The UAE’s accession to the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, commonly known as the Singapore Convention on Mediation, brings an additional route for enforcement of qualifying international mediated settlement agreements.
The UAE’s accession to the Convention was approved by Federal Decree No. 85 of 2026, issued on 8 June 2026. For parties involved in cross-border commercial disputes, this is an important development. A settlement agreement which falls within the scope of the Convention may now need to be looked at not merely as a document recording the settlement reached between the parties, but also from the perspective of its potential enforcement in another Convention jurisdiction.
This gives a different perspective to the way cross-border settlement agreements should be approached and structured.
That being said, the first question to be asked is whether the settlement agreement itself falls within the scope of the Singapore Convention.
The Convention does not apply to every settlement agreement simply because the parties are located in different jurisdictions. Broadly, it applies to written settlement agreements resulting from mediation, concluded to resolve a commercial dispute, which are international in nature at the time they are concluded. Certain categories are expressly excluded, including settlements relating to consumer transactions for personal, family or household purposes, as well as family, inheritance and employment matters. Court-approved settlements enforceable as judgments and settlements recorded and enforceable as arbitral awards are also outside its scope.
Therefore, before structuring a settlement with the Convention in mind, it is important to consider where enforcement may eventually be required, whether the relevant jurisdiction is a party to the Convention and whether any reservation made by that State affects enforcement. More importantly, it should be considered whether bringing the settlement within the framework of the Convention would actually protect and advance the parties’ commercial interests.
If the answer is yes, the next question in the UAE context is particularly important.
The UAE has adopted the reservation permitted under Article 8(1)(b) of the Convention. This means that the Convention applies only to the extent that the parties to the settlement agreement have agreed to its application.
In other words, application of the Singapore Convention should not be left to assumption. If the parties intend the settlement to benefit from the Convention, that intention should be expressly recorded. The opt-in provision should therefore be considered as part of the overall settlement and enforcement framework.
The UAE has also made the reservation permitted under Article 8(1)(a) in respect of settlement agreements to which the UAE, governmental agencies or persons acting on their behalf are parties, to the extent provided in its reservation. This should therefore be considered where a government-related party is involved.
The settlement agreement should also be structured keeping the eventual enforcement authority in mind.
Article 5 of the Convention sets out the grounds upon which the competent authority may refuse to grant relief. One particularly relevant ground is where the obligations in the settlement agreement are not clear or comprehensible. Relief may also be refused where granting relief would be contrary to the terms of the settlement agreement or where the settlement agreement is not binding or final according to its terms.
This makes clarity of the settlement obligations particularly important. If payment is required, the amount, currency, payment timeline and any conditions triggering payment should be identifiable. Where a party is required to take certain steps, the agreement should clearly identify those steps, the responsible party and the applicable timeline. Where performance depends upon a regulator, authority or third party, consideration should be given to whether the party is required to take the necessary steps from its side or is responsible for achieving the actual outcome.
These may appear to be ordinary considerations when negotiating a settlement, but they assume greater importance where the same agreement may subsequently be placed before an authority in another jurisdiction for enforcement.
It is equally important that the settlement genuinely results from mediation and that sufficient evidence of the mediation is retained.
Article 4 requires a party seeking relief under the Convention to provide the competent authority with the signed settlement agreement together with evidence that the settlement resulted from mediation. Such evidence may include the mediator’s signature on the settlement agreement, a separate document signed by the mediator, an attestation from the institution administering the mediation or other evidence acceptable to the competent authority.
Therefore, whether the mediation is conducted through a mediation institution or with an individual mediator, the mediation process and the mediator’s involvement should be properly documented. This is not merely an administrative formality; it may become relevant when enforcement is sought.
The Convention does not mean that every mediated settlement agreement will automatically be enforced. Article 5 contains other grounds for refusing relief, including incapacity of a party, invalidity of the settlement agreement, certain serious issues concerning the mediator’s conduct or disclosure, and circumstances where enforcement would be contrary to public policy.
