ABSTRACT
Perhaps the biggest challenge in mediation is selecting from among the options generated and choosing one that everyone believes is better than their respective Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). The option that is selected must be realistic, implementable, durable and one that allows everyone to save face (at least to the degree necessary for them). How should the disputants select the right option? When there are factual disputes, how can the mediator and disputants determine what actually occurred? If they cannot, how can the case settle? If the disputants do not have enough information to make a decision about settlement, what should they do? Who should make the first offer? Should offers be made directly to the other side or should the mediator be the spokesperson? How do disputants know when the offer and counter-offer process is nearing an end? When (if ever) should they make a ‘final offer’? Should disputants consider offers with the mediator in the room or out of the room? In the end, how should disputants decide whether to accept the best offer they can attain or walk out of the mediation?
