It is generally held that neutrality is a fundamental duty for mediators to uphold when assisting parties in conflict. For example, many courts and mediation associations have established ethical guidelines on neutrality (*)(***)(****). Beyond such considerations, neutrality creates the space for meaningful opportunities in and outside mediation and other related practices of dispute resolution. The following writing seeks to substantiate this notion. Additionally, relevant outlooks and challenges are examined in detail. Exploring and discussing neutrality in this way offers value to dispute resolution as well as other domains of personal and interpersonal experience.

A handful of years ago, I wrote on some of the benefits and challenges associated with maintaining neutrality and its closely related counterpart impartiality in dispute resolution also referred to as “conflict resolution” (**). In that short article, the following definitions were given — “impartiality is often noted as the guiding principle of facilitating conflict resolution processes without maintaining specific preference, favor, or bias”, and, “neutrality refers to making sure that the relationships are on equal ground” (**). However, it should be pointed out that neutrality and impartiality are often used interchangeably in the realm of dispute resolution — the use of neutrality here shall refer to both terms and definitions in general.