Our responsibility is to provide some observations and reflections on the program we've heard today. The first observation I have is that I would have called this 'dispute settlement in the next decade', not 'arbitration in the next decade', because it was quite clear from the speakers in the audience that there was an interesting tension between the topics of arbitration and ADR.

My predictions are easy. Everything that was discussed today will be discussed over the next ten years. A decade is a very short time. In my lifetime, having graduated from law school in 1958, at the same time as the New York Convention, I am a New York Convention baby. I grew up with it. I had the fortune (or misfortune) to have to convince many states in the United States that it was okay for our country to ratify the New York Convention. It took us twelve years. Despite that, I'm pleased to report, we did it.

My theme is not to discuss war stories. We've heard a number of war stories today. I would prefer, in my short presentation, to talk about peace stories. I've just come off a case where an award was rendered on 4 September and honoured on 14 September, a case involving hundreds of millions of dollars that never went to court. My point is, the process works. And I think Dr Van den Berg said that in only 10% of the court decisions do we have to look at war stories. We should look at the positive and not at the negative.

I've come to the following observation, having attended 40 years of conferences on this subject. Pierre Lalive said to me, 'You'll learn nothing here'. You are wrong, Pierre. I have learned a great deal here. I have learned that there are now six constituencies that discuss this subject and try to predict the future. And I warn you to look at each constituency before you accept the remarks of that constituency.

Who are they? First, the parties. Everyone talks about the parties and party autonomy. In 40 years of law practice, I've rarely had a client who is interested in the process of dispute settlement. The client always tells me one thing. 'Don't waste my time when I'm drafting the agreement because I'm not going into the deal to have a dispute.' And when the dispute arises, he always says the same thing. 'Get it over with quickly. Settle it or win it.' That's all the client is interested in. So be careful about these wonderful remarks about what the parties are looking for. Parties are fickle.

The second constituency. We're all here, the lawyers. We must be very careful of the lawyers. The upbeat remarks tell you that lawyers are interested in predictability so they can advise their clients on what will happen in the arbitration or the dispute resolution process. Well, I teach in law school in the United States, which says that if you want a perfect system of justice, you go to the courts.

We in the United States have a perfect system. If you lose in a trial court, you go to the appellate court. If you lose in the appellate court, you go to the ultimate fountain of wisdom, the United States Supreme Court.

Well, we have a President in the United States who went to that court recently and said, 'Please, keep me immune from litigation until I'm out of office.' And the Court said, 'No problem. The litigation won't take much of your time.' So, I caution you. Be careful of all constituencies.

Thirdly, after the parties and the lawyers, we have the arbitration institutions. The arbitration institutions also have a message to deliver and a function to perform. They, too, must face the future and deal with these challenges, and they will. If the arbitration institutions don't, we'll be back to some other method.

Fourth, we next go on to the arbitrators. I felt today a great deal of frustration or discomfort on the part of very distinguished arbitrators about what happens if we move into this thing called mediation, MedArb, ArbMed. One of the problems is, I've given up in the United States trying to give definitions anymore. We have ruined all definitions. I used to say that arbitration was a final and binding process. No longer true. I used to say that mediation was just an advisory aid to the parties. No longer true, because we've merged all definitions. The point is, who cares? If the process works, why not use it? I have been an arbitrator or I've been a mediator before, during and after the process. Parties didn't care. Some of my co-arbitrators were quite disturbed. But somehow it worked.

If you're looking for perfection, I can't find it. Neither in the United States Supreme Court nor before arbitrators. Why do you persevere at making it so difficult? If the world wants you to serve a mediator's capacity, do it. If you don't dare to take that challenge on, don't be a mediator. You will be asked in the future to do this. The mediation process will not go away. Every contract I see now says, 'Senior management first, then mediation, then arbitration.' It's here. It's no longer in the future, it is here. Go with it and work with it and I'm sure you might even like it.

Mediators have the greatest frustration of all because they no longer know what they're supposed to do. You're told that the mediator doesn't meet with the parties. The conciliator does. And we've spent all this time on the definitions. When I'm in the middle of the case, no one asks me, 'Are you a mediator? Are you a conciliator?' Solve the problem. You have an awesome responsibility, you arbitrators and mediators. If it's too hot in the kitchen, get out.

