ZHANG Yongjian

Former Judge of the China International Commercial Court (CICC)

International Judge of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC)

International Judge of the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Center (QICDRC)

I. From the New York Convention to the Singapore Convention: A Historic Leap in International Commercial Dispute Resolution

In June 2018, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) adopted the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, commonly known as the Singapore Convention on Mediation. On August 7, 2019, 46 countries, including China, signed the Convention in Singapore. On September 12, 2020, the Convention officially entered into force. With this milestone, international commercial dispute resolution has formed a tripartite framework: litigation corresponds to the Hague Judgments Convention, arbitration to the New York Convention, and mediation to the Singapore Convention.

Why is the Singapore Convention considered a milestone? Because it provides, for the first time, an institutional framework for the cross-border direct enforcement of settlement agreements arising from international commercial mediation. Prior to this, although mediation was highly favored for its efficiency, confidentiality, and ability to preserve business relationships, the lack of cross-border enforceability of settlement agreements remained its biggest Achilles' heel. Article 3 of the Convention explicitly stipulates that each Party to the Convention shall enforce a settlement agreement in accordance with its rules of procedure and under the conditions laid down in the Convention. This means that a settlement agreement reached through mediation in China can be directly submitted for enforcement in the courts of contracting states such as Singapore, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, without the need for conversion through litigation or arbitration proceedings. This institutional arrangement is expected to elevate mediation from a mere "supporting role" to arbitration and litigation into a truly independent method of dispute resolution.

II. Observations on International Trends Since the Convention's Entry into Force

Over the five years since the Convention entered into force, several noteworthy trends have emerged in the international community:

First, the number of contracting states is steadily increasing, though major economies remain on the sidelines. To date, the Convention has approximately 60 signatories and over 20 contracting parties. In August 2025, Brazil ratified the Convention, becoming the 19th contracting state, with the Convention set to enter into force for Brazil in February 2026. It is worth noting that major global economies, including the United States, the United Kingdom, European Union member states, Japan, and Australia, have not yet ratified the Convention. This "hot in the Global South, cold in the Global North" dynamic indicates that while the Convention's comprehensive global implementation will take time, its role as a vital component of the emerging international legal order is irreversible.

Second, countries are actively advancing domestic legislative alignment. Nations that have ratified the Convention are enacting domestic legislation to pave the way for its implementation. For example, prior to ratifying the Convention, Brazil had already established a comprehensive Mediation Law and is currently promoting a presidential decree to complete the domestic ratification process. Middle Eastern countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia have also provided institutional guarantees for the Convention's implementation by amending their civil procedure laws or enacting specialized mediation legislation.

Third, investment mediation has emerged as a new frontier. It is understood that UNCITRAL is currently drafting guidelines on investment mediation, introducing mediation mechanisms into the resolution of investment disputes between investors and host states. This development is particularly noteworthy because Article 8 of the Singapore Convention allows contracting states to make reservations regarding settlement agreements to which a government (or any person acting on behalf of a government) is a party. The evolution of investment mediation could potentially drive the reshaping of rules in this field.

Fourth, international commercial mediation institutions are accelerating their strategic deployment. Institutions such as the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) and the ICC Dispute Resolution Services are continuously launching mediation rules aligned with the Convention, and the international certification system for mediators is gradually being refined. The annual "Singapore Convention Week" held in Singapore has become one of the most important global platforms for exchange in the mediation field.

III. Opportunities and Challenges Facing China

China signed the Singapore Convention on August 7, 2019, as one of the first signatories. However, as of now, China has not yet completed the ratification process. The underlying reasons warrant deep reflection.

In terms of opportunities, ratifying the Convention holds significant strategic importance for China. As a major global exporter of goods, services, and capital, China's Belt and Road Initiative involves extensive cross-border commercial activities. Ratification will provide Chinese enterprises with a powerful tool to safeguard their overseas interests: when disputes with foreign partners are resolved through mediation and a settlement agreement is reached, the agreement can be directly enforced in other contracting states, significantly reducing the cost of rights protection. Simultaneously, this will markedly enhance China's attractiveness as a destination for international commercial dispute resolution, supporting cities like Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, and Hainan in building international commercial mediation centers.

However, in terms of challenges, there is a considerable gap between China's current legal framework and the Convention's requirements:

First, the effectiveness of legislation on commercial mediation remains to be tested. The Commercial Mediation Regulations came into force on 1 May this year. As China’s first administrative regulation specially governing commercial-mediation activities, it will give strong impetus to the development of China’s commercial-mediation sector. On 10 July, the Measures for the Administration of Commercial Mediation Organizations took effect, filling the regulatory gap concerning the governance of mediation organizations. At present, most existing commercial-mediation institutions are established under the auspices of industry associations or arbitral institutions. Issues such as mediation procedures, mediators’ qualifications, and the validity of settlement agreements hinge on the practical outcomes of the implementation of the Commercial Mediation Regulations and the Measures for the Administration of Commercial Mediation Organizations.

