The applicability of international arbitration awards in more than 157 jurisdictions around the world under the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards (The New York Convention) has long been one of the most attractive features of arbitration, particularly in the energy and construction industries. However, the absence of a similar application opportunity for transaction agreements concluded by mediation, despite the recognized benefits, such. B that the maintenance of long-term business relationships and the possibility of airing emotional or legally inadmissible points in commercial disputes, has left the practice as a less used instrument. [1] Available under: uncitral.un.org/en/texts/mediation/conventions/international_settlement_agreements. In addition, Part III of the Arbitration Act deals exclusively with the “conciliation” of disputes arising from a contractual or non-contractual relationship between the parties. [3] A conciliation settlement agreement is similar to an arbitral award under agreed conditions and is recognized and enforceable in the same way as a court decision. [4] Overall, no significant problems were reported with respect to the implementation of negotiated transaction agreements. With respect to the second issue, the standards to be applied to mediators or mediations are not very clear, let alone what might constitute a violation of these standards in order to anchor a refusal to implement a negotiated transaction agreement. While international standards have been developed to guide aspects of international arbitration, such as IBA rules for obtaining evidence in international arbitration proceedings and IBA guidelines on conflicts of interest in international arbitration proceedings, there are no equivalent international standards for leading international mediation.

The International Mediation Institute`s code of conduct is perhaps the closest to the global standard for mediator behaviour, although it is not known how widespread it is. Local standards for enforcement control vary from country to country and can be used to assess the behaviour of mediators with different enforcement outcomes in several jurisdictions. Within America, eleven states are signatories: Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Paraguay, the United States (the country that originally proposed the agreement), Uruguay and Venezuela. But none of them have yet ratified it. Canada did not sign, which was perhaps predictable in light of its initial reaction to the convention: “A fundamental issue raised by this project is the political justification it justifies recognizing and quickly obtaining some kind of contract over all others.” [4] Although the atmosphere in the United States is generally favourable to the Convention, as discussed below, this seems to be based on the belief that its widespread adoption will be a blessing for mediation in general, rather than correcting the real or perceived difficulties associated with the implementation of the transaction agreements concluded in the context of mediation.