Three Parties Rule

Three Parties Rule states that a situation where there are two parties with conflicting interests should be resolved by including a neutral third party to assess the claims/accusations made. Finding a trusted mediator that will not get errored, possibly by false information, is difficult though.

The single relationship that gets "stuck" between A and B can be "unstuck" only if C shares enough of their common bias (e.g. culture or values) to gain their trust and respect, but not so much with either that they are seen as "biased" relative to the dispute at hand. Finding undisputed facts (not "undisputable" or "certain" just "not currently disputed") to agree on helps. Some standard of evidence should apply to make this simpler. If this is part of formal legal systems we call C a "judge" as opposed to a mediator.

Even if not, there are now three relationships where formerly there was one. A further extension to force A and B to use "mediators" to approach the "judge" ("officers of the court" or "lawyers") means the A=B relationship is broken and the new parties, the lawyers, replace them with a new D=E relationship, while each has a relationship C=D and C=E with the judge. Meanwhile the A=D and B=E relationships form, with 'client confidentiality' to ensure they trust them and thus do not feel like they have to enter the debate directly themselves. So the A=D=C relationship and B=E=C relationship is supposed to be good enough even for the to parties to trust their bodies to it! This is what we call law.

...

See also: