The Singapore Convention on Mediation (SCM), formally the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, was adopted by UN General Assembly resolution on 20 December 2018. It is a multilateral treaty that establishes a uniform framework for the enforcement of international mediated settlement agreements (iMSAs) in cross-border commercial disputes, ensuring their recognition and implementation by state parties. At its opening for signature on 7 August 2019, forty-six states—including the United States, China, and India—became signatories. Pakistan joined on 23 May 2025 as the fifty-eighth signatory. At present, the convention has 59 signatories and 19 state parties.
The Convention is designed to facilitate international trade and promote mediation as an “effective” alternative for resolving cross-border commercial disputes. It ensures that iMSAs are binding and enforceable through a simplified streamlined procedure, thereby enhancing certainty and stability in international commerce. This insight, therefore, examines the Convention’s key provisions, its underlying objectives, and how Pakistan can effectively develop its mediation framework to ensure the Convention’s effective implementation.
Before SCM, iMSAs were enforceable only as ordinary contracts. An exception existed where mediation occurred within arbitration or litigation proceedings, allowing the settlement to be recorded as an arbitral award or court judgment.
However, this required parties to engage in formal dispute resolution alongside mediation, undermining its consensual nature and increasing time and costs. The SCM addresses this gap by introducing, for the first time, a harmonized framework for enforcing iMSAs—much like the 1958 New York Convention did for arbitral awards. The influence of the New York Convention is evident in both the structure and language of SCM.
The SCM applies only to mediated settlement agreements arising from international commercial disputes. A dispute is considered “international” when the parties are based in different States, or when the settlement is performed, or most closely connected, in a State other than where the parties are located.
The SCM excludes certain types of settlement agreements from its scope, specifically, those approved by a court or concluded in court proceedings and enforceable as a judgment, as well as those recorded and enforceable as part of an arbitral award. It also excludes settlement agreements relating to family, inheritance, or employment matters, and disputes arising from consumer transactions for personal, family, or household purposes.
State Parties to the SCM must enforce settlement agreements in line with their national laws and the Convention. If a dispute arises over a matter already resolved by mediation, parties can invoke the resulting settlement agreement as a defense. To seek relief, a party must submit the signed settlement agreement and evidence that it resulted from mediation. State’s competent authorities are required to handle such requests “expeditiously”.
Like the 1958 New York Convention, SCM allows refusal of enforcement only on limited grounds, such as: if a party to the iMSA was under incapacity; the agreement is void, or unenforceable under applicable law; the mediator violated applicable standards; enforcement would contravene public policy; or, dispute is incapable of settlement by mediation under the enforcing state’s law.
For Pakistan, signing the Convention marked a milestone in its legal landscape, where millions of cases remain pending nationwide, many of which could be resolved or prevented through alternative dispute resolution (ADR). In recent years, the Pakistani legal system has increasingly shifted from an exclusive reliance on traditional litigation toward ADR, particularly mediation. The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has consistently promoted mediation to reduce delays, conserve judicial resources, and lower litigation costs. Notably, it was on the Supreme Court’s recommendation in Mughals Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees Old Age Benefits Institution that Pakistan moved to sign the SCM.
However, Pakistan lacks exclusive legislation governing mediation. Instead, mediation has evolved in a fragmented manner alongside arbitration and other ADR mechanisms, reflected in statutes such as ADR Act 2017, Sindh CPC Amendments 2018, Punjab ADR Act 2019, etc. Internationally, most of Pakistan’s free trade agreements, with countries such as China, Türkiye, and Sri Lanka, include dispute resolution clauses requiring parties to first seek amicable settlement through mediation before resorting to arbitration. Yet, Pakistan still lacks a domestic framework for enforcing iMSAs resulting from such mediations.
Without effective legislation on mediation, Pakistan will struggle to reap full benefits of the Convention. The absence of clear procedures prolongs commercial dispute resolution, often up to five years, undermining investor confidence and discouraging both local and foreign investment. This not only limits economic growth opportunities but also perpetuates the judicial backlog. Therefore, mere signature of the Convention is not sufficient; Pakistan must take concrete follow-up measures.
As a dualist state, Pakistan must without unnecessary delay enact implementing legislation, like the 2011 Acts on the New York Convention and investment treaties, to give the Convention domestic effect.
Currently, the government is preparing a draft bill to implement the SCM, though it is not yet public. Before presenting it before parliament, several considerations merit attention. The bill should not be a verbatim adoption of the Convention; rather, it should be adapted to ensure effective enforcement within Pakistan’s lawscape.
It should outline “standardized” national procedure for initiating enforcement of iMSAs, before designated courts, to prevent inconsistent judicial practices and procedural delays. The inclusion of compliance-backed enforcement “timelines” would further align the bill with the Convention’s objectives. Moreover, while SCM outlines general grounds for refusing enforcement, the bill should clearly specify grounds for refusal to avoid ambiguity, misuse or excessive judicial discretion.
Nonetheless, the draft bill would only implement SCM domestically, covering solely “international” MSAs while leaving “non-international” MSAs unregulated. Therefore, beyond the implementing legislation, Pakistan should enact a separate Mediation Act to regulate/enforce domestic mediations. Inspiration could be drawn from Singapore’s Mediation Act 2017, which offers a comprehensive and well-structured mediation framework.
Furthermore, on signing the SCM, Pakistan entered two reservations: first, the Convention will not apply to iMSAs to which Pakistan, its government agencies, or their representatives are parties; and second, it will apply only where parties to a settlement agreement have expressly agreed to its application.
While these reservations may appear to protect Pakistan’s interests, they substantially limit the Convention’s effectiveness and risk repeating past missteps like the Reko Diq. By excluding iMSAs involving the State, Pakistan discourages the use of “amicable” mechanisms like mediation or negotiation and instead channels disputes toward “adversarial” litigation or arbitration, processes that have historically proven costly. In Pakistan’s interest, these reservations should therefore be reconsidered and ideally withdrawn at the time of ratification.
The Singapore Convention offers Pakistan an opportunity to strengthen its dispute resolution framework and investor confidence. Aligning its implementation with Vision 2025 can advance Pakistan’s goal of becoming a regional hub for mediation and investment.