The natural question is: why was it necessary to develop these procedures? The answer lies in the diversity of the debates and in the self-regulating and self-generating mechanisms of trade.

Economic conflicts can arise for a variety of reasons, and in the economic and legal literature there are numerous classifications and clusters of conflicts, according to which a conflict can be informational - when information is incomplete or misleading between the parties, or is interpreted differently. Relationship-based conflicts arise due to strong emotions, misperceptions, causing communication breakdown in business. Structure-based, when triggered by unequal distribution of resources, unequal power relations, interest-based, when actors judge ideas and behaviour according to different criteria. And when interests actually or apparently conflict, we can speak of interest-based conflict.

Dealing with conflicts on different grounds requires different approaches and therefore different methods. The diversification of dispute settlement mechanisms can therefore be seen as a natural process, whereby the changing environment calls for new tools and procedures as a consequence of quantitative and qualitative changes in international trade relations. Modern 'hybrid' formations depart from the classical models of alternative dispute resolution and create new mechanisms by combining and transforming them. A modern, „hibrid” formációk eltérnek az alternatív vitarendezés klasszikus modelljeitől és ezek ötvözésével, átformálásával új mechanizmusokat hoznak létre.

In the following, I will outline these innovative procedural methods in a way that makes clear their difference from arbitration and traditional mediation.

Med-Arb

Med-arb is a special combination of mediation and arbitration. In one type of mediation, the parties agree in advance that a neutral third party will act as mediator in a specific dispute or, more generally, in all disputes between them - and then, at the end of the mediation process (if necessary), as arbitrator. If the parties agree during the mediation process, a binding settlement may be reached, but a "conversion" of the settlement into an arbitral award may be requested by mutual agreement. If the parties cannot reach an agreement during mediation, the mediator will act as an arbitrator, hearing and closing any unresolved disputes. The award at the end of the procedure may or may not be binding, depending on the prior agreement of the parties.

The med-arb procedure has been criticised mainly because the two procedures are carried out by the same person. Obviously, it is not always in the interest of the parties that the information that comes to light during the mediation process should be known to the arbitrator and thus influence the decision. In order to overcome this disadvantage of the med-arb procedure, it may be possible to have a different mediator from the arbitrator - which may of course increase the duration and cost of the procedure.

Several variations of the med-arb have been created over the years.

Non-Binding Med-Arb non-binding med-arb. A less frequently used procedure, with the clear disadvantage that it offers no guarantee that the dispute will be resolved.

 Med-Arb Show Causethe arbitration award is provisional, and is intended to make it clear to the parties why the settlement cannot be reached.

Medaloa (Mediation and Last-Offer Arbitration) an intermediate procedure, a combination of mediation and last-offer arbitration, in which the arbitrator does not make an independent award at the end of the procedure, but has to choose from the so-called last offers of the parties.

Arb-Med

The opposite of the Med-Arb procedure: the arbitrator's preliminary award is secret until the mediation process is completed. If the mediation process ends with an agreement between the parties, the award is not disclosed. If the mediation is unsuccessful, the arbitrator-mediator shall notify the parties of the award, which shall be binding.

Az The Arb-Med procedure has been used to resolve disputes between car and steel companies in South Africa and police and fire departments in the United States. It has been proposed that the Arb-Med procedure be made mandatory in disputes involving the US airline industry.

Minitrial

In a so-called minitrial (which could best be described as a simplified or abbreviated procedure without a judge), the parties present their positions briefly to the other party and/or his representative, who would have the authority to conclude the dispute, according to a set structure. The briefs contain the legal basis and the main aspects of the parties' positions. In general terms, the procedure follows a more flexible set of rules than in a court proceeding and the parties usually agree in advance on a timeframe for their presentations and the debate.

There are two sub-types of mini-trial: executive mini-trial (with an administrative or managerial label) and judicial mini-trial (with a judicial label).

Executive Mini-trial: this type of procedure can be considered as a trial: it differs in that it is conducted in a structured setting, mainly by senior executives of the parties involved in the case. They present their positions and the legal arguments in support of them within a predetermined timeframe, as described above. There is also the possibility to involve an independent third party, whose role is essentially to maintain the framework of the procedure and, if required, to provide an independent opinion - but not to resolve the dispute. This independent party may also act as a mediator if the parties so wish. Such a procedure also provides flexibility and predictability due to the timeframe involved. A further - not incidental - advantage of the procedure is that it ensures that the decision-makers of the parties involved in the case are as fully informed as possible about the dispute in question, so that all relevant aspects are considered when reaching a decision.

Judicial Mini-trial: a Judicial mini-trial is a time-limited procedure in which the parties involve legal representatives in the dispute resolution process. The arbitrator appointed by the parties, after presenting the case, will propose a (non-binding) solution to resolve preliminary issues, which will be discussed by the parties with the assistance of the legal representatives. If the parties fail to reach an agreement, the case may proceed as a normal arbitration. This type of procedure is preferable where the parties are unable or unwilling to resolve the full spectrum of the dispute through negotiation because of a preliminary issue - as the parties often believe that they have the only correct answer to the preliminary issue. Judicial mini-trial can break the deadlock by resolving the preliminary issue.

Contract Review Board

CRB (Contract Review Board) is a method often used for costly investment projects. Its main aim is to resolve the dispute without stopping the project. The board proposes solutions to issues where the parties have been unable to reach agreement, taking into account the project specifications. Its opinion and proposed solutions may, if necessary, be used in subsequent arbitration or court proceedings.

Independent Expert

The contracting parties shall appoint an expert who - or which - shall be responsible for resolving any disputes arising during the term of the contract. The use of an independent expert is the most obvious method when technical rather than legal problems arise. It is often the expert's opinion that provides the initial impetus for legal proceedings.