header-logo header-logo

25 November 2020 / Bryan Clark , Tania Sourdin
Issue: 7912 / Categories: Features , Profession , ADR , Mediation , International justice
printer mail-detail

Minority report? The Singapore Convention

32832
The Singapore Convention on Mediation: Bryan Clark & Tania Sourdin present a minority view
  • How the Singapore Convention works.
  • The need for the Singapore Convention.
  • Unintended negative consequences?
  • How best to help expedite and promote international commercial mediation?

The coming into force of the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (the Singapore Convention) on 20 September 2020 has been heralded far and wide. Commentators have lined up to extol the virtues of this new international instrument hailing it a game changer for international commercial mediation. Certainly, at present, international commercial mediation activity lags behind its use within many domestic jurisdictions. While there may be a range of reasons for this, it has been argued previously that the lack of a uniform enforcement mechanism for international mediated settlement agreements (IMSAs) akin to that which applies to arbitral awards under the New York Convention has stifled demand from would-be users. The Singapore Convention seeks to directly address these concerns. In this article, however,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll