain responsive, accessible, and capable of addressing the challenges of an increasingly interconnected world.
