Singapore Convention Presents an Opportunity for Georgia in Mediation
Rapid adoption of an international mediation law gives Georgia an opportunity to seize the "pole position" among other states and signal its availability as a reliable mediation forum.
August 22, 2019 at 12:52 PM
5 minute read
In the world of alternative dispute resolution, mediation, including international mediation, is the proverbial "hot topic" among lawyers and their clients (corporate or otherwise). Recent international developments hold open the possibility of strengthening its appeal in the market of dispute resolution and create another ripe opportunity for the state of Georgia to position itself as a jurisdiction hospitable to resolving complex business disputes.
In transboundary transactions (and their accompanying disputes), enforceability problems historically have loomed large. The United States is not a party to a multilateral or even bilateral treaty governing the enforcement of civil judgments, reducing the appeal of garden variety civil litigation. By contrast, the United States is a party to several multilateral treaties governing the enforceability of international arbitration awards, particularly the New York Convention. This has given arbitration a comparative advantage over other forms of alternative dispute resolution, including mediation. That may soon change.
On Dec. 20, 2018, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Singapore Convention. The Singapore Convention ensures that a mediation settlement reached by parties will be binding and enforceable in accordance with a streamlined procedure. The convention will compel contracting states to recognize international mediation settlement agreements in commercial disputes. It will come into force upon ratification by at least three contracting states. Put simply, upon coming into force, the Singapore Convention has the potential to eliminate one of the key comparative advantages enjoyed by international arbitration.
In the market for dispute resolution, a key difference between mediation and arbitration is the terms upon which the dispute is finally resolved. Mediated agreements require a two-step consensus among the parties—a process agreement (to mediate) and a substantive agreement (to the terms of the mediated settlement). By contrast, arbitration only entails a one-step consensus—a process agreement to arbitrate—but does not give the parties much opportunity for "exit" if they are dissatisfied with the arbitrator's award. The Singapore Convention will accord a new status to mediated settlements as it converts a private contract into an instrument that can circulate under a legally-binding international framework. Since mediation is considered a faster, less expensive form of dispute resolution, that is more likely to preserve the commercial relationship, the Singapore Convention has the potential to encourage greater use of mediation, especially where disputing parties seek to preserve their commercial relationship.
The convention will compel contracting states to recognize international settlement agreements resulting from mediation in commercial disputes. To fall within the scope of the convention, a settlement agreement must be mediated, international, and commercial. The convention specifically intended the definition to be broad to encourage the use of mediation, regardless of the level of formality involved with the negotiation.
There are limited formality requirements imposed on mediated settlement agreements. In order to comply with the Singapore Convention, a mediated settlement agreement must be in writing, signed by the parties, and have resulted from mediation. In order to satisfy the writing requirement, the mediated settlement must be recorded in any form that can be used for reference. In addition, a state cannot impose any additional formality requirements beyond those expressly listed in the convention, as additional formalities may restrict parties from obtaining relief.
On Aug. 7, the opening day of the convention, a record 46 nations signed the Singapore Convention on Mediation. This total marks the highest number of first-day signatories of a U.N trade convention. Signatories to date include: Singapore, United States, Afghanistan, Belarus, Benin, Brunei, Chile, China, Colombia, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eswartini, Fiji, Georgia, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Montenegro, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Palau, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Korea, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Timor Leste, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay and Venezuela. With strong support, it is expected that the convention will come into force relatively quickly for an international treaty, with some officials hoping the convention will come into force within a year.
The Singapore Convention presents a unique opportunity for Georgia to become a forum for hospitable mediation. Much like it adopted an international arbitration code, the state could consider enacting an international mediation law tied to the provisions of the Singapore Convention. Such legislation could enhance Georgia's appeal as a mediation forum and build upon its reputation as a jurisdiction hospitable to business, including the resolution of business disputes. States have employed such moves in the past, whether with the early adoption of international arbitration laws (as Georgia recently did) or the creation of specialized business courts (as Georgia did as well). Rapid adoption of an international mediation law gives Georgia an opportunity to seize the "pole position" among other states and signal its availability as a reliable mediation forum.
Peter B. "Bo" Rutledge is dean of the University of Georgia School of Law, where he holds the Herman Talmadge Chair of Law. A former clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Rutledge pursues teaching and research of international dispute resolution, arbitration, international business transactions and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Katherine M. Larsen is a third-year law student at the University of Georgia School of Law and a recipient of the Talmadge Law Scholarship and the Law School Association Merit Scholarship. In addition to serving as a research clerk for Dean Rutledge, she is the president of the Military Law Society, a third-year adviser to the Family Law Society and has been selected for the Prosecutorial Justice Program.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCould Everything Be Alright Without Me Knowing? The State of Professionalism Among Attorneys
Trying to Reason With Hurricane Season: Mediating First Party Property Insurance Claims
Trending Stories
- 1Mental Health Issues Don’t Get a Holiday
- 2'It's Got to Be a Wake-Up Call:' Atlanta Attorney Hopes $16M Verdict Spurs Training Changes at Hotels
- 3FTC Bans 'Junk Fees' in Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging
- 4California Legal Awards Moving to Mid-Summer Date in 2025, Adds New Categories
- 5Law Student Sues NY Attorney Grievance Officials, Seeking Materials Over Sexual Assault Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250