header-logo header-logo

Singapore mediation treaty puts cross-border enforcement on the table

31 July 2019
Issue: 7851 / Categories: Legal News , Mediation , ADR
printer mail-detail
Ministers and senior officials from more than 50 countries will gather in Singapore next week to support a new international treaty on mediation.

The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, also known as the Singapore Convention on Mediation, will provide for the cross-border enforcement of mediated settlement agreements. Intended signatories include the USA and China. However, EU member states will not be included, as the EU has not yet determined whether it can sign as one entity or whether all 28 members must sign individually.

According to the Singapore Ministry of Law, ‘mediation is rising in popularity as a means to resolve cross-border commercial disputes.

‘However, its growth has been hindered by a long-standing obstacle―the difficulty that a party faces in ensuring that the other party complies with their mediated settlement.’ This is because a mediation agreement is only binding contractually rather than being directly enforceable by the courts.

The ministry said: ‘The Convention therefore addresses the lack of an effective means to enforce cross-border commercial mediated settlement agreements.

‘Businesses can have greater assurance that mediation can be relied on to settle cross-border commercial disputes, because mediated settlement agreements can be enforced more readily by the courts of contracting parties to the Convention and may also be invoked by a party as a defence against a claim. This will facilitate the growth of international commerce and promote the use of mediation around the world.’

More than 1,500 lawyers are expected to attend the signing ceremony on 7 August and the week-long Singapore Convention conference, which will include sessions on dispute resolution, mediation, negotiation and infrastructure development.

Singapore is a major player in global dispute resolution, benefits from considerable government investment, and boasts an International Arbitration Centre and the Singapore International Commercial Court. 

For more information, see CEDR Managing Director James South's article for NLJ, 'Working better together'.

Issue: 7851 / Categories: Legal News , Mediation , ADR
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll