Sir Laurence Street, AC, KCMG, QC, HFAIB, KStJ, has had a long and distinguished career in and outside the law. He was called to the New South Wales Bar in 1951 and later took silk, before becoming an Equity Judge of the Supreme Court in 1965. In 1974 he was appointed Chief Justice, the youngest ever appointee and third generation of Streets to hold that post, and was simultaneously Lieutenant Governor of New South Wales. Since retiring those posts in 1988, Sir Laurence has carried on a solo practice as a professional mediator and disputes consultant, interspersed with numerous other official and honorary appointments. He explained why he now devotes his efforts to mediation.

Having had such an illustrious career as a litigator and as a judge, why did you choose to move into ADR?
I left the bench because I'd been there long enough. I'd been an Equity Judge for nearly ten years and Chief Justice for nearly 15 years. You do your best work as Chief Justice in the first few years: you conquer the new territories you want to conquer, and then you tend to ride the boundaries rather than conquering new territories.

I had been interested in mediation as Chief Justice as an evolving mechanism which was coming to Australia, and in fact elsewhere in the common law world and the civilised world in general. I was retained to do one or two mediations, I found it very congenial, and I've since become a total devotee.

As a judge, deciding disputes is wonderfully professionally fulfilling. You make your findings of fact, you state the principles you are going to apply, you apply them to your findings, there's the judgment and you call the next case. It makes intense intellectual demands but not much emotional demand. Mediation doesn't make the same intellectual demands but I've found it emotionally very fulfilling because you're relating to people.

That's one of the strains of judicial life. There might be a party that you think has had such bad luck that you'd like to be able to give them a win, but you just can't do it within the constraints of your judicial oath. In mediation you're not delivering judgments, you're helping people to resolve conflict.

As a judge, very few people thank you for handling a case. They might say they had a fair hearing. But the losers are not going to thank you for having found against them and emptied them out. In mediation, it's amazing the number of times people will thank you for your contribution to resolving their conflict: they are now able to get on with their lives or their businesses.

To use a favourite Hong Kong phrase, I suppose there's greater scope for win-win outcomes in mediation.
The win-win is not in the terms of the settlement, it's in the fact of the settlement. The win that both parties share is closure. Neither one does as well as they'd hoped or believed they might in litigation, and to that extent they've both got to wear a degree of pain. But they both share totally in the closure. In that way mediation makes a positive contribution towards peaceful coexistence.

Mediation has had something of a mixed reception here in Hong Kong. It's been up and running in certain fields for a while, but it's only now with recent civil justice reform that it will have real judicial force behind it. How was mediation received in Australia and for how long has it been a part of the dispute resolution landscape?
In any common law jurisdiction it's received with a degree of suspicion. When I started mediating after I left the bench my former colleagues were very stand-offish about it, as were other lawyers. I made some presentations in England and here in Hong Kong in the early 1990s - I was at the time a member of the London Court of International Arbitration - to small groups who received it with polite interest, but it didn't plant the seed. You've got to keep replanting the seed, and then bit by bit people begin to see the benefit of it.

Once people have been exposed to the mediation process they see the great value of it. It has a moral validity in resolving conflict, and it has a practical attraction. Courts don't resolve disputes. I was a judge for nearly 25 years and I would have decided thousands of disputes, but I never resolved any, because in every case somebody wins and somebody loses.

To what extent would you say, in Australia for example, that mediation has now been accepted and that people see the value of it? Do you have any advice from that experience that you could offer to Hong Kong?
You've got to keep on and on pressing the advantages of it. Some older lawyers who have been brought up in the adversarial mode of handling conflict find it hard to get on board, but they're being challenged by younger lawyers coming forward, who in the course of their university training have had exposure to the consensus-oriented philosophy. Bit by bit it's coming in to the legal profession from the new lawyers moving upwards. It's very hard to bring it in at the top and push it down.

Some jurisdictions have more expertise in mediation than others do. How transferable are mediation skills across borders? Do you think there would be some value in Hong Kong importing some of that expertise?
Mediation is all about human nature, and human beings are much the same in their approach to conflict. I don't know that borders are very significant. Cultural differences can present an initial challenge for the mediator, but they are not necessarily an impermeable membrane; it's up to the mediator to be able to adjust the approach to the particular circumstances. Some cultures may be more prone to excitable forensic skirmishes, others may be much milder, but as a general rule none of us really relishes the idea of living in conflict. Often, sadly, people are thrown into conflict, or they're not fortunate enough to live a lifestyle where they can be free of conflict, but we all crave peace; it's balm to the spirit, if you like.

