From Conventions to Protocols: Conceptualizing Changes to the International Dispute Resolution Landscape

Abstract

Abstract The recently-concluded Singapore Mediation Convention and Hague Judgements Convention have aimed to facilitate the cross-border enforcement of mediated settlement agreements and court judgements in the same way that the New York Convention has facilitated the cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards. This shift in the international dispute resolution landscape is analysed on three levels: normative, strategic and operational. Drawing from theories of private international law, international political economy and comparative public policy, this article asserts that convergent public and private interests likely championed the elaboration of international conventions as a means of promoting harmonization in international dispute settlement. It demonstrates that while the conversion of court judgements and mediated settlement agreements into arbitral awards could also have facilitated their cross-border enforcement, the further development of new mechanisms that respond directly to commercial parties’ needs remains necessary to complement the evolving treaty framework.