How Will the Singapore Convention Revolutionize the Mediation System?
By Andra Curutiu
On 7 August 2019 a new era commenced in mediation, as Singapore hosted the signing ceremony for the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements resulting from Mediation (hereinafter the “Singapore Convention”). The multilateral treaty was drafted with the scope of facilitating international trade by promoting and recognizing the use of mediation as a cost-efficient method of resolving international commercial disputes.[1] To this aim, it establishes the first regime for the enforcement of mediation settlement agreements in international commercial disputes.
The benefits of the Singapore Convention are numerous. First, it reassures mediation participants that any agreement they reach is enforceable.[2] Even though the enforcement of mediation agreements was not in itself problematic in practice, the Singapore Convention reassures mediation participants their agreements are enforceable, thus legitimizing and promoting the use of mediation.
Second, it eases the process of enforcement for mediation agreements. Prior to the Singapore Convention, the only cross-border framework for enforcement of mediation agreements was the EU Mediation Directive. However, the instrument does not envisage enforceability, but rather enforcement by a public authority, commonly notaries or judges. Outside the EU-member states, enforcement of mediation agreements was done as a contract. [3]
Third, the obligation to recognize and enforce[4] mediation agreements is independent of the ´reciprocity between States´ criteria. Under the regime set out by the Singapore Convention, contracting states are obliged to recognize and enforce settlement agreements regardless of their their ´place of origin´ i.e. the obligation is not limited to agreements that emanate from another member state in some respect, such as the location of the mediation or where the agreement was signed.[5] For example, even if the Netherlands does not ratify the Singapore Convention, international settlement agreements resulting from Dutch mediation proceedings are enforceable in any State that has ratified it. This is a key element that distinguishes the Singapore Convention from any other existing multilateral enforcement mechanism regime[6]. As long as the settlement has a cross-border element[7] and it was rendered pursuing mediation, it qualifies for enforcement.
Up to the present day, 52 countries have signed the Singapore Convention. [1] Notably, not one EU-Member State (including the United Kingdom) is part of these countries. This is seemingly awkward considering the importance of the EU and its Member States in the field of international trade. However, it is still unclear whether the competence to sign rests within the European Union as a regional economic
[1]https://www.penningtonslaw.com/news-publications/latest-news/2020/the-singapore-convention-on-mediation-could-2020-be-the-year-of-the-ratification
[2]https://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2020/09/international-mediation-update-the-singapore-convention-in-force-on-12-september-2020
[3] https://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/the-singapore-mediation-convention-a-promising-start-an-uncertain-future
[4] The obligation to enforce is to be understood as either to enforce the agreement or allow it to be invoked as a defence to a claim. (Article 3)
[5] http://disputeresolutionblog.practicallaw.com/the-new-singapore-convention-some-practical-issues-to-consider-now/
[6] For example, New York Convention, the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005 and the Brussels regime
[7] For a more detailed explanation of this requirement, see Article 1.
Perhaps you could also add that it entered into force on 12 September 2020, with Singapore, Fiji, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Belarus and Ecuador having deposited their respective instruments of ratification or approval.