I am almost reluctant to ask, but what are some of the disadvantages of mediation, and how can we get over those?
I don't think there can ever be a disadvantage in trying to bring a healing resolution of a conflict. Conflict is inherently destructive: of peace of mind, of physical health, of relationships, of material fortunes. Disputes are part of human nature - we all tend to want to justify our own point of view - but ultimately, if we can have a way in which we can negotiate a resolution that we can live with, that has enormous value. If both sides try in good faith to get a settlement but they just can't get there, that's a regrettable failure but it's not necessarily a downside. They're the better for having tried, because quite likely a seed may have been planted, and in the next two or three months it might turn into a resolution.

I've heard this often happens: even when the mediation has failed, it's caused the parties to re-evaluate and to have a better appreciation of the common ground.
Yes, because the mediator's task is really to help the parties to take an objective overview. The first stage to a mediation is opening up channels of communication between the parties. Quite often, when conflict emerges communication dries up. In the family area, the parties lose eye contact and voice contact. In commercial disputes the parties are told by their lawyers: "don't talk to the other side, I'll talk to my counterpart."

But the communication flow is not an end in itself; it's simply a step along the way in building bridges of understanding. If the parties can get an objective understanding of the total dispute, they can much better negotiate a settlement. I never ask parties to agree with each other - they are often much too deeply entrenched in their positional standoff - but I ask them to understand where the other party is coming from. Then they can much better negotiate a deal.

In the context of commercial mediation, what do you think of the method whereby the mediator tries to help each party to understand the risk factors of its own position?
It's part of the overall mediating approach. You've got to get parties to see the totality, which includes the downside of litigation, where they may risk everything on a court case. They may think they'sre going to win the court case, but they haven't got a guarantee. It is very much part of the mediator's stock in trade to try to unsettle what may be an optimistic hope that they can't fail to win. There's always a risk; then comes the question of risk evaluation and hedging against the risk. If both parties can lower their expectations to accommodate the risk then you can get a deal.

You have cited four broad areas in which you yourself conduct ADR: commercial, professional, public interest and political disputes. What are your experiences with those last three areas?
When you have differing groups within an organisation that hold differing views about issues that affect the organisation as a whole, you often have people of comparable intelligence and comparable commitment holding differing views with equal conviction. The task is to prevent the differences of opinion from driving them apart and find a way to join the commitments together. An example would be internal corporate disputes about how an organisation is to go forward. They may be differing factions trying to evolve a corporate philosophy, but they are focusing more on the factional difference than upon the joint interest in the success of the venture.

What do you see as the future for mediation?
I think there is an unlimited future for it, but it depends upon the stage of civilisation of the particular community that you're talking about. You can't do much good mediating in an uncivilised tribe, because their way of handling conflict is to have a trial of strength. The more civilised a community, the easier it is to get the parties to forget their personal prejudices and look at the good of the total entity, and try to find a way in which each component participant in that total entity can achieve some of their goals.

Part of the magic of mediation is that the parties themselves have to own the resolution. In a court case where one party wins and one loses, the one that's lost is often rigorously critical of the process - the judge didn't understand the issue or the lawyers made a mess of it - and the other side isn'st necessarily delighted with it either. Contrast that with a mediation, where both parties go back with a degree of disappointment but never loss. They've negotiated with their counterpart, they've got a deal they can live with, and they can get on with their business and their life. The win-win is in the fact of the settlement, not the terms of the settlement.

Brendan Clift

首名擁有爵位的調解員

Sir Laurence Street, AC, KCMG, QC, HFAIB, KStJ在法律界內外均有著長久而顯赫的事業成就。他於1951年在新南威爾士成為大律師，不久更成為資深大律師，並於1965年成為當地最高法院的衡平法法官。1974年，他被委任為首席大法官，成為一位最年輕的首席大法官，也是其家族的第三代擔任該職位，他並同時擔任新南威爾士的Lieutenant Governor。自從於1988年退休後，Sir Laurence以獨立執業形式擔任專業調解員和爭議解決顧問，同時亦接受其他許多官方和榮譽任命。在本文中，他解釋為何他現時有如此濃厚興趣從事調解工作。

作為一名訴訟律師和一名法官，你事業成就顯赫。為何你會選擇轉向替代爭議解決方法(ADR)這一領域？
我離開司法界是因為我在其中呆的時間太久了。我曾經做了將近十年的衡平法法官，之後又擔任首席大法官將近十五年。在這些工作中，你會發現頭幾年作為首席大法官的表現是最優秀的：你會去征服你希望征服的領域，然後你會趨向守望而不是征服新的領域。

