This paper analyzes the efficacy of the clause for contractual conflict resolution provided in state procurement contracts funded with World Bank resources –exception to the application of the General Statute for State Procurement- considering that the contracting rules applied by said body provide that a contractual conflict must be resolved by a conciliator (2008 version of the World Bank rules) or by a mediator (2013 version) who must “make a decision” to resolve the controversy, which will be binding upon the parties. The paper discusses the role of the “conciliator” or “mediator” according to the powers attributed to them by the World Bank rules and the differences regarding the legal concept provided by domestic law, whereby the conciliator or mediator does not make decisions, and therefore how to make use of these roles is not clear. This challenge leads us to consider two alternatives of how to apply the clause in order for it to be effective: first, consider mediation as an autonomous figure regulated in the agreement by authorization of our State Procurement Statute and the Conventions signed with international bodies, thus acknowledging the generation of effects indicated by the World Bank for the mediator; second and in order for the clause to have a useful effect, consider mediation as a concept analogous to amicable composition, and process the conflict resolution under such concept.
