Saturday, December 27, 2008
The revealing information below is the result of a study we conducted back in September 2006...
The European Shippers Council (ESC) has long wished to see the end of the conference system. But their efforts may very well be an example of the old maxim: be careful what you wish for.
Assuming carriers on the European trade lane adopt a service contract dominated system similar to their transpacific cousins, they could find themselves in a better position. Shippers may cop the short end of the stick. These US contracts include conditions like Minimum Quantity Commitments (MQCs) and liquidated damages if the shipper fails to honour the terms of their contract. In fact, the non-conference system could limit the degree of flexibility shippers enjoy under the conference system.
Carriers may be the beneficiaries of the non-conference system.
Instead, he believes that these ports would be served by feeder connections from larger ports in the area in the future.
“The main line operators will likely call at Rotterdam or Hamburg, and then feeder services will deliver the UK bound import cargo from Asia from one of the larger European ports.”
In this era of cost consciousness, carriers may be unwilling to burn extra fuel, which translates into extra dollars, for a non-profitable port call.
The real challenge for the Walmart's of the world is to find ways to be environmentally-friendly, while cutting the end-cost of the product, or at least increasing the end cost for the consumer by as little as possible.
Global trade growth, as forecasted by the World Bank, is expected to fall to 4.5 per cent in 2008, down from the 7.5 per cent growth witnessed in 2007. This fall off in trade growth is due to the serious reduction in consumer spending in the consumer powerhouses of Europe and the US, as a result of the economic downturns there.
There are no rules! Forget the rules, and concentrate on common sense. Think back to the stuff Mom and Dad taught you. This stuff is pretty basic, and sometimes we complicate life with a lot of nonsense. Keep it simple!
Discipline is what Navy Seals and Tiger Woods are made of, the internal focus that gives us the drive, desire and dedication we need to be at the top of our game. Discipline is what will give us the winning attitude. Without it, there is no motivation and no way to be at the top of your game.
Also called "stamina," endurance is the ability to keep going when others have quit. People have always called Henry Kissinger and even Donald Trump incredible negotiators. They are the Energizer bunnies of negotiating. They are in the fight for all 10 rounds and never, never get knocked out. They keep going and going and going.
Know two things about respect. First, for the other party to respect you, you must earn it. Second, for you to respect the other party, you must do your homework and find out as much as possible so that they in turn have your respect. If you go through life being genuine, nice, and - most important - honest, you will earn a good reputation, which promotes respect.
You have heard that good things happen to those who wait. We are a pretty impatient bunch today, and a lot of us haven't developed the ability to tolerate adversity and to overcome frustration. That's what patience is, and to succeed at negotiating, there's no substitute for patience. You may need to overcome many obstacles to reach your goals.
If you persevere and add a sprinkle of patience, in most cases your outcome will be what you desired. Lots of publishers rejected my first book, "Can I Have 5 Minutes Of Your Time?" (After the 34th rejection, I lost count). But I was patient and never gave up, and that book is in its 14th printing.
Do I still sound like Mom? Well, Mom is probably the greatest negotiator on the planet.
Think about it: She is constantly negotiating with her kid in the supermarket or in the toy store or even the playground. The kid wants everything, and Mom wants almost nothing the kid wants.
Empathy is the ability to view the other person's feelings and to put yourself in his position.
This is one of the most important traits to carry every day, throughout your life, no matter whom you meet.
Having empathy for others and observing their behavior require practice. They take years to learn and probably will never be perfected. Strive to be genuine. People can easily spot a truly genuine person - and just as easily spot a phony.
I am so tired of being politically correct. We can't make fun of anybody anymore. I miss the comedian Don Rickles. He made fun of everybody. His secret was that he always made fun of himself first. If you can first laugh at yourself, then it's OK to take liberties with others because they know you're having fun and aren't being mean-spirited.
And by the way, we need more fun in the workplace. If I'm going to spend two-thirds of my life somewhere, then I am going to have fun. In the boring business world, let's take a few liberties. I'm not suggesting you tell jokes, put a whoopee cushion on chairs or conceal a buzzer in your palm. Just smile and see the comical in things.
The more fun you have, the more fun the people around you will have. When we lighten up a little, so do the people around us. You don't have to wait for the next person to do it first. A smile can light up a room!
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Sichuan Airlines will also offer a weekly flight, but on every Sunday and using Airbus 320. The flight takes off at 1440 hrs from Chongqing's Jiangbei International Airport, arrives at Taipei's Songshan Airport at 1810 hrs, then heads back from Taipei at 1510 hrs and reaches Chongqing at 2250 hrs. Flight number is 3U8979/80.