我在擔任首席大法官期間便對調解產生了興趣。我發現調解作為一種新興的機制，當時正在進入澳大利亞，而實際上也正在進入普通法世界的其他地區，乃至一般的文明世界。我當時受聘處理了一兩宗調解案件，並且發現用這種方式處理案件非常合適。自此，我成了調解方式不折不扣的擁躉。

作為一名法官，對爭議案件作出裁決時，從專業角度來說，的確是讓人很有滿足感。你有權開展案件調查，你宣佈適用的法律準則，你在調查中適用這些原則，之後你作出裁決，心滿意足地結案，並轉向下一宗案件。法官判案是煞費精神的過程，但是無須摻入感情因素。調解對於思維能力的要求沒有那麼高，但我卻發現調解完成後，可以讓我在情感上得到極大的滿足，因為在調解過程中我們需要與人建立關係。

這是司法界人士要面對的壓力之一。有時候你會覺得案件的一方真的很倒楣，你很想人為地讓他們勝訴，但是你不能那麼做，因為你必須接受司法誓言的約束。而在調解中，你不是在宣佈判決，你只是幫助大家解決衝突。

作為一名法官，你完成對一宗案件的審理後，很少有機會獲得當事人的道謝。他們也許會說聆訊是很公正的，但敗訴的一方不會因為你作出不利他們的判決，令他們傾家蕩產而感謝你。而在調解過程中，你會發現竟然有那麼多人會感謝你—他們感謝你，因為你為著解決他們之間的衝突而付出了努力，而他們現在得以延續他們的生命，或者繼續他們的生計。

用一句香港人慣用的說法，我想調解方式更有可能取得雙贏的結局。
所謂雙贏不是指和解的條件，而是指達成和解的事實。當雙方分享了這種勝利，結局就在其中了。任何一方都沒有達到他們事先希望，或者在法律訴訟中可能得到的結果，從這個意思上說，他們同樣都感到一定程度的痛苦，但又都完全分享了這種結局。通過這種方式，調解對於和平共處作出了正面的貢獻。

目前來看，調解在香港的獲認可現狀是多方面的。曾經有一陣子，在某些領域它是很受歡迎，而且有流行趨勢，但實際上直到最近因為有了民事司法制度改革，它才有了具真正意義的司法力量作為後援。調解在澳大利亞的受認可狀況如何﹖還有，經過了多長時間，調解才成為爭議解決的其中一個途徑？
在任何一個普通法的司法管轄區，調解都曾受到一定程度的質疑。當我離開司法界轉而開始採用調解方式處理案件時，我以前的同事對此是相當有保留的，而其他的律師也是一樣。我於90年代初期在英格蘭，還有在香港，曾經作了一些陳述—我當時擔任倫敦國際仲裁法庭的一名成員—聽眾是一些小組，他們聽後出於禮貌表示了興趣，但是我的演講沒有產生影響力。在這種情況下，我們需要反覆去說明，然後慢慢地人們便開始看到調解的作用。

一旦人們瞭解了調解的過程，他們便可以看到它的巨大價值。調解在解決爭議的過程中具有道德方面的效力，因此在實踐中對大家是具有吸引力的。法庭並不解決爭議。我擔任法官有將近25年之久，我裁決的案例超過數千件，但是我從未解決過一宗，因為在每宗案件中，總有人贏了，也有人輸了。

從多大程度上你可以說，比如在澳大利亞，調解已經獲得大家的認可，而且人們理解了它的價值？基於你的經驗，你對香港有何建議？
我們必須持續努力，竭力發掘調解的好處。有一部分較為年長的律師，從對抗性的衝突處理模式中成長起來，他們會發現自己很難接受調解，但是他們會遇到年輕一代律師的挑戰。這些少壯派更具嘗試的魄力，他們在大學受訓期間便接觸到那種以達成一致為目標的理念。慢慢地，這種方式從新入行的新銳律師開始，會逐步為司法界所接納。我們不可能把調解從最高端開始實施，再自上而下地強制推廣。

某些司法管轄區的人員在調解方面比其他同業要具備更多的專業技能。調解技巧在多大程度上可以跨境傳授？你是否認同香港輸入一些調解技巧的價值？
調解完全是取決於人性的，而人類在對待衝突的態度上基本是一致的。我認為在這個問題上，國界是無足輕重。文化差異對於調解員最初可能是一種挑戰，但是它無法構成一個密不透風的隔膜。調解員應當根據爭議的具體情況適時調整調解方式。某些文化可能更為傾向於走向衝動的法庭激辯，而其他的文化則有可能相對溫和一些，但是其中有一個基本的規律，那就是：我們沒有誰願意整天生活在衝突之中。可悲的是，人們往往是被捲入衝突的，或者他們不夠幸運，無法享受那種遠離衝突的生存方式，但是大家都渴望和平。當你願意接受和解，它就是一劑良藥。

