header-logo header-logo

31 July 2019
Issue: 7851 / Categories: Legal News , Mediation , ADR
printer mail-detail

Singapore mediation treaty puts cross-border enforcement on the table

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

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll