The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation – commonly known as the Singapore Convention on Mediation – entered into force in 2020 and provides, for the first time, a treaty-based mechanism for enforcing international mediated settlement agreements across borders. It addresses a longstanding asymmetry in dispute resolution: arbitral awards have benefited from the New York Convention's enforcement framework since 1958, while mediated settlements remained contractual instruments enforceable only through ordinary contract law in each jurisdiction. The Convention's practical reach, however, depends entirely on which states have ratified it and how faithfully each has implemented its obligations – and on both counts, significant gaps remain.
Why Enforcement of Mediated Settlements Has Always Been Difficult
Before the Singapore Convention, a party holding a mediated settlement agreement faced a fundamental procedural problem in cross-border disputes. The agreement was a contract. Enforcing it required commencing fresh litigation in every jurisdiction where assets or counterparties were located, proving formation, interpreting governing law, and overcoming any defences the other side chose to raise. In practice, this eroded much of the commercial value of having settled at all.
Arbitration offered a cleaner path: an arbitral award, once rendered, could be taken to courts in over 170 jurisdictions and enforced under the New York Convention with a relatively confined set of refusal grounds. Litigation produced domestic judgments enforceable where bilateral or multilateral recognition treaties applied. Mediation sat in neither camp. That asymmetry shaped incentives at the table: sophisticated counterparties sometimes treated a mediated settlement as a slower form of continued litigation rather than a genuine resolution.
The Singapore Convention was designed to close this gap. It obliges contracting states to enforce qualifying settlement agreements directly, without requiring the settling party to re-litigate the underlying merits, subject to a defined list of grounds for refusal.
The Core Legal Framework
The Convention applies to written settlement agreements that resolve a commercial dispute, were reached with the assistance of a mediator, and are international in character – meaning, broadly, that the parties have their places of business in different states or the settlement has cross-border commercial effects. Consumer, employment, family and insolvency matters are excluded.
A party seeking enforcement applies to a competent authority in the relevant contracting state and provides the signed settlement agreement together with evidence that it resulted from mediation. The authority must grant relief unless one of the Convention's grounds for refusal applies. Those grounds are deliberately narrow and modelled on the New York Convention's approach:
- A party to the agreement lacked capacity.
- The agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed under the applicable law.
- The agreement was obtained through fraud, corruption, or undue influence, or as a result of the mediator's breach of applicable standards.
- Granting relief would be contrary to public policy in the enforcing state.
- The subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement under the law of the enforcing state.
The procedural mechanics – which court or authority receives the application, what documentary formalities apply, and how quickly it must act – are left to national implementing legislation. This is both a pragmatic concession to sovereign diversity and a source of real uncertainty for practitioners.
Where the Convention Applies: Current State of Ratification
The Convention opened for signature in Singapore in August 2019. By 2026, the number of contracting parties had grown as new states joined, consolidating its position as a meaningful multilateral instrument rather than a symbolic text. Signatories include major economies in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas.
Two absences are commercially significant. The European Union has not ratified the Convention. The EU's internal deliberations have involved questions about competence – whether ratification falls to member states individually or to the Union as a whole – and concerns about interaction with existing EU civil procedure rules. Until this is resolved, parties with assets or counterparties in EU member states cannot rely on the Convention directly for enforcement there, and must revert to contract law or seek to have the settlement incorporated into a court judgment or consent award where possible.
The United Kingdom signed the Convention in 2023 and subsequently opened a consultation on ratification. Ratification had not been completed as of the date of this analysis, meaning that for disputes involving UK-seated parties or UK-held assets, practitioners must continue to treat mediated settlements as contractual instruments and advise accordingly.
This patchwork creates a paradox: the Convention is most relevant precisely in disputes that span multiple jurisdictions, yet its enforceability depends on which of those jurisdictions happen to be contracting states. A settlement agreement struck between an Asian exporter and a European importer may be directly enforceable in the exporter's state but reducible only to an ordinary contract claim in the importer's.