有一個問題，我不太希望問你，可是，調解有哪些弊端，以及我們如何克服？
我認為，如果我們只是尋找一種解決衝突的良藥，那麼這裡面沒有任何弊端可言。衝突永遠具有毀滅性：它會毀掉思想的安寧、身體的健康、人際關係，以及物質的財富。爭議是人性的組成部分—我們都希望證明自己的觀點是對的—但是最終，如果我們能夠找到一種途徑，雙方通過商談找到可以接受的解決方案，那麼這種途徑就具有巨大的價值。如果雙方都本著誠意尋求爭議的解決，但是卻始終無法達成一致，那麼這種失敗的結局是很令人遺憾的，但它未必是一件壞事。只要雙方都努力了，就非常好，因為當我們種下了和解的種子，往往兩個或者三個月之後，這種調解的努力或許就會轉化成為一個和解方案。

我聽說常常有這種情況：即使調解失敗了，調解的過程也可以讓雙方有機會重新審視，並更加重視雙方的共同利益。
是的。因為調解員的任務就是要幫助雙方建立客觀的立場。調解的第一步是打開各方溝通的管道。經常有一種情況，當衝突出現了，溝通便告終止。在家庭糾紛中，雙方失去了眼神的接觸，和聲音的交流。在商業爭議案件中，雙方總是聽到各自的律師如此建議：「不要和他們談，我會找他們的代表律師談。」

但是，溝通的進行本身無法達致最終目標，它只是搭建理解的橋樑的一個步驟。若雙方對於整個爭議都能有一個比較客觀的理解，那麼他們通過協商達成和解的過程會大大改善。我從不要求雙方去同意對方—爭議中的各方往往深陷於自己對事情的看法而遠離對方—但是我一定會要求他們去理解對方在事件中所處的地位。然後他們商談起來就會容易得多了。

在商業調解的情況下，調解員往往試圖引導雙方認識各自立場可能帶來的風險，你如何評價這種方式？
這是整個調解過程的一個方面。你需要讓所有各方看到事情的全局，包括走向訴訟後的不利結局，他們在法庭的審訊中會面對各種風險。他們或許認為自己一定能贏得訴訟，但他們並沒有獲得保證。調解員必須具備一種能力，就是當任何一方對訴訟前景相當樂觀，認為他們必勝的時候，你要能夠讓他們感到這種贏的希望根本就不可靠。風險是肯定存在的，接下來便要作風險評估，並且考慮如何避免風險發生。如果雙方都願意降低期許而避開風險，那麼你便大有可為了。

你曾經提到你在四個領域開展過ADR：商業、專業、公共事業以及政治爭議等領域。你在後面三個領域的經驗有哪些？
假如有一個機構內存在不同的組別，它們對影響整個機構的問題，各自持有不同的看法，你會發現當中的人，大家具有近似的才智和使命，但卻持有不同的看法和擁有同樣的自信。這時你的任務是，你要避免他們因觀點分歧而分裂，而要將他們用同樣忠誠的信念團結在一起。其中一個例子，就是一家公司在關於機構如何進一步發展問題上產生了內部爭議。他們可能因為不同的公司理念而形成小派系，但他們過於關注派系分歧而忽視了大家共同的利益—就是自己公司的成功。

你認為調解的前景如何？
我想調解的前景是無限的，不過調解的成功有賴於我們所涉及到的具體社會群體的文明程度。在一個未被文明化的部落裡，我們無法奢望調解的成功，因為這些人處理衝突的方式就是好勇鬥狠﹔在一個文明程度較高的社會，讓各方拋開各自的偏見，正視整件事情本身的正面因素，然後尋求各參與方能達成他們的部分目標，這一點比較容易做到。

調解成功的奧妙之一，是要令各方感到他擁有了結果。在審訊案件中，一方贏了，另一方輸了，輸掉的一方通常對於審訊程序強烈不滿—認為法官對問題並不了解，或者覺得是律師們把事情弄糟—而另外一方也未必對判決十分滿意。在調解的情況下，雙方後退一步，有若干程度的失望，但是卻沒有輸家。他們與對手進行了談判，共同達成了一個協議，並可以接受這個結果。然後，他們可以繼續他們自己的生活和生計。所謂雙贏，是指和解的事實，而非和解的條件。

祁秉麟