Today, Dr Jonathan Pugh (of Oxford University), announced that that the DARCA (‘Decision Aid For the Restitution of Cultural Artefacts’) Website is now officially live: https://lnkd.in/evrVzEMc

There is also an accompanying blog post: https://lnkd.in/e4qJx4Kc

‘The decision aid was developed by members of the Uehiro Oxford Institute and the Institute for Art and Law, in collaboration with several external contributors with experience of restitution cases or relevant expertise in ethics or policy-making. The initial interdisciplinary workshop that provided the foundation for this project was funded by the Oxford Policy Engagement Network, and the participation of some members was funded by ANTITHESES: The Discovery Platform for Transformative Inclusivity in Ethics and Humanities Research (grant number 226801).’
(Extract from the ‘About’ page).

I was a member of the Working Group, and would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr Jonathan Pugh of the Uehiro Oxford Institute, and my former Tutor, Alexander Herman of the Institute for Art and Law in London, for listing me as a contributor on the ‘About’ page of the DARCA website.

This is the first online Tool to have ever been developed, to guide ethical decision making in Art Restitution and Repatriation claims.

It is a major contribution in the field of Art Restitution, and I will be featuring it in my forthcoming book about the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’

I am attending the launch event at Reuben College Oxford, in March.

Meanwhile, many congratulations to both the Uehiro Oxford Institute at Oxford University, and to the Institute for Art and Law in London, for the launch of this online Tool, which can and will no doubt, be used by Museums and Galleries all over the world, to guide the making of ethical decisions, in these multi-faceted and complex claims, which are more frequent than you might suppose.

Side agreements, which are expressly confidential, allow the Participants to structure bespoke solutions that are more flexible than court orders, often covering matters that go beyond the direct scope of the contested will.

These agreements are crucial in cases where sensitive family dynamics or complex assets require nuanced resolutions that cannot be easily addressed by a judge.

Side Agreements are used to:

(i) To keep sensitive terms private, particularly in high-net-worth estates or where family reputations are involved.

(ii) To create tailored solutions, such as restructuring trusts or managing non-monetary assets.

(iii) To handle issues that go beyond the court’s jurisdiction, including side deals between beneficiaries or specific arrangements for executor/trustee conduct.

(iv) To manage agreements with beneficiaries who have not actively participated in the litigation but need to be bound by the settlement.

(v) In smaller estates, to prevent the escalation of legal costs that would otherwise diminish the estate.

(vi) To preserve relationships, as they offer a more amicable, less adversarial approach to disputes.

Side agreements must be drafted to clearly express the intent to be legally binding and must comply with contract law principles, including of course – consideration.

While the main agreement might be filed with the court, sensitive terms can remain in a confidential side agreement.

These agreements are often drafted late in the day during Mediation to secure the momentum of settlement.

Note that if terms of settlement provide for a new scheme of distribution of the estate assets, that for implementation, a formal Deed of Variation may also be required.

Commercial acumen is crucial in the Mediation of Contentious Probate Disputes, shifting the focus from purely legalistic arguments to practical, financial, and relational outcomes that protect the capital value of the estate.

Since Probate litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally draining, skilled mediators use commercial awareness to help Participants reach settlements that often exceed or are better than, what they could achieve in court.

A primary goal is to prevent legal fees from consuming the capital value of the estate, i.e. to preserve and protect the capital value of the estate.

Mediators can help Participants to understand that a ‘pragmatic’ settlement is often better than a ‘winner-takes-all’ Trial that leaves everyone with less.

Commercial acumen involves identifying, protecting, or realizing the best value for the estate, even if that means departing from strict, technical legal arguments.

Mediators and legal representatives with commercial expertise can structure settlements that go beyond cash, such as using Deeds of Variation, Trust Restructuring, and side agreements, to meet the financial needs of the beneficiaries, while addressing the underlying family dispute.

Through ‘reality-testing’, Mediators can help the Participants to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their case, in a safe and confidential environment.

They can do this by encouraging the Participants to view the dispute as being a ‘business proposition’, to be managed efficiently, rather than as an ’emotional fight’.

Experienced Mediators, i.e. those who specialise in Wills, Trusts and Probate, understand the Commercial importance of settling disputes, i.e. because of the costs and risks of litigation, which includes the judge.