Sichuan Airlines is also approved by the Civil Aviation Administration of China to launch another service to Taiwan, which is from Chengdu to Taipei. The Chengdu-Taipei maiden flight is also taking off on the same day. It is scheduled to leave at 1430 hrs every Friday from Chengdu's Shuangliu Airport, arrive at Taipei Songshan Airport at 1800 hrs, then return at 1900 hrs and arrives at Chengdu at 2240 hrs. Flight number is 3U8977/8.
This comes as the 10,000-TEUs Cosco Indian Ocean docked for the first time at the HHLA Container Terminal Tollerort on her maiden voyage.
This 111,414-tons mega ship, owned by Cosco Container Lines, is the third of four identical ships built for Cosco at Hyundai's Ulsan shipyard in South Korea and has a draught of 14.5 metres.
Just 3,000 metres away from the Tollerort container terminal, a model of an ancient Chinese treasure ship has been on display at Hamburg's International Maritime Museum since mid-November 2008.
The metre-long model dates from the time of the Chinese explorer Zheng He (1371-1435), and was presented to the museum's founder, Peter Tamm, by Fujian province for permanent exhibition. Treasure ships were among the largest wooden ships ever built.
The junk's bow is ornamented with a dragon's head, and the sides of the ship are painted with eyes to ward off evil spirits. It was designed to demonstrate the power of the Ming emperor Zhu Di.
Container giants like the Cosco Indian Ocean are the modern equivalents of those ancient treasure ships - owing their appeal not so much to their lavish features as to the value of the goods that they carry between Asia and Hamburg.
Source: Shipping Gazette News (20 Dec 2008)
The maiden call was made by China Shipping's 8,500-TEUs New Africa, which is one of its newly-deployed ships. The vessel docked at SCT's new No 8 berth.
Over a third of the lines calling at SCT operate to Taiwan. Cross-strait direct shipping is expected to benefit SCT shippers by reducing sailing distance, transshipment time and costs.
Yang Ming Line, Taiwan's second-biggest container-shipping line, will operate the Kaohsiung terminals for 50 years under a build, operate and transfer lease from the government.
Friday, December 19, 2008
In too many cases mediators aim only for settlement of the issues, believing that this will be the best that is possible when in many instances the clients are almost begging for recognition of their humanity or even reconciliation of the relationship. I have come to believe in the power of honest, sincere apology, for I have seen it break down seemingly insurmountable barriers to settlement and even lead far beyond mere settlement to forgiveness and reconciliation. I readily admit that what I will write here is something above what most mediators are trained to do, and also above what happens in most mediations. That does not lower the bar, however, but rather shows us possibilities far greater than most of us believe.
I offer that the role of the mediator is to create a place where it is safe to apologize and that the mediator has the power to create that safety zone. This means requiring a written guarantee that the apology will not be used as a weapon against the apologizer. I require all participants to sign a very specific agreement that no one can disclose anything said or offered during the session without the prior written agreement of everyone, including the mediator, nor use what is said or learned as evidence. If anyone refuses to sign this agreement, I do not mediate. I as the mediator have the power to control how information is disclosed and I believe that exercising this particular power is one of the my stronger tools.
Mr. Kichaven states that “apologies are not that useful anyway”. His reason is that they are not believed, ergo, why bother? Apologies are often initially rebuffed, but we need to explore the rebuff for what it truly represents. So what if the plaintiff’s attorney says they do not believe the apology is sincere? One role of the advocate is to posture to get as much as possible for their client. The rebuff may be nothing more than a tactic to show how strongly they believe in their position and the “rightness” of their cause. It may be just an attempt to explore what tangibles may become attached to the apology. That is just Negotiations 101. I see this rebuff as just another opportunity to delve more deeply into interests rather than staying stuck in positions. The fact that they say “no” does not mean it is a permanent “no”.
About six years ago, I worked with two physicians who headed a very large medical practice that was in danger of disintegration. I will leave the identifying details out, but it became clear as we progressed that each had been deeply hurt by the actions of the other. That hurt translated into anger and fear, which led to escalating responses. In the safe place of mediation, they each became aware of how deeply their actions had hurt the other, and were horrified. Both were very moral, ethical people, but in the crush of conflict they had acted in hurtful, even frightening ways to each other. Once they began to understand the devastating impact of their actions, they both began to offer full apologies and actually fell weeping into each other’s arms. (They do not teach you how to deal with that one in mediator school, do they?) We eventually reached a written agreement that focused on communication practices for the future, and they left.
