Mediation-arbitration (Med-Arb) dispute resolution method

today’s legal order, where state adjudication is no longer the sole means of resolving disputes, increasing court workloads, lengthy proceedings and the need for technical expertise have accelerated the development of alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation, and arbitration. The mediator’s lack of decision-making authority and arbitration’s limited capacity to preserve party relationships have prompted efforts to combine the two methods. The resulting Mediation-Arbitration (Med-Arb) is a hybrid method whereby a dispute is resolved by a binding arbitral award if mediation yields no settlement. The study’s central research question is whether criticisms of the same-neutral model, in which the same person acts as mediator and arbitrator, warrant abandoning Med-Arb and, if not, which procedural and ethical safeguards can address them. Using doctrinal and normative methods, the study examines Med-Arb’s concept, legal nature, models, agreement, advantages and disadvantages. Its institutional frameworks are assessed comparatively through the rules of ICSID, ICC, SIAC-SIMC, RIMA, AAA, LCIA, NAI, SCC, DIAC, SAC and OIC-AC, alongside practices in the United States and China. In the Turkish context, the study examines in detail KATOTAM’s Directive, the first institutional rules expressly providing for Med-Arb; the Mediation-Arbitration Rules of ISTAC, the first institution to publish standalone rules governing the method; İTOTAM’s Mediation-Arbitration Rules; and other institutional rules. The study concludes that these criticisms call for safeguards based on informed consent, careful contractual drafting, confidentiality, restrictions on the admissibility of evidence and ethical oversight, rather than rejection of Med-Arb. It offers concrete proposals concerning legislative regulation, institutional harmonisation and academic awareness.