If you are assessing whether a mediated resolution is the right strategy for a dispute with cross-border dimensions, our team can analyse the enforcement landscape across the relevant jurisdictions. Please contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page.
Interpretation Gaps and Open Questions
Even within ratifying states, the Convention leaves several interpretive questions unresolved – and the absence of a standing treaty body or supervisory mechanism means those questions will be answered by domestic courts, potentially inconsistently.
What qualifies as "mediation"? The Convention defines the process broadly as one where parties attempt to reach an amicable settlement with the assistance of a third person (or persons) lacking the authority to impose a solution. This covers most forms of facilitative and evaluative mediation but the outer edges are contested. Conciliation processes, certain forms of expert determination, and hybrid procedures may or may not satisfy the definition depending on how national courts read the travaux préparatoires.
Mediator conduct and the fraud/corruption ground. The refusal ground relating to a mediator's serious breach of applicable standards is novel and potentially expansive. No international consensus exists on what those standards are. Parties in pre-litigation planning should carefully document the mediator's credentials, the procedural rules under which the process was conducted, and any code of conduct applicable to the mediator, precisely to reduce the surface area for this argument later.
The relationship with concurrent court proceedings. A party who settles a dispute through mediation while court proceedings are on foot may wish to use the settlement to halt those proceedings as well as to obtain enforcement elsewhere. The Convention does not directly govern this interaction; it is left to national law. In some jurisdictions, incorporating the settlement into a consent order or a court-approved agreement may provide a cleaner enforcement route than the Convention, particularly while ratification remains incomplete.
Formal requirements. The Convention requires the settlement to be "in writing" but leaves significant room for national variation in what that entails – electronic signatures, exchange of emails, formal deed, notarised instrument. Where enforcement is anticipated in a specific jurisdiction, advisers should identify that state's implementing legislation early and draft the settlement to comply with it, rather than discovering a formality defect at the enforcement stage.
Practical Impact for International Commercial Parties
For parties regularly involved in cross-border commercial disputes, the Convention's significance is strategic rather than merely procedural. Mediation has historically been underused as a primary dispute resolution mechanism in transactions between parties from different legal cultures, partly because of the enforceability problem. The Convention reduces – though does not eliminate – that concern.
Several practical considerations follow.
- Dispute resolution clauses. Counsel drafting multi-tiered clauses – standstill agreement, negotiation, mediation, arbitration – should now consider whether to include an explicit reference to the Convention and to specify that any settlement reached in the mediation stage is intended to qualify under it. Clarity at drafting stage prevents disputes about scope later.
- Choice of mediator and institutional rules. Institutional mediation rules from bodies that have adapted to the Convention's requirements provide a stronger evidentiary foundation at enforcement. Ad hoc arrangements, while flexible, require more careful documentation.
- Asset location analysis. Before entering mediation, parties should map where the counterparty holds assets and whether those jurisdictions are Convention contracting states. This analysis should inform whether to mediate at all, what to settle for, and how the settlement document is structured.
- Parallel enforcement strategies. Where key jurisdictions have not ratified (notably the EU and, currently, the UK), parties may consider structuring the settlement so that it can also be enforced as a contract, or seeking simultaneous arbitral consent award as a belt-and-braces measure. Our guide on how to enforce a mediated settlement abroad sets out jurisdiction-specific considerations in detail.
- Payment plan mechanics. Where the settlement involves a structured payment plan rather than a lump sum, the enforcement mechanism must accommodate instalment obligations. Some national implementing provisions may be better suited to lump-sum relief; advisers should verify this before committing the client to staged payment terms.
Cross-Border Implications by Region
Asia-Pacific. Several of the Convention's founding signatories are in this region, and a number have moved to ratification. For parties with disputes centred on supply chains, technology licensing or joint ventures in the region, the Convention now offers a realistic enforcement pathway in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously, which meaningfully alters the cost-benefit calculus of mediation versus arbitration.