The problem may be that we each have a different concept of what constitutes a “full apology”, and we each have different needs that must be met before we can accept the apology and move on with our lives.
I went to South Africa last November as part of my doctoral research into forgiveness. It is one thing to read the transcripts of the victim and amnesty hearings of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but something altogether different to sit down with both victims and perpetrators and listen to their stories. I saw the scars on victims and the haunting pain in their eyes as they told their stories, but I also saw a deep peace in those who had found the way to forgiveness. Surprisingly, I saw the exact same feelings and emotional scars in a man granted amnesty for a murder and two bombings. I listened, I asked questions, and a pattern seemed to emerge. On returning home and burying myself in the empirical literature, I saw the patterns I first became aware of in South Africa replicated in various studies.
It seems that apology can be construed as not a single act but a continuum of acts on the part of the perpetrator. People respond differently based on their emotional makeup and the damage done. What is sufficient for one is insufficient for another.
The next level of apology integrates confession with expressions of remorse. Here the perpetrator acknowledges the act and the damage, and shows sincere regret through words and body language. The showing of remorse acknowledges that the act itself was wrong, damaging and painful, and the perpetrator regrets the act and the impact on the victim. This is the “I did it and I’m sorry” stage. Many more people will accept this apology than simple confession.
The third level of apology incorporates the first two and adds a repentance phase where the perpetrator states how this has affected him/her and changed him/her to lead a better life. This is the “I did it, I’m sorry, it will never happen again” stage. This stage must often be accompanied by visible, tangible proof of changed ways. Again, this form of apology is powerful enough to be accepted by a large number of people.
The strongest level of apology adds “justice” to the equation. In essence, here the perpetrator adds an open-ended offer of “what can I do to make this right?” This is where mediator creativity is paramount, for justice is a slippery issue. Justice for one is injustice for another. Here is where interests truly come to the fore. In one South African case, justice occurred when a black woman “adopted” the white murderer of her husband and son at his amnesty hearing before the TRC (think about the many implications of this before you react). The white police officer fainted on hearing her make this request.
Apology involves the acknowledgement of injury with an acceptance of responsibility, affect (felt regret or shame - the person must mean it), and vulnerability - the risking of an acknowledgement without excuses. It is repair work - work that is often necessary, but difficult.
Apology is a ritual exchange, where what is offered in exchange for the injury done is, in Tavuchis' phrase, "nothing, except a...speech expressing regret."
Aaron Lazare has best captured the ritual exchange of apology: "What makes an apology work is the exchange of shame and power between the offender and the offended."
Apology is central to mediation: mediation regularly involves disputes in which one party feels injured by the other. An apology is an act that is neither about problem-solving or negotiation. Rather, it is a form of ritual exchange where words are spoken that may enable closure. In the language of transformative mediation, apology represents an opportunity for acknowledgement that may transform relations. Most of us recognize its role in victim-offender mediation and community conferencing, but it can play an equally critical role in other forms of mediation, including employment and divorce mediation.
People can authentically apologize in mediation, but they often need help in getting past the defensiveness and fear of blame that preclude apology. Apology can not be imposed. It is a moment of opportunity. Parties often need preparation and help with the words. An apology involves such vulnerability that often the only way it is safe enough is with the mediator's assistance in putting the apology in words.
Apology involves an exchange of power and shame. Apology is a form of non-coercive power-balancing enacted by parties in which the powerful offer their vulnerability and through recognition, the injured/humiliated are empowered.
Apology can be a critical element in the settlement of lawsuits. Many of us have been in mediations in which there is a palpable desire for - sometimes an explicit insistence on -apology from plaintiffs. Many of us have witnessed the enormous cost of missed opportunities for apology. The pairing of the law and the adversarial system, however, makes for a matrix antithetical to apology. The preoccupation of American jurisprudence with defending individual rights and fears of admitting culpability can function to preclude apology with its naked unqualified acknowledgement of responsibility. As Lon Fuller has noted, adjudication involves rational ordering of a complaint according to principle whereas apology is not an appeal to reason. The adversary system breeds defensiveness; apology requires vulnerability.
It is possible to have a legal system more supportive of apology. The legal system in Japan functions quite differently and there apology plays a major role as a social restorative mechanism.
When attorneys are present in mediation it is generally far more difficult to hold open the space for apology, since attorneys are habituated to their role as "watchdog, guarding against their client's unwitting forfeiture of legal entitlements" (McEwan). This creates a wariness of apology which is a moment where a client relinquishes all justifications, excuses, and counter-claims and instead faces the other with moral transparency.
Apology and the adversarial system resemble David encountering Goliath: the one is loaded down with protective armor, the other comes seemingly defenseless. Many mediations are centrally about a damaged relationship. Trust has been broken. When offered with integrity and timing, an apology can be a critically important moment in mediation. An apology, when acknowledged, can restore trust. As Wagatsuma observes, "There are injuries that can only be repaired by an apology." The past is not erased, but the present is changed.
In divorce mediation an opportunity sometimes occurs for clients to acknowledge they have acted in ways that have created injury and they are sorry for the damage inflicted on their marriage and their spouse. The mediator can help people face damaged bonds and sort through what remains. With the marriage vow broken and trust betrayed, does anything remain? Is everything destroyed?
An apology is an opportunity to say, "Yes, there has been a terrible wound here, for which I am truly sorry. My intention is not to destroy you. I am ending a marriage, but I would like to close that door gently, not slam it shut."
Too often attorney settlement discussions are merely a short exchange after depositions, vaguely inquiring about whether the other party is ready to throw in the towel. And when more serious settlement discussions are held, they’re often attempts by one lawyer to see if the other lawyer is willing to modify their “best case scenario” position with obligating the inquiring lawyer to any corresponding concession. Mediation, on the other hand, requires both attorneys and their clients to jointly analyze their case, both strengths and weaknesses, and to prepare for defending and “selling” their position to a reluctant buyer and a somewhat skeptical mediator. Thus, mediation is necessarily more likely to succeed than prior negotiations were because the mediation process forces the parties to be more focused on, and prepared for, negotiation toward settlement.
Trial counsel are compensated in different ways, and settlement doesn’t always net them the maximum fee. Moreover, in most cases, as a party prepares for the actual trial, additional expenses such as expert witnesses, etc., are incurred and passed on to the client. And even if a party’s counsel prevails, they can’t guarantee that there will not be an appeal. A mediator has no interest in having a case drag on. On the contrary, a mediator’s reputation for resolving cases, on which his or her practice depends, turns on getting the case before them resolved quickly. Thus, no matter how able one’s trial counsel, it’s often preferable to have a professional mediator to help settle the case. Attorneys have a somewhat different orientation.
Setting aside economic disincentives, it is hard for a lawyer to get into settlement mode as they are getting ready for trial. The opponent must believe that they are ready, willing and able to go to trial. There is often a fear that counsel’s settlement proposals will be erroneously viewed as evidence of a reluctant to go to trial. There is also a concern about saying anything that might be suggestive of weakness or lack of commitment to the client.
In most cases mediation allows parties to be in the same venue but in different rooms for difficult parts of the negotiations. This procedure allows parties to pause before responding, and it encourages each party to compose their thoughts before communicating their positions to the other side. All parties can evaluate opposing parties and their counsel. Parties can ask questions. Parties can present hypothetical solutions without commitment. Parties can normally negotiate face to face, if desired. Parties can obtain impartial feedback from the mediator. Parties can take their time in considering all viable options in a neutral and comfortable setting. The entire process assumes that, with professional assistance, reasonable and knowledgeable participants can jointly arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution of their competing interests.
The ultimate decision maker for each side is almost always at the mediation. This is a vital advantage that is often lacking during regular negotiations. This is especially the case with insurance, corporate and municipal parties. Legal counsel can, and must, deal with their clients on a real-time basis. This prevents the negotiation momentum from breaking down due to having to check with someone or something not present.
Everyone understands that what happens in mediation is totally confidential and will not be discoverable or admissible in a case at a later point. This gives all participants the freedom to explore all possible forms of settlements and even allows them the safety of conceding weaknesses in their case. Parties will not normally share truly sensitive or confidential information nor offer an apology unless they are confident that this will be protected. Mediation is a bit like selecting a pope; the process is subsumed in the result.
Mediators understand the cognitive, affective, equitable and legal aspects of getting parties to “yes”. A good mediator can use their status as a neutral newcomer to the case to carefully investigate with each side the facts, interests and emotions needed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. A mediator generally will know from experience what will work and what will not. A good mediator serves as a patient negotiation coach who can keep the parties engaged in the negotiation beyond the point at which the parties become discouraged and are ready to give up.