While arbitrators complain about the lack of fees, it's a voluntary profession you're in. No one is forcing you to serve. It's a great honour, it's a great distinction. Parties view you with awe and with respect. Use it and solve the problem.

Fifth, the academics. They've got to write and publish about something. Right now they're writing that arbitration is becoming just as bad as litigation, and that ADR is the way to go to get results quicker, easier and cheaper. And they won't stop writing.

Finally, you have the wannabes. Only a few years ago they only wanted to be arbitrators. Now they all want to be part of this dispute resolution business. Whether you call it arbitration, mediation, ADR or whatever, the label doesn't matter to them. They just want to be where the action is, namely as ADR neutrals.

So, you have all these constituencies. All have a different interest and I suspect that will continue to be the case in the future. And you multiply that with the international aspect. Multiply that with the fact that there are different cultures. I served both as a mediator and an early neutral evaluator for the Federal Court in New York. All the things you said today you shouldn't do, the court tells us to do. In some cases, we're told to tell the parties as an evaluator: 'You have a strong case. You don't have a strong case. You're right on the law. You're wrong on the law.'

But in all of the sessions today, there was a tension on what ADR will mean, and it's a healthy tension. Not a negative tension. We talked first about arbitrators and judges. You know, half the judges in the United States are now retiring to become arbitrators. What's good about that? What's good about it is that they educate their colleagues. And as they write awards and they get into the US courts, there's greater respect for arbitration. So, instead of worrying so much about enforcement of awards by judges, more and more judges are helping the process.

Someone, I think it was Mr Lazareff, was talking about speaking to the chief judge of France. The judge said arbitrators are professionals. Whatever we are, arbitrators or mediators, the process is of coming together for the positive help of the business community. That to me is a lessening of the tension in the first session we had today. There's clearly an increasing tension in this room between mediation and arbitration. But it's easily solved.

I gather a great many of you need training in mediation. But not all of you will make good mediators. Some of you should stick to arbitration and not become mediators. When I come home at the end of a two-day mediation, because that's all we're allowed, my wife says to me 'Don't come home'. A mediator works very, very hard. You go back and forth, back and forth trying to resolve things. The parties get a chance to relax. But you don't. And you have a tremendous ego desire to make a settlement work. You come home at the end of the day exhausted. Never from an arbitration. But from a mediation, it's indeed quite different.

There was a gentleman here from Israel. My favourite mediation was with a very famous ministry in Israel. I got contacted to resolve a dispute involving a U.S.-Israeli joint venture for a multi-billion dollar project. And six months into the contract, it broke down because there was a culture gap between the Israeli party and the American party. I was asked to mediate the dispute in two days.

The first day the Israelis came in with their chief executive and their lawyer and they glowered at me. 'We are here, Aksen, but we have no desire to be here. And who are you to tell us, the Israeli company, how to settle the dispute? We've been around for thousands of years. You're two hundred years old, so forget it.'

The mediation was headed for disaster. By dumb luck, I had a partner who wrote a book on El Al Airlines. I said to him, 'Please, come up here and help me. Bring me two copies of your book.' And I gave one to the Israeli party and one to the American party and by the end of the day, we relaxed the tension. Now, is that brilliant? I don't know. But it shows you that mediation is impossible to define. At the end of the second day, we settled the dispute, which was a very simple one. The Israeli engineers who had invented the technology were not anxious to hand it over to the Americans in the joint venture. So, we got the engineers together and the technical people together, took them for a two-day meeting. Everything was hunky dory, and they went on with the project.

Now, this process cannot be defined. But it's there and you will face it in the future.

On enforcement of awards, I cannot match the brilliance of the previous speakers in the panel. But from my observations, what I liked about the last panel is that I've always been taught that arbitration is composed of a small number of people of an international mafia. Well, the trouble is, I've now seen people in their 80's, 70's, 60's, 50's, 40's and 30's serving as international arbitrators around the world. So, as far as I am concerned, it isn't true. My prediction is, the process will continue, it will continue well. It's a challenge for the institutions to keep up with this, but they will. Therefore, I commend the ICC on the wonderful program today.

Pierre, I learned a great deal, whether in French or in English, and I thank you all for permitting me to be here.