Mediators shift the focus from ‘past grievances’ to ‘future practical solutions.’

They can challenge ‘unreasonable positions’.

They facilitate communication to overcome emotional, complex issues that would otherwise lead to a breakdown in negotiations.

Mediators with Commercial Acumen are adept at bridging the gap between the emotional, personal nature of probate disputes and the practical, financial realities of estate management.

This approach not only preserves the capital value of the estate assets, but in many cases can also result in the preservation of family relationships.

The image is of my 8th book – the 2nd Edition of the Contentious Probate Handbook, in the window of the world’s oldest legal bookshop in London, Wildy & Sons, in Lincoln’s Inn. The book is the first publication to contain a detailed and comprehensive discussion of Mediation and Mediation Advocacy in Contentious Probate Disputes. It also discusses tax-efficient settlement.

I am currently writing another book for commercial publication in 2026/7 entitled – ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’.

In volunatry Commercial Mediation, the ‘Balance of Convenience’ is a practical, commercial, and, at times, strategic consideration used to determine the timing, format, and structure of the Mediation to ensure that it is effective for both Participants.

It involves assessing the logistical and economic advantages of conducting Mediation against the potential disruption to business, i.e. it is about how to make the Mediation process as efficient, accessible, and least disruptive as possible to the Participants’ business operations.

A balance must be struck between early Mediation (which saves costs but may lack sufficient information), and later Mediation (when Participants may have become entrenched and costs have already escalated).

Mediation offers the convenience of scheduling at a mutually convenient time and place, often using separate, private rooms for each party and a central room for joint sessions.

The process is designed to be a ‘long day’ (often 8-14 hours) to maximize the chance of settlement, weighing the costs of the mediation itself against the far greater expense and risk of litigation.

To minimize disruption, Mediations are often held at a neutral venue or the offices of one of the Participants’ solicitors.

The freedom to agree the scheduling of Mediation, is of course a benefit of Mediation over Litigation, because a judge may impose a rigid Trial Timetable that is not convenient, i.e. which causes disruption to the business operations of one or more of the Participants.

International Law exists to protect the weak from the strong.

In Mediation, the International Rule of Law is therefore a tool for neutralising a power imbalance between the Participants.

That is why bullies fear and despise the International Rule of Law, and seek to dispense with it altogether, by undermining it.

Rogue state actors who are bullies, are therefore the enemies of Civilization. That is because in order to achieve dominance, their aim is to dismantle and destroy the International Legal Order, i.e. World Order built upon Co-Operation between Nations coexisting with each other in Peace.

In other words, rogue state actors who are bullies, and those who ‘pull their strings’, i.e. their financial puppet-masters, are the agents and profiteers of international chaos, war, death and unimaginable human suffering on a potentially global scale.

Cultural Heritage Disputes often involve complex, emotive contests over ownership, restitution, and indigenous rights.

A Mediator can apply the International Rule of Law to create a ‘structured framework’ in order to encourage compliance with ‘Legal Norms’, while facilitating a creative compromise.

Invoking the International Rule of Law, a Mediator can balance competing interests by transforming legal ‘rights’, into ‘interest-focused’ negotiations, that respect – ethical, cultural, and historical contexts. 

In other words, a Mediator can use the International Rule of Law to create a respectful, legally informed, and confidential environment in which the Participants are empowered to reach solutions that balance legal rights with cultural, ethical, and historical realities.

Mediator Strategies include:

(a) Integrating International Legal Frameworks (The ‘Shadow of the Law’).

Rather than ignoring legal complexities, the Mediator uses relevant international conventions (e.g., 1970 UNESCO, 1995 UNIDROIT) as a foundation for negotiation, ensuring the final agreement is grounded in established legal principles regarding illicitly acquired property. 

(b) ‘Shadow of the Law’ Negotiation.

The Mediator uses the ‘shadow of the law’ to bring parties to the table, making them aware of the risks of losing in litigation while encouraging them to find a more tailored, and voluntary solution.

(c) Balancing Public Interest.

The Mediator ensures that the settlement, although private, aligns with the public interest in preserving cultural heritage. 

(ii) Tailoring Solutions to Respect Cultural and Moral Interests.

The International Rule of Law in this context includes recognizing the ‘moral, financial, reputational, and ethical’ concerns that traditional litigation often ignores. 