Good attorneys normally know when their clients are being objectively unfair or unrealistic but confronting their client about this is a serious challenge. Mediators can do reality testing with the client without denigrating the legal ability of their legal counsel. Mediators point out to clients that approximately 95% of all civil cases are settled without a trial. They also remind clients that recent statistical studies demonstrate, at least in California, that in only 15% of the civil cases that went to trial did both parties improve their net position over pre-trial offer/demand. Plaintiffs were disappointed in a much higher rate than defendants were. Good mediators can often cause a party to base their evaluation on reality rather than on wishful thinking.
Taleb (2007), in his sceptical book on probability theory, ‘The Black Swan’, provides an important view on the kind of data that individuals work with (and how they perceive it) in forecasting or planning. Negotiators, like economists and others, also use available information, expected information and simply guesswork to plan and strategise the outcome of future events.
Taleb (2007, 35) distinguish between two types of data; mediocre and extreme. He makes the analogy that we can often plan the outcome of mediocre variables with an acceptable degree of probability. We can, for example, predict with a fair degree of accuracy, a somewhat linear relationship between rise in annual sales and profitability; or at least draw some sort of bell curve that will indicate the relationship between increased sales and increased capital expenditure.
We could, perhaps, predict, with a moderate degree of probability, the influence of price versus quality in a negotiation between a supplier and a company buyer. We cannot, unfortunately, according to Taleb (2007, 35) predict ‘extreme’ variables (such as exchange rates six months from now) in the same way. We have almost no ability in predicting the influence of some occurrences (plant breakdowns, management changes, staff illness, negotiator emotions, etc) that are ‘black swans’ (extreme cases).
Extreme issues could also be what was traditionally regarded as ‘plannable’ or ‘rational’ such as ‘financial sense’, price, penalty clauses, quality, delivery time, projected sales, payment terms, management changes; in fact, extreme issues could be almost anything depending on the kind of deal that is being negotiated.
How, for example, could any negotiator, politician, historian or economist have predicted the 2008 market crash and financial crises that followed it? This unpredictability possibly has changed many a good deal into a bad one during the past six months.
We do not seem to be good at all in predicting. Especially if we use past data and ‘mediocre statistics’ to predict extreme occurrences (and negotiating could heed extreme behaviours).
For example, who would have predicted in January 2008 that negotiating a merger with a mortgage bank could turn bad, yes, very bad in October 2008. No planning, as is often recommended in books on negotiation and mediation, would have helped negotiators in the past year in any way.
A Planning Method for the Unexpected
With the above notion in mind, Spoelstra (2008) conducted a series of practical ‘experiments’; asking one group of negotiators in training sessions to make use of one method of planning: The method can be called . ‘traditional’ . as it is based on the ‘older’ or ‘traditional method of identifying, weighing and prioritising issues (Lewicki and Litterer, 1985, 60, Bazerman and Neale, 1992, 17). Secondly, he asked another group to plan according to what he calls the ‘Black Swan’ method (due to a lack of a better description).
The ‘Black Swan’ method involves that negotiators, during preparation, list issues and then divide them in ‘mediocre’ (the known) and ‘extreme’ (the deal breakers or the known unknown). Mediocre issues (those they can predict) would in some cases represent 90% of issues. Extreme issues would, in rare case be as many as 20% of the issues.
After negotiators have divided their issues into extreme and mediocre, Spoelstra made them plan to do ‘horse-trading’ of ‘mediocre’ issues, based on reciprocity. He further tried to commit negotiators never to turn mediocre issues into major conflict and to exercise extreme flexibility (because they were mediocre anyway).
On the other hand he demanded from negotiators to develop as many creative alternatives, ‘hedging systems’ and ‘different approaches’ to extreme variables.
The consequences of this approach was that negotiators were seldom drawn into conflict about non-essential issues and focused on those issues that really matter, resulting in significant more resolutions.
The results of this ‘narrative’ experiment’ seem to head significant better results than the ‘traditional’ approach of ranking and prioritising issues and by using the reasoning of Taleb.
Lewicki, R J, and Litterer, J A; 1985; Negotiation; Richard D Irwin, Inc, Illinois.
Spoelstra, H I J; 2008, The Effect of Different Methods of Preparation in Negotiation Outcomes; Unpublished Report, International Negotiation Academy, South Africa.
Taleb, N N; 2007; The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable; Penguin; London.
