The Singapore convention on mediation to reinforce the status of international mediated settlement agreement: Breakthrough or redundancy?

Abstract

AbstractMediation is a type of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in which an impartial third party facilitates a voluntary negotiation. It is sometimes more desirable than traditional litigation or arbitration because of its timeliness, affordability, and tendency to preserve the disputant's relationship. Despite these advantages, global commercial mediation has traditionally suffered from one significant flaw: the difficulty for international mediated settlement agreements (iMSAs) to be enforced. The UN Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (the Singapore Convention on Mediation or SCM) aims to address this issue by establishing a process that makes iMSAs ipso facto enforceable. While this is a desirable and long‐awaited development for mediation, this article will argue that the convention will not disrupt the present ADR market, but it may potentially compete with hybrid ADR—like the Arb‐Med‐Arb, at least until the SCM obtains wider recognition. The SCM should also have addressed the enforceability of both iMSAs and agreements to mediate, rather than just that of merely the former.