ugh mediation can cause procedural delays and additional expenses. Possibility of risking time and cost efficiency of

3.2.1.From the “

time

and cost efficiency” perspective Assistance of Arbitral Tribunal for

settlement

through

mediation

can cause procedural delays and additional expenses. Possibility of risking

time

and cost efficiency of the

arbitration

process is, probably, higher when the mediating

arbitrator

is not accepted as continuing

arbitrator

by disputing parties after the unsuccessful

mediation

session(s). In fact, it would take

time

to appoint a new

arbitrator

(during which

time

the Tribunal is unlikely to be able to provide directions or deal with any interlocutory applications) and, practically, there will be additional costs for getting a new

arbitrator

up to speed.

Therefore

, mentioned presumable circumstance proves that the use of hybrid method under the Prague Rules may have “hazardous” effect on the

time

and cost efficient nature of

arbitration

method. 3.2.2.From the “party autonomy” perspective: coercing parties to

settlement

and “facilitation in the shadow of a possible future award” Article 9.1 of the Prague Rules indicates that “Unless one of the parties objects, the arbitral tribunal may assist the parties in reaching an amicable

settlement

of the

dispute

at any stage of the

arbitration

”. It is evident that, by defining “unless one of the parties objects” criteria, the clause again promotes the proactive role of arbitral tribunal rather than the parties explicit agreement and consent.

However

, in practice

this

proactivity may have undesirable effect on parties’ willingness to resolve the

dispute

, especially through hybrid

arbitration

-concliation proceedings which is possible under the Article 9.1 of the Prague Rules. On the one hand parties may feel coerced into

settlement

as an undesirable result of mutually agreed

arbitration

method which is based on the party autonomy principle and,

on the other hand

, the very fact that the conciliation is conducted by the person who will adjudicate the

dispute

in the event of failure of the

settlement

may put pressure on the parties which can

also

be called as conciliation “in the shadow of a possible future award”. Even most sincere

mediation

efforts in a combined, med-arb procedure might easily fail if the parties abstain from full participation and disclosure of relevant facts in an open and informal

mediation

procedure, while being aware that

this

information can be

further

used against them in the following

arbitration

part.

As a result

, tribunal’s assistance to parties as a facilitator would, probably, be ineffective while parties would reasonably feel coerced to settle the

dispute

and be reluctant to have unreserved conversations with future decision-maker (assuming that the

mediation

was unsuccessful and the mediating

arbitrator

was retained as a member of the Arbitral Tribunal).