RIAC 2026 Satellite Event: “International Mediation: From Settlement to Dispute Resolution?”

On 23 September 2026, within the framework of the Russian International Arbitration Congress (RIAC), the International and Comparative Law Research Center (ICLRC) held a satellite event “International Mediation: From Settlement to Dispute Resolution?”

The discussion took place in person at the ICLRC library in Russian and English, with simultaneous interpretation. It was moderated by Ms. Yulia Mullina, General Director of the ICLRC.

The event followed the ICLRC activities dedicated to legal issues in the field of mediation. Previously, the ICLRC had conducted a study, “Mediation in Court: A Comparative Analysis of the Regulation of Mediators’ Participation in Court Proceedings”, and prepared an overview, “The Singapore Convention on Mediation: Key Provisions, Potential Legal Advantages and Risks of Participation for the Russian Federation”.

The participants in the discussion were practicing professionals and representatives of the academic community:

• Ms. Natalia Gaidaenko Schaer — Associate Professor at the Department of Private International and Civil Law named after S. N. Lebedev of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO);

• Ms. Judith Knieper — Legal Officer at the Secretariat of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL);

• Mr. Vladislav Koval — Deputy Head of the International Treaties Division, Department of International Law and Cooperation, Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation;

• Mr. Mark McLaughlin — Assistant Professor of Law at Singapore Management University and the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (SIDRA).

The discussion started with a brief overview of UNCITRAL’s work on mediation presented by Ms. Judith Knieper. In particular, the expert noted that for 60 years, in accordance with the mandate given by the UN General Assembly, UNCITRAL has been working on modernization, harmonization, and unification of international trade law, including questions of settlement and resolution of international commercial disputes. One of UNCITRAL’s key instruments in the field of mediation is the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Singapore Convention on Mediation). Drafting it was not an easy task. The UNCITRAL regulation of mediation began with the 1980 UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules, a set of contractual rules for parties wishing to engage in mediation. After a while, however, it became clear that its provisions were insufficient, and the international community advocated for a model law. But even after the adoption of such an instrument (UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation) in 2002, there remained some questions on which the States were unable to agree. The enforcement of settlement agreements was one of them. Without such a mechanism, mediation could hardly operate at full strength, and so the international community once again searched for a compromise. That led to the development of the Singapore Convention on Mediation.

The changes introduced by the Singapore Convention on Mediation were at the core of the discussion held by the ICLRC. Ms. Mullina noted that previously the right to render a binding decision made it possible to distinguish between litigation and arbitration, on the one hand, and mediation, on the other. Unlike courts and arbitrators, mediators did not have such a right. However, nowadays the enforceability of settlement agreements under the Singapore Convention on Mediation might have blurred the line between those mechanisms. Thus, the first question was raised:

To what extent do contemporary reforms of international mediation, including the introduction of mechanisms for the recognition and enforcement of settlement agreements, bring mediation closer to such dispute resolution mechanisms as litigation or international arbitration?

Mr. McLaughlin emphasized that the Singapore Convention on Mediation solved a specific problem by providing an enforcement mechanism for the settlement agreements: it allowed parties to a dispute to avoid complex issues of private international law. In his view, the Singapore Convention did not change the fundamental nature of mediation, since it had not touched upon the elements that the procedure must include to qualify as mediation. Nor did the Singapore Convention address standards of conduct for mediators: unlike the international regulation of arbitration, this issue remains at the discretion of States.

Ms. Gaidaenko Schaer, who had participated in drafting the Singapore Convention on Mediation as part of the Russian delegation in the UNCITRAL Working Group II, adhered to this understanding of the purpose of that treaty. She compared the regulatory framework of arbitration and mediation and noted that the majority of lawyers involved in drafting the Singapore Convention were arbitrators (not mediators). Having had an opportunity to follow the example of the successful 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the 1958 New York Convention), the drafters largely replicated its structure. However, this did not lead to blending arbitration and mediation. On the contrary, the adoption of a treaty similar in form but still separate made it possible to demonstrate that a settlement agreement was different from an arbitral award and required a special procedure for its enforcement. The expert also expressed the view that the Singapore Convention turned mediation into a mechanism equal to arbitration, whereas previously mediation had merely been the latter’s “poor little sister”.

Continuing the discussion on the first question, Mr. McLaughlin pointed out that the adoption of the Singapore Convention on Mediation resulted in the integration of mediation into the arbitration procedure. Previously arbitrators and mediators “competed” for the opportunity to settle the dispute, and parties had to choose between these two mechanisms. Nowadays, however, procedural rules of some institutions allow parties to begin settling the dispute through arbitration, then turn to mediation, and go back to arbitration if mediation appeared to be fruitless.

Mr. Koval supported the idea that the Singapore Convention on Mediation contributed to the integration between mediation, arbitration, and litigation. Developing this point, he drew attention to the emergence of hybrid models. For example, the 2025 Singapore International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules allow parties to move from arbitration to mediation and, if there is no satisfactory result, to return to arbitration. The expert stressed that one of the most important tasks legislators and practitioners now have, faced with convergence between mediation, arbitration, and litigation, is to preserve the key features of mediation: confidentiality and voluntariness.

Responding to the first question, Judith Knieper recalled the debate that unfolded during the discussion of the Singapore Convention concept. Some States were convinced that an enforcement mechanism for settlement agreements was not necessary, since parties engaged in mediation voluntarily complied with such agreements. Nevertheless, the Singapore Convention on Mediation was designed for those rare instances where the parties tried to avoid performance under the settlement agreement. She noted that the drafters of the Singapore Convention did not expect the enforcement mechanism to be frequently used. What sufficed for compliance was not the respective enforcement mechanism itself, but the parties’ simple knowledge that the enforcement of the settlement agreement is possible even against their will to fulfil it. Therefore, in the expert’s view, the Singapore Convention became a “sword” that could discipline the parties.

Summarizing the participants’ positions on the first question, Ms. Yulia Mullina noted that all speakers agreed that the nature of mediation had not changed. Despite the adoption of the Singapore Convention, mediation remained a voluntary, confidential, and highly flexible mechanism. The second set of questions thus arose:

How can a balance be struck between institutional support for mediation and the preservation of its out-of-court, voluntary, flexible, and confidential character? What scope of legal regulation and institutionalization is in principle required for effective mediation?

For Mr. Mark McLaughlin, the institutionalization of mediation would not necessarily affect its flexibility. On the contrary, in his view, institutions that work effectively can safeguard the distinctive features of mediation, such as confidentiality and the ability to choose a mediator. In addition, the regulation of mediation could help to develop uniform standards for mediators and settlement agreements at the national level. The existence of such standards would dispel the judiciary’s doubts as to which acts can be recognized and enforced as international settlement agreements.

In Ms. Natalia Gaidaenko Schaer’s view, institutional support for mediation could contribute to the increase in the number of disputes referred to it. However, to achieve this, the speaker suggested, first, to determine the support of which institution was at issue. For her, that institution is the judiciary. It is the court that usually hears the dispute first; therefore, it may become an “intermediary” between the parties and a mediator. At the same time, in order to encourage the parties to turn to the mediator, the court needs to understand how mediation is organized, and to trust this mechanism. Developing this idea, the expert gave examples of reforms that could raise the courts’ awareness of mediation and help the latter to win the judiciary’s trust. Such measures would include maintaining a register of mediators in each court, establishing their procedural status, and having a mechanism for the enforcement of settlement agreements. She illustrated a successful regulation of mediation with reference to the Canton of Geneva (Switzerland) and the Republic of Belarus. At the same time, Ms. Gaidaenko Schaer drew attention to the fact that it is impossible to simply transplant foreign legislation on mediation onto Russian soil, as such an “exotic flower” would not take root. She noted that although mediation in Russia emerged through the adoption of common-law institutions, such a positive outcome was due to the training provided to future mediators by American colleagues, already familiar with the mechanisms implemented.

In the context of the formalization of mediation in Russia, Mr. Vladislav Koval referred to the debate on the eventual reservation to Article 8(1)(b) of the Singapore Convention on Mediation. Such a reservation would allow Russian courts to apply the treaty only to the extent that the parties to the settlement agreement themselves agreed to its application.

Having noticed the turn towards possible legislative measures in Russia, the moderator moved to the third set of questions:

May the Singapore Convention on Mediation become not only an instrument for the recognition and enforcement of international mediated settlement agreements, but also an incentive for revising national mediation regulations? And, in particular, would the signing of the Singapore Convention entail changes in Russian legal regulation of international mediation?

Mr. Koval named measures that could contribute to the effective implementation of the Singapore Convention on Mediation in the Russian legal system: adding a chapter to the Arbitrazh (Commercial) Procedure Code on the recognition and enforcement of international settlement agreements; revising the requirements for mediators, as well as standards guaranteeing their independence and impartiality; and forming a unified register of mediators. He also addressed in greater detail the question of the need to develop a system of self-regulatory organizations (SROs) of mediators. He noted in particular that maintaining such a register and the functioning of the SROs were necessary tools for understanding the actual number of mediators; all these measures together might constitute Russia’s step towards a modern system for the settlement of commercial disputes.

Responding to a similar question — on introducing amendments to national legislation due to participation in the Singapore Convention on Mediation — Mr. McLaughlin cited the example of Singapore that, following ratification of the Convention, updated domestic standards of conduct for mediators, including in situations of conflicts of interest. At the same time, he recalled that participation in the Singapore Convention on Mediation does not oblige States to introduce modifications to their national legal regulation of mediation but does provide an opportunity to demonstrate to the legal community that a potentially enforceable settlement agreement complies with recognized standards.

Continuing the discussion on normative changes, Ms. Knieper drew attention to the revision of the 2002 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation. Provisions on the enforcement of settlement agreements were added to it. Drafted simultaneously with the Singapore Convention on Mediation, the corresponding amendments to the Model Law could help States update their national regulatory framework in the area of mediation.

Noting the speakers’ interest in the topic of standards, Ms. Mullina turned to the next set of questions:

How important is the development of qualification and ethical standards for mediators? How detailed should such requirements be? What role could UNCITRAL play in this context?

Both Ms. Natalia Gaidaenko Schaer and Mr. Mark McLaughlin considered that standards should be developed at the international level; however, it would be possible to formulate requirements that satisfy the entire international community only if such requirements were not detailed. For example, a comparative study of standards existing in twenty jurisdictions showed that only their core coincided: mediators were expected to be impartial, professional, and to observe confidentiality, while the sources of such requirements and the criteria for compliance with them differed. Both speakers suggested that UNCITRAL might develop the standards concerned.

Commenting on such a prospect, Ms. Knieper stressed that the development of any international standard ultimately depends on the willingness of States to engage in negotiations and reach agreement. While it is often difficult to predict the outcome of a particular negotiating process or the final content of an instrument, experience shows that, where States are prepared to compromise and work constructively towards a common objective, even complex issues can be successfully addressed.

In conclusion of the main part of the discussion, Ms. Yulia Mullina invited the speakers to recommend measures that could promote international mediation.

Ms. Judith Knieper named the signing of the Singapore Convention on Mediation, while Mr. Mark McLaughlin invoked the “nudging” of parties towards mediation by arbitrators. Ms. Natalia Gaidaenko Schaer agreed with both ideas but noted that a mere suggestion by arbitrators to turn to a mediator might be insufficient: the parties do not know what the idea behind the alternative mechanism is. Consequently, the first measure necessary to increase interest in mediation should be raising awareness of it. Mr. Vladislav Koval noted that a comparative analysis of the best foreign approaches to regulation and their implementation would be beneficial to achieve the result referred to by the moderator. At the same time, Mr. Mark McLaughlin stressed that developing a regulatory framework of mediation would not necessarily lead to its popularization; what remains crucial is to convince the parties that mediation is useful and legitimate.

Following the discussion, Ms. Mullina formulated three key conclusions:

• First, international mediation remains mediation and, by its nature, is still closer to settlement than to dispute resolution;

• Second, with the adoption of the Singapore Convention on Mediation, the outcome of a dispute settlement in mediation may be enforced;

• Finally, the absence of harmonized standards and principles, as well as the low awareness of mediation, especially in Russia, remain problematic.