Will the release of the Singapore Convention on Mediation make a difference in the field of alternative dispute resolutions?

Abstract

The increased interest in ADR from the international business community can be interpreted as a reaction to litigation's negative aspects, such as the length and cost of legal proceedings. Arbitration has largely replaced litigation as the primary method of resolving international disputes in corporations. Doubts have been expressed about the Convention's actual effectiveness and efficiency in enforcing foreign arbitral agreements and awards, including the necessity of revising the NY Convention. For instance, article V, which indicates the exemption from enforcing the arbitral award. Nevertheless, the NYC has succeeded in establishing a uniform and straightforward framework for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards despite some flaws. Mediation is said to have a high settlement rate and occurs much faster than other options, saving the parties money and time. The satisfaction of the user is high since parties manage and tailor their own solutions in a confidential and non-confrontational atmosphere to preserve relationships.

In spite of that, UNCITRAL was given evidence showing that internationally recognized mediated settlements are seen as much harder to implement than they are in the domestic context, which has the ability to limit their application in cross-border issues. Many businesses find it difficult to convince their partners in some jurisdictions to take part in mediation. They claim that it lacks the international recognition conferred on Arbitration by the 1958 New York Convention.

UNCITRAL adopted a Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation in 2002. UNCITRAL had suggested that one possibility would be the establishment of a system in which settlement agreements signed by parties would be "as binding and enforceable as an arbitral award." This option was ultimately rejected, leaving enforcement to the enacting State's law. As a result, it's unsurprising that many jurisdictions have enacted legislation to circumvent the uncertain litigation process associated with enforcing an MSA. Numerous enforcement mechanisms have been developed, such as enforcing MSAs as court orders or arbitral awards.

Late in 2018, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Singapore Convention and amended the MCL to reflect the Convention after years of work by UNCITRAL to develop a multilateral instrument for the enforcement of mediated settlement agreements across borders.

If the parties choose mediation, they can design a process that suits them best. Another distinguishing characteristic of the mediation process is its confidentiality allowing parties to negotiate freely without fear of their statements being interpreted as evidence for or against them. In addition, mediation is frequently less expensive and faster than arbitration and may also better preserve the parties' relationship. However, we saw how the international community cooperates to establish new conventions that improve the implementation of IMSA. In the future, we might see an amendment to the NYC convention to resolve the defects surrounding it or establish a new one.

This research has indicated how the Singapore Convention establishes a framework for enforcing settlement agreements as it is, without the need for them to be notarised, recognised in court, and or formalised. Furthermore, the research indicates the grounds for refusing the relief of the MSA, which has been summaries in four categories first which indicate a ground about capacity related to one of the parties to MSA. Second grounds related to the MSA itself indicated one of the defects such as inoperative or incapable of being performed. Third, a ground for denial related to mediator misconduct. Lastly, a ground for refusal related to the State's public policy where the relief was sought or their mandatory rules.

After the Singapore Convention, some ma