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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll