In the early part of 2017, a new law was passed by the New Jersey State Legislature without much fanfare and virtually none of the political wrangling that often accompanies actions in Trenton. In fact, it had broad bipartisan support and passed by a vote of 33−0 in the New Jersey Senate. Titled the New Jersey International Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:23E-1 et seq., it became effective on May 7.

The act provides for establishment of alternative dispute resolution centers to administer various modalities of settlement, with the aim of converting a mediated settlement into a consent arbitral award enforceable either in a U.S. court or abroad in one of the more than 150 signatory countries to the New York Convention, which has been the primary vehicle for enforcement of international arbitration awards. Arbitration, however, has come into increasing disfavor as it has grown more costly and time-consuming.

According to data amassed by the Global Pound Conference of the International Mediation Institute (IMI), the international business and commerce community has been promoting the use of mediation and related hybrid processes because of the greater economy, flexibility and control afforded to the parties. The problem is that mediation agreements are treated the same as other contracts and require litigation abroad for enforcement, absent a mechanism similar to what the New York Convention achieves for international arbitration. The new legislative action creates a consistency in the parties' expectations to assure their deal will be carried out.