(iii) Customary Law Incorporation.

Mediators can facilitate the incorporation of indigenous customary laws, protocols, and ethical standards into the Mediation, ensuring that the ‘spirit’ of the law is applied rather than just the letter of property law.

(iv) Creative Compromise.

A Mediator can guide parties towards solutions that go beyond binary ownership, such as:

(a) Shared Ownership/Custodianship – Sharing legal rights over an object.

(b) Long-term Loans – Returning physical possession while acknowledging legal ownership.

(b) Digital/Physical Reproductions – Providing replicas for exhibition while returning the original. 

(v) Upholding Due Process and Procedural Fairness. 

The Mediator ensures that the process itself respects the principles of fairness, impartiality, and equality, which are core tenets of the International Rule of Law. 

(a) Procedural Fairness.

The Mediator maintains a neutral, confidential, and safe environment (often using ‘shuttle diplomacy’) that allows both sides to feel heard and respected.

(b) Informed Consent.

By providing a structured, voluntary process, the Mediator ensures that all participants, including minority groups or indigenous communities, are making informed, uncoerced decisions. 

(vi) Facilitating the joint-devlopment of a ‘New Paradigm of Restitution’. 

Mediators often work to shift the focus from a rigid ‘possession v. ownership’ dispute to a ‘New Paradigm of Restitution’ that fosters future collaboration. 

(a) Reframing Challenges as Opportunities.

The Mediator uses tools like ‘Reframing’ to turn apparent legal constraints (e.g., statute of limitations) into opportunities for creative, non-adversarial settlements.

(b) Future-Focused Solutions.

By focusing on the future rather than purely on historical grievances, the Mediator helps institutions and communities build long-term, positive relationships, such as establishing capacity-building programs in exchange for the return of an object. 

Thus, a Mediator can use the Interntional Rule of Law to create a respectful, legally informed, and confidential environment in which the Participants are empowered to reach solutions that balance ‘legal rights’ with ‘cultural, ethical, and historical realities’.

These Mediator strategies are discussed in my recent Talk on YouTube – ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’

Link to the Video Recording of the Talk on YouTube:

“The Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes”

See also the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk.

Notes added:

Two quotations about the dangers of appeasement:

‘We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom – and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.’ (John Fitgerald Kennedy, Inaugural Adress, January 20th 1961).

‘Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will become a vegetarian.’ (Heywood Broun, in Robert Drennan, ed., ‘The Algonquin Wits’).

AI – ‘In ancient art, the consequences of anarchy—defined as a lawless, ethical vacuum governed solely by force—were primarily explored through the visual juxtaposition of order (cosmos) against chaotic, destructive forces (chaos). Art served as propaganda to justify centralized authority by depicting the alternative as monstrous, unnatural, or a state of perpetual violence, often personified by foreign enemies, mythical beasts, or untamed nature. 

Here is how the consequences of anarchy were explored in ancient art:

1. Egyptian Art: Ma’at (Order) vs. Isfet (Chaos) 

Egyptian art, particularly in the Old and New Kingdoms, was heavily designed to uphold Ma’at (divine order, justice) against Isfet (chaos, injustice). 

• Consequences of Chaos: Scenes of Isfet were portrayed as a breakdown of social hierarchy and cosmic order. This was represented by chaotic, disordered, and frenzied compositions, contrasting sharply with the rigid, calm, and orderly depictions of Pharaohs.
• Violence and Subjugation: Pharaohs were frequently depicted on temple walls and in tombs smiting enemies in a “smiting scene” (the Execration Scene). This symbolized the violent, forced suppression of lawless forces that would otherwise consume Egypt.
• The Foreigner as Anarchy: Lawlessness was identified with foreign lands, depicted in art as disorganized, wild, and savage compared to the civilized, orderly Egyptians. 

2. Mesopotamian Art: Monsters and War

In Mesopotamia, art often depicted a world where protective laws did not exist, focusing on the fear of external, monstrous, or chaotic forces. 

