Recently, I was asked if animals have any rights during mediation.

Because the laws are slowly changing, I can share one example where the disputants were able to consider the rights of the animal(s) in question.

A young couple who had no children decided they wanted to separate. They consulted with an attorney who recommended they first meet with a mediator to decide on the division of assets and liabilities. Their assets were modest and their liabilities exceeded their liquid assets, which required they agree on the details of selling their home.

The next few months were difficult for the couple. The wife was on a fast track for advancement at her job and felt her husband was holding her back socially and emotionally. The husband, who held strong moral beliefs, was convinced his wife was having affairs with colleagues.

After working through this negative period, they agreed to a separation. Although the dividing of assets and liabilities was addressed, the issue of their two dogs remained.

It was easy to decide each would get one dog since the pets were part of their lives and been a source of comfort during their last few stressful months.  But then, the husband asked if it was fair to the dogs to separate them as the two had grown up together.

 Just as separating parents with children face issues of custody and visitation, separating couples with animals face similar issues. Both shared their view that the dogs had rights, including to continue their relationship with each other. The couple discussed sharing custody of both dogs exchanging residences weekly. Ultimately, they agreed each would have custody of one of the dogs, but they would arrange their schedules so the pets could run and play with one another at least three times a week. They further agreed if either of them became unable to continue ownership, their dog would be reunited with the other.

 While U.S. law may not yet fully recognize the rights of animals, people in disputes can individually best deal with how pets should be treated through mediation as this separating couple did.

It is a mistake to assume everyone in the United States identifies with a single culture. Even though collectively we share many values and behaviors, there are several cultures within the country that may retain some unique ones of their own.

Regardless, might there be a dominant negotiation style shared by most Americans? The United States Institute of Peace convened thirty U.S. and foreign diplomats, policymakers, and scholars to identify key elements in the U.S. approach to international negotiation. The participants concluded that people from other cultures see American negotiators as sharing multiple characteristics.

They concluded that U.S. negotiators are perceived as blunt and legalistic, drawing on a diverse vocabulary from fields, such as labor relations, Christian theology, and Sports. U.S. negotiators appear to ignore body language and are uncomfortable with silence.

The report continues to explain how U.S. negotiators press for quick agreements by using facts and supportive arguments, linking pertinent issues, and comparing benefits of resolution to costs of the alternative. In summary, U.S. negotiators are perceived to exhibit a distinctive style—forceful, explicit, legalistic, urgent, and results-oriented.

Of course, there are fewer problems when both negotiators or participants in mediation share values and behaviors compared to when they don’t due to the difference in cultural backgrounds. And that problem usually leads to the simple question, “whose script do we follow?”

There are examples of international negotiations where U.S. participants became frustrated with their counterparts who didn’t “follow the U.S. negotiation script,” but instead, held positions that aligned with their culture’s beliefs and views.

The hope is to find common ground so conflicts can be resolved with compromises acceptable to each party who might have cultural differences, but a shared desire to coexist peacefully.