Middle East and Africa. Signatory states in these regions have historically had limited bilateral enforcement treaty coverage for commercial judgments. The Convention fills part of that gap for mediated settlements, making mediation more attractive as a first-choice mechanism in contracts where the counterparty is headquartered in a state with thin enforcement infrastructure for foreign judgments.
Europe. The EU's absence is the single most commercially significant enforcement gap for European-based companies and their counterparties. A company facing a dispute with a counterparty in a Convention state should nonetheless assess whether its own EU member state may eventually ratify independently or whether the EU as a whole moves toward accession. In the interim, a carefully drafted settlement agreement that is also capable of being recognised as a consent judgment under EU civil procedure rules offers more complete protection.
United Kingdom. The UK's 2023 signature and subsequent consultation signal a clear direction of travel. Ratification, when it occurs, will be particularly significant given London's role as a global dispute resolution centre and the frequency with which English law governs international commercial contracts. Parties negotiating contracts now, or in early pre-litigation stages, should monitor this process and ensure their dispute resolution clauses are drafted to take advantage of ratification once it comes into effect. Our practice on commercial negotiations in Germany illustrates how cross-border settlement strategies can be structured where Convention coverage is uneven across neighbouring jurisdictions.
For businesses assessing restructuring options where litigation risk intersects with financial distress, the enforceability of a negotiated settlement may bear directly on the viability of a restructuring plan. Our bankruptcy and restructuring practice works alongside dispute resolution counsel to assess those interactions.
Strategic Recommendations
Parties considering mediation as a resolution mechanism – or already in it – should take several steps to maximise the Convention's utility and manage its residual risks.
- Conduct a ratification mapping exercise at the outset: identify every jurisdiction where enforcement may be needed and whether it has ratified the Convention or enacted implementing legislation.
- Draft the settlement agreement to satisfy the most demanding formal requirements among the relevant enforcing states. Over-engineering formality is cheap compared with enforcement failure.
- Ensure the mediator is a professional subject to identifiable standards of conduct and that those standards are recorded in the mediation agreement. This directly addresses the fraud/mediator-conduct refusal ground.
- Consider a letter before action strategy as part of a sequenced approach: a well-documented pre-dispute exchange that narrows the issues before mediation begins often produces a more defensible settlement record and reduces grounds for later challenge.
- Where the counterparty is in an EU member state, assess whether a bilateral recognition pathway for consent judgments is available and whether the settlement can be structured to access it.
- Review any applicable standstill agreement or limitation period waiver to ensure that the time taken to complete mediation does not inadvertently extinguish rights if the mediation fails.
- Build a parallel arbitral consent award option into the mediation process design for high-value disputes where the New York Convention offers superior geographic coverage.
Outlook
The Singapore Convention represents a genuine structural advance for international commercial dispute resolution. Its long-term significance will be determined by three variables: the pace at which major trading economies ratify and implement it faithfully; the quality and consistency of national court decisions interpreting its refusal grounds; and whether the EU and the UK move from observer and signatory status to full contracting parties.
In 2026, new states joined the Convention, indicating continued momentum. The instrument is no longer simply aspirational. For disputes involving parties in contracting states, it is already a practical enforcement tool – imperfect, incompletely implemented in places, but real. For disputes spanning contracting and non-contracting jurisdictions, strategic layering of enforcement mechanisms remains necessary.
Mediation has not become seamlessly enforceable everywhere. What has changed is that, for the first time, it is treaty-enforceable somewhere – and the list of those "somewheres" is growing.
If you are involved in a cross-border dispute and are weighing whether to pursue mediation, arbitration or litigation, or need to enforce an existing settlement agreement in one or more jurisdictions, Ferraz & Whitmore's international dispute resolution team can assist with the analysis. Reach us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or through our contacts page.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.