• Monstrous Chaos: Art from this region frequently featured mythological, monstrous figures that represented the forces of nature—storms, floods, and death—unrestricted by human ethics.
• The Role of Force: The king, serving as the agent of the divine, was depicted battling these monstrous forces (e.g., the Lamassu or Shedu acting as defenders), illustrating that in a state of anarchy, safety is maintained only through brute strength.
• Warrior Kings: Reliefs showed the consequences of war and violence, with scenes of fallen soldiers and destroyed cities emphasizing the brutal reality of a world lacking central control. 

3. Greek Art: Cosmos vs. Chaos

Greek art, especially in the transition from the Geometric to the Archaic and Classical periods, depicted the struggle to create order from the “chaotic, dark void” of the primordial world. 

• Geometric Order: Early Greek vases used strict, repetitive geometric patterns to consciously impose, order, and control, symbolizing a rejection of the chaotic, formless world (sometimes referred to as chôra or raw nature).
• Gigantomachy and Centauromachy: Mythological battles, such as the Gigantomachy (gods vs. giants) or Centauromachy (Lapiths vs. centaurs), were common in temple friezes (e.g., the Parthenon). These represented the triumph of civilization, law, and ethics (the Greeks) over savage, unbridled, and lawless force (the monsters/barbarians).
• The Beast within Man: The Centaur represented the ultimate consequence of an absence of ethics—a creature that is half-human (rationality) and half-beast (raw force), embodying the danger of unchecked passions.’

AI – ‘Ancient art uses metaphor as a sophisticated visual language to convey subliminal, ideological messages about civilization, primarily by mediating authority, enforcing social order, and defining cultural identity through symbolic imagery. These visual metaphors allowed ancient societies to present complex, often propaganda-driven, ideas about power and stability to, at times, largely illiterate populations, transforming abstract concepts like “divine right” or “order over chaos” into readily understood, albeit hidden, narratives. 

1. Animal Metaphors for Power and Domination
Ancient Near Eastern art frequently employed animals to symbolize the strength and authority of rulers. 

• The King as Lion/Bull: Neo-Assyrian kings, for example, were depicted as lions or bulls to convey ferocity, power, and the capacity to dominate, with kings often shown in combat with these animals to signify their mastery over raw, chaotic nature.
• The Lamassu: The human-headed winged bulls (Lamassu) that guarded palace entrances were complex metaphors, blending human intelligence (head) with animal strength (body/wings), signifying that the civilization was divinely protected, intelligent, and invincible. 

2. Visualizing Order Over Chaos
A core message of many ancient civilizations was that they represented order, while outsiders or nature represented chaos. 

• Pharaohs Defeating Enemies: In Egyptian art, the Pharaoh is consistently depicted hitting enemies with a mace or riding a chariot over them. This is a metaphorical message of Ma’at (cosmic order) maintaining control over the chaos of foreign lands and societal discord.
• Geometric Precision: The use of rigid, geometric, and idealized forms in sculpture and architecture served as a metaphor for a disciplined society, contrasting with the presumed “disorder” of nature or “barbarian” cultures. 

3. Architectural and Cosmic Metaphors
Art and architecture were merged to create a “visual theology” that reinforced the social hierarchy. 

• The City as Cosmos: In the ancient Near East and Rome, the city and its temple were designed as a metaphor for the universe. The temple acted as a “cornerstone” or center of the world, positioning the local culture at the pinnacle of creation.
• Divine Right: Rulers were depicted with symbols connecting them to deities (such as the Egyptian Ankh for eternal life, or divine crowns), acting as a silent, continuous, and subconscious claim that the state’s political order was mandated by the gods. 

4. Metaphors of Cultural Identity

• Mythological Narratives: Greek art used scenes from mythology (like the Battle of Centaurs) to metaphorically portray the triumph of Greek rationality and civilization over foreign (“barbarian”) barbarism and primitive urges.
• Material Culture as Value: The selection of materials – gold, bronze, or rare stones—functioned as metaphors for the wealth, and therefore the superiority, of the civilization, with the durability of the art implying the intended eternal nature of the state. 

These metaphors functioned not just as artistic decoration, but as crucial tools for consolidating power by making elite ideologies appear natural, divine, and unshakeable.’ 

AI – ‘Yes, there is a clear, albeit ancient, engineering correlation between the estimated 800-ton load-bearing capacity of the Trilithon stones at Baalbek and the massive load imposed upon them by the Roman Temple of Jupiter. 

The Trilithon, consisting of three immense limestone blocks, acts as a crucial, specialized foundation to support the extreme weight of the temple’s peristyle columns and entablature. 

The Engineering Correlation

• Structural Purpose: The stones were used as the highest course of a retaining wall specifically designed to stabilize the massive weight of the Roman temple podium.
• Load Distribution: Similar to flying buttresses, these stones were calculated to counter downward and outward pressures, providing a secure, stable, and durable base, reducing the risk of structural failure.
• Material Strength: The limestone, being dense and of immense size, allowed for fewer joints in the wall, which maximizes structural integrity and prevents sinking or shifting under the weight of the temple above. 

Technical Details of the Load

• Individual Block Weight: Each of the three Trilithon stones is estimated to weigh between 750 and 1,000 tonnes (approx. 1.6 to 2.2 million lbs).
• Positioning: They are positioned 23 feet (7 meters) above the ground, with precision so exact that modern laser scans show alignment errors of less than one centimeter.
• Substructure: They rest on a foundation of smaller—though still massive—stones, which weigh an estimated 350 tons each, supporting the overall weight distribution of the temple complex. 

While the exact methods for moving and placing these stones, such as the 1,650-ton “Forgotten Stone” found nearby, remain a subject of debate, their placement demonstrates an advanced understanding of gravitational forces and structural load management.’

Each Trilithon stone weighs an estimated 750 to 800 tonnes (over 1.6 million pounds). Today, there is not a crane that is strong enough to move and lift a 750 to 800 tonne stone. Contrary to their practice, the Romans did not leave any record of this engineering achievement. So, if something else had stood on these stones before the Roman Temple was constructed, whoever built it must have had a knowledge of engineering and construction that we do not possess today.

See also:

• ‘AI Finally Solved Lebanon’s Baalbek Megalithic Mystery And It Isn’t Good’ : AI Finally Solved Lebanon’s Baalbek Megalithic Mystery And It Isn’t Good
• ‘Baalbek’s 800-Ton Stones Still Defy Explanation — How Were They Moved?’: Baalbek’s 800-Ton Stones Still Defy Explanation — How Were They Moved?
• ‘Baalbek: Mystery of the Trilithon Stones’: Baalbek: Mystery of the Trilithon Stones – YouTube
• ‘Dan Richards Explains the Mystery of Baalbek’s Ancient Stones | Joe Rogan Experience’: Dan Richards Explains the Mystery of Baalbek’s Ancient Stones | Joe Rogan Experience – YouTube

My 1^st Q. – ‘In Antiquity what was the basis of the credo that Beauty is Truth?’

AI – ‘In Antiquity, the belief that “Beauty is Truth” was rooted in a metaphysical, philosophical, and aesthetic framework where physical beauty was seen as a reflection of a higher, divine reality—the “Forms.” This concept suggests that beautiful things (aesthetically) are not just pleasurable to the senses, but are, in fact, accurate, truthful manifestations of a divine, ordered, and harmonious universe. 

Here are the key bases of this credo in Ancient Greece:

• Platonic Idealism and the Forms: Plato argued that material beauty is a “reminder” of a higher, spiritual, and absolute Beauty (the Form of Beauty). For Plato, true beauty is the “splendor of truth” (a concept later attributed to his Neoplatonic followers) and is inseparably connected to the Good (agathon) and the True (aletheia).
• Order, Symmetry, and Proportion (Aristotle): Aristotle defined beauty as having a “definite order and symmetry and proportion”. This meant that beauty was not a subjective opinion, but an objective truth that could be measured or identified, linking art and nature to mathematical, universal truths.
• Kaloskagathos (The Beautiful-and-Good): The Greeks used the term kaloskagathos (or kalokagathia), which combined kalos (beautiful) and agathos (good), to describe a person or thing that was both physically and morally perfect. This inherent, ethical, and physical unity meant that something beautiful had to be good and true.
• The “Ladder of Love” (Symposium): Plato’s Symposium describes an ascent where a lover of beauty moves from appreciating a single beautiful body to beauty of the soul, then to the beauty of laws, knowledge, and finally, the divine, absolute Form of Beauty. The journey is one of realizing that the initial physical attraction is actually a glimpse of a deeper,, “truer” reality.
• Neoplatonism: Later thinkers like Plotinus emphasized that material beauty is a direct expression of the Divine Mind (the One), meaning that to truly perceive a beautiful object is to perceive a, truth of its divine source. 