Source: Prof Manie Spoelstra, who has published numerous articles and books on negotiation, general management, strategy formulation and participative management, and has often consulted to many leading companies on these topics. By regularly attending advanced seminars at institutions such as the Harvard Center for Management Research in Boston and the Stanford Business School in San Francisco, and by continuing to teach negotiation at the Witwatersrand Business School and the Rand Afrikaans University, he has maintained his intellectual prowess and has ensured that the courses the International Negotiation Academy offer are consistently of the highest international standard.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
The new amendments to the Code are mandatory as from 1 January 2010 but may be applied by Administrations voluntarily from 1 January 2009.
The many detailed changes introduced by Amendment 34-08 include:
- There are also 5 UN numbers which were previously not listed in the IMDG Code because they were not regulated under it;
- Appropriate training for shore-side staff involved with dangerous goods is now mandatory instead of just recommended, and may be audited by the competent authority. Persons not yet trained may only operate under the direct supervision of a trained person; and
Product code: IG200F, ISBN: 978-92-801-2406-4
A resolution adopted by the 1960 Conference said the proposed code should cover such matters as packing, container traffic and stowage, with particular reference to the segregation of incompatible substances.
A working group of IMO's Maritime Safety Committee began preparing the Code in 1961, in close co‑operation with the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, which in a 1956 report had established minimum requirements for the transport of dangerous goods by all modes of transport.
Since its adoption by the fourth IMO Assembly in 1965, the IMDG Code has undergone many changes, both in appearance and content to keep pace with the ever‑changing needs of industry. Amendments which do not affect the principles upon which the Code is based may be adopted by the MSC, allowing IMO to respond to transport developments in reasonable time.
Amendments to the IMDG Code originate from two sources; proposals submitted directly to IMO by Member States and amendments required to take account of changes to the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods which sets the basic requirements for all the transport modes.
Amendments to the provisions of the United Nations Recommendations are made on a two‑yearly cycle and approximately two years after their adoption, they are adopted by the authorities responsible for regulating the various transport modes. In that way a basic set of requirements applicable to all modes of transport is established and implemented, thus ensuring that difficulties are not encountered at inter‑modal interfaces.
In accordance with the criteria for the selection of marine pollutants for the purposes of Annex III of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78), a number of dangerous substances in the various classes have also been identified as substances harmful to the marine environment (MARINE POLLUTANTS).
Class 3: Flammable liquids
Class 4.1: flammable solids, self-reactive substances and desensitized explosives
Class 4.2: substances liable to spontaneous combustion
Class 4.3: substances which, in contact with water, emit flammable gases
Class 5.1: oxidizing substances
Class 5.2: organic peroxides
Class 6.1: toxic substances
Class 6.2: infectious substances
Also available is the IMDG Code Supplement, containing several related texts including a new revised EMS Guide, and the mandatory INF Code.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Conflict, probably the dispute, prevention and management, or rather its transformations are deemed as core issues in development planning and management works, simply because development projects are, under normal circumstances, not only affected by conflicts or disputes, but also run at the risk of aggravating conflicts that already exist or even of triggering off new conflict dynamics.
The evolution of conflict prevention and management (CPM) as a practice shall depend on the necessary resources being committed to the relevant initiatives in the future. CPM faces serious problems in this respect because it is extremely difficult to evaluate whether conflict prevention initiatives have been responsible for a conflict not having happened?
It, ideally, includes Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), a combined theoretical and practical approach for arbitration, mediation & adjudication, as widely promoted by the relevant professional bodies, such as "Institut Penimbangtara Malaysia" or Malaysian Institute of Arbitrators (MIArb).
Being a professional logistician, having involved in international trade and logistics management regardless of sea, air, rail and land modes, I’m always of the great interest of CPM and ADR.
I think it's ideal to have a forum that involves representatives from various cultural and educational backgrounds, combines a theoretical and policy outlook with a strong focus on the development of new methods for CPM and ADR as well as confidence building. Specifically, the aim is to identify methods, models and strategies for the necessary improvement. This shall be achieved by the sharing of ideas and experience between leading academics, politicians, practitioners, policy makers and leaders abroad.
I'm pleased greatly that I have successfully been admitted as an Associate of the Malaysian Institute of Arbitrators, which entitles the letters "AMIArb". I'm, with inspiring hopes, looking forward to serve, rightfully settle, to my best of knowledge and belief, any Logistics and Transportation related dispute(s) and/ or conflict(s) in the international trade.