Second, the enforcement mechanism for settlement agreements is mismatched. The Convention requires settlement agreements to have direct enforceability, but under current Chinese law, settlement agreements are classified as ordinary civil contracts, possessing only contractual validity. Whether it is a people's mediation agreement, a commercial mediation agreement, or a party settlement agreement, it must undergo judicial confirmation procedures or be converted into a court judgment or arbitral award to obtain enforceability. This fundamentally differs from the Convention's principle of "formal review and direct enforcement."

Third, the mediator system is still immature. The Convention requires mediation to be conducted with the "assistance of a third party," meaning mediators must not overstep their facilitative role to adjudicate disputes. However, in China's traditional mediation model, mediators often adopt a highly evaluative, or even adjudicative, approach. Furthermore, China has not yet established a commercial mediator certification system aligned with international standards, and there is a lack of legislative foundation for individual mediation practices.

Fourth, public policy and government party issues require prudent handling. The Convention allows contracting states to make reservations regarding public policy and government parties. Given the extensive participation of Chinese state-owned enterprises in international commercial activities, as well as potential national interest concerns in foreign investment disputes, designing appropriate reservation clauses during the ratification process will require meticulous institutional planning.

IV. Five Core Issues for Chinese Practitioners to Focus On

In light of the above situation, I recommend that colleagues pay close attention to the following five issues:

First, monitor the timeline for China's ratification and the progress of supporting legislation. In recent years, numerous deputies to the National People's Congress have proposed motions for commercial mediation legislation, and relevant departments such as the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Justice are actively advancing related legislative work. The Ministry of Justice explicitly proposed studying and promoting mediation legislation in the National Public Legal Service System Construction Plan (2021–2025). In 2022, Shenzhen introduced the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Regulations on the Diversified Resolution of Disputes, which included specific provisions on commercial mediation; similarly, in 2020, Hainan issued the Hainan Province Regulations on the Diversified Resolution of Disputes. These local legislative experiences may serve as references for national-level commercial mediation legislation. Practitioners should closely track legislative developments and prepare their business operations in advance.

Second, track the evolving rules on the recognition of settlement agreement validity. Under the Convention's framework, the enforceability of a settlement agreement stems from the procedural fact that it was "resulting from mediation," rather than judicial confirmation by a court. If China is to ratify the Convention, it must establish an independent enforcement mechanism for international commercial settlement agreements at the domestic law level. One possible approach is to introduce a simplified "judicial confirmation" procedure for settlement agreements under the Convention's framework; another is to recognize their direct enforceability under specific conditions. Whichever approach is adopted will profoundly impact practitioners' operational models.

Third, focus on the professionalization and internationalization of commercial mediators. Although the Convention does not impose mandatory requirements on mediator qualifications, the cross-border enforcement of settlement agreements inevitably involves reviewing the procedural propriety of the mediation. Whether mediators possess professional qualifications, whether the mediation process meets the parties' expectations, and whether the parties' right to be informed was fully protected during the process may all become focal points of contention during enforcement proceedings. Therefore, Chinese commercial mediators should actively obtain internationally recognized mediator certifications, familiarize themselves with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and the rules of major international mediation institutions, and enhance their professional capabilities and international competitiveness.

Fourth, pay attention to the development space for hybrid mechanisms such as "Med-Arb" (Mediation-Arbitration). Under China's current legal framework, settlement agreements resulting from mediation conducted by an arbitral tribunal can be converted into arbitral awards, thereby obtaining cross-border enforceability under the New York Convention. During the transitional period before the Singapore Convention enters into force in China, this "Med-Arb" hybrid mechanism remains of significant practical value. Even after the Convention takes effect, considering that the Convention's definition of "mediation" excludes settlement agreements arising from judicial and arbitral proceedings, hybrid mechanisms will continue to play an irreplaceable role in specific scenarios.

Fifth, seize new opportunities brought by the digital economy and online mediation. In recent years, Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) mechanisms have developed rapidly, particularly in e-commerce and fintech. The pandemic has further accelerated the digitalization of mediation. The Singapore Convention itself does not exclude the application of online mediation; as long as the settlement agreement meets the requirement of being "resulting from mediation," it is eligible for protection under the Convention. China boasts the world's most advanced internet infrastructure and the largest e-commerce market. Online commercial mediation is poised to become a key area where China can achieve a "leapfrog" advantage under the Convention's framework.

V. Conclusion

Dear colleagues, the birth of the Singapore Convention on Mediation marks the advent of a new era in international commercial dispute resolution, characterized by the tripartite coexistence of litigation, arbitration, and mediation. For China, this presents both opportunities and challenges. We must recognize the cross-border enforcement conveniences and market expansion space brought by the Convention, while remaining clear-eyed about the gaps between our domestic legal system and international rules.

I am confident that with the advancement of China's commercial mediation legislation, the enhancement of mediator professionalism, and the deepening of international exchanges, China is fully capable of playing a more proactive role under the framework of the Singapore Convention. I look forward to witnessing together China's transition from a "signatory" to a "contracting party," and its growth from a "participant" to a "leader" in the rules of international commercial mediation.

Thank you all!