In essence, for the ancient Greeks, beauty was not merely skin-deep; it was an “active, independent reality” and a “psycho-physical parcel” that hinted at the divine order. 

My 2^nd  Q. – ‘In Antiquity what was the basis of the credo that Beauty is Truth?’

AI – ‘In Antiquity, the belief that “Beauty is Truth” was rooted in a metaphysical, ethical, and aesthetic framework where beauty was not merely a subjective preference, but an objective reality, a reflection of cosmic order, and a manifestation of the divine. This credo emerged primarily from Greek philosophy—specifically Platonism and Neoplatonism—which asserted that beauty, goodness, and truth were essentially one, often referred to as transcendental properties of being. 

Here is the basis for this ancient credo:

• Platonic Forms (Idealism): Plato argued that the physical world is a mere shadow of a higher, immutable realm of reality (the Forms). True beauty (the Form of Beauty) is absolute, eternal, and divine, while earthly beauty is merely a faint reflection or participant in this higher truth. Therefore, true beauty is a form of truth—a manifestation of a deeper, unchanging reality.
• The “Ladder of Love” (Symposium): Plato proposed in the Symposium that one can ascend from loving individual beautiful bodies to loving the beauty of souls, then to the beauty of laws and knowledge, and finally to the contemplation of absolute Beauty itself. In this view, beauty is a guide that leads the soul toward truth.
• Kalokagathia (Unity of Good and Beautiful): The Greeks used the term kaloskagathos (derived from kalos [beautiful] and agathos [good]) to signify that all truly beautiful things are inherently good and true. Beauty was seen as having a purpose and was an independent reality.
• Symmetry and Order: Aristotle and other Greek thinkers often defined beauty in terms of order, symmetry, and definiteness, which are mathematical principles. Since these principles underlie the structure of the cosmos, beauty was viewed as the palpable, “shining” manifestation of that underlying structural truth.
• Neoplatonic “Splendor of Truth”: Later Neoplatonists, particularly Plotinus, intensified this, characterizing beauty as the radiance or “splendor of truth” (splendor veritatis). They believed that when the soul sees beauty, it feels a “divine madness” or intense recognition of a higher reality, indicating that beauty is the visible, tangible form of the divine truth. 

Ultimately, in antiquity, beauty was considered a “psycho-physical parcel” that revealed essential knowledge—a guide to the divine rather than just an aesthetic experience. 

By its nature, a creative dispute lends itself to a creative solution – assuming that is what each Participant in Mediation wants to achieve by participating in the Mediation Process.

There is a tension between competing motivations.

The participants may each be seeking a pragmatic commercial solution.
However, their legal representatives may be focusing on financial compensation, which of course includes expenses and incurred costs.

So, a challenge for the Mediator is to manage this tension without exacerbating it.

The following is a Checklist of issues to explore in Preliminary Private Sessions with each Participant and their legal representatives, in order to steer the dialogue away from ‘legal rights’ and power’, and toward ‘interests’, thereby opening the door to the discovery by the Participants for themselves, of practical options for the structuring of pragmatic commercial terms of settlement, that ‘square the circle’ in a way that works for both of them:

·       Participants, i.e. the ‘People’ who have ‘skin in the game’ – What motivates each of them? – What is important to them: ‘needs’ and ‘priorities’.
·       What is the ‘Problem’?
·       Why?
·       What is at stake? – i.e. money, reputation and relationships, including with the public, i.e. consumers and audiences.
·       Potential litigation risks, costs and adverse publicity [‘LRC’].
·       With some imagination, can the Problem be fixed, i.e. ‘sorted’?
·       How?
·       At what cost i.e. the ‘What is the Price of Doing a Deal in Mediation’ [‘PDM’].
·       PDM minus LRC = ?, so is doing a Deal today in Mediation by putting a ‘Price’ on it, better for you than going to Trial? i.e. does a ‘Golden Commercial Bridge’ exist in Mediation, that a Judge cannot impose?
·       ‘Creative’ brainstorming/commercial problem solving.
·       Making an ‘Interesting Offer’ i.e. to hook the other Participant, so that negotiations can begin based upon ‘Interests’ instead of ‘Positions.’