http://law.pepperdine.edu/dispute-resolution-law-journal/issues/volume-eleven/_09_%20Zamir%203.pdf

In this article, the author analyzes the traditional view of mediator neutrality and suggests a new mediator ethic to replace it. He reviews the existing literature on mediator neutrality, focusing on the tension between the mediator's role as an impartial participant in the mediation process and as a trusted facilitator in both the problem-solving and transformative models of mediation. He concludes neutrality is a myth created by two competing ethical concepts: "an ethic of impartiality and an ethic of care" (493). The ethic of impartiality "reflects objective justice and fairness," in which the mediator remains detached from the content of the dispute. The ethic of care "is manifested in forming a personal relationship with each site and showing empathy, involvement, understanding and support." The author argues that the "duality [of these ethical concepts] creates a 'thin' perception of procedural justice" (495) that preserves existing, possibly unequal, power relations between parties. This may exclude certain points of view and disadvantage one party over the other. He suggests the "ethic of equal partiality" to avoid this effect. In this concept, the mediator sees events from both parties' viewpoints, help them to understand each other's perspectives and "be an active partner in the composition of a new narrative" (502). He concludes with a discussion of how the ethic of equal partiality could be successfully used with the narrative model of mediation.