The UAE’s accession therefore adds another consideration to the settlement process. In a cross-border commercial dispute, the question should not end with whether the settlement adequately records the commercial understanding reached between the parties. Consideration should also be given to what happens if one party does not perform and the settlement has to be enforced in another jurisdiction.
The Convention is not immediately operative in the UAE merely upon issuance of Federal Decree No. 85 of 2026. It enters into force for the UAE six months after the instrument of accession is deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and applies to settlement agreements concluded after the Convention enters into force for the UAE.
For parties involved in cross-border commercial transactions and disputes, the practical point is fairly simple: if the Singapore Convention may form part of the enforcement strategy, that strategy should be considered when the settlement is being negotiated and structured, rather than only when enforcement becomes necessary.
The UAE’s accession to the Convention was approved by Federal Decree No. 85 of 2026, issued on 8 June 2026. For parties involved in cross-border commercial disputes, this is an important development. A settlement agreement which falls within the scope of the Convention may now need to be looked at not merely as a document recording the settlement reached between the parties, but also from the perspective of its potential enforcement in another Convention jurisdiction.
This gives a different perspective to the way cross-border settlement agreements should be approached and structured.
That being said, the first question to be asked is whether the settlement agreement itself falls within the scope of the Singapore Convention.
The Convention does not apply to every settlement agreement simply because the parties are located in different jurisdictions. Broadly, it applies to written settlement agreements resulting from mediation, concluded to resolve a commercial dispute, which are international in nature at the time they are concluded. Certain categories are expressly excluded, including settlements relating to consumer transactions for personal, family or household purposes, as well as family, inheritance and employment matters. Court-approved settlements enforceable as judgments and settlements recorded and enforceable as arbitral awards are also outside its scope.
Therefore, before structuring a settlement with the Convention in mind, it is important to consider where enforcement may eventually be required, whether the relevant jurisdiction is a party to the Convention and whether any reservation made by that State affects enforcement. More importantly, it should be considered whether bringing the settlement within the framework of the Convention would actually protect and advance the parties’ commercial interests.
If the answer is yes, the next question in the UAE context is particularly important.
The UAE has adopted the reservation permitted under Article 8(1)(b) of the Convention. This means that the Convention applies only to the extent that the parties to the settlement agreement have agreed to its application.
In other words, application of the Singapore Convention should not be left to assumption. If the parties intend the settlement to benefit from the Convention, that intention should be expressly recorded. The opt-in provision should therefore be considered as part of the overall settlement and enforcement framework.
The UAE has also made the reservation permitted under Article 8(1)(a) in respect of settlement agreements to which the UAE, governmental agencies or persons acting on their behalf are parties, to the extent provided in its reservation. This should therefore be considered where a government-related party is involved.
The settlement agreement should also be structured keeping the eventual enforcement authority in mind.
Article 5 of the Convention sets out the grounds upon which the competent authority may refuse to grant relief. One particularly relevant ground is where the obligations in the settlement agreement are not clear or comprehensible. Relief may also be refused where granting relief would be contrary to the terms of the settlement agreement or where the settlement agreement is not binding or final according to its terms.
This makes clarity of the settlement obligations particularly important. If payment is required, the amount, currency, payment timeline and any conditions triggering payment should be identifiable. Where a party is required to take certain steps, the agreement should clearly identify those steps, the responsible party and the applicable timeline. Where performance depends upon a regulator, authority or third party, consideration should be given to whether the party is required to take the necessary steps from its side or is responsible for achieving the actual outcome.
These may appear to be ordinary considerations when negotiating a settlement, but they assume greater importance where the same agreement may subsequently be placed before an authority in another jurisdiction for enforcement.
It is equally important that the settlement genuinely results from mediation and that sufficient evidence of the mediation is retained.
Article 4 requires a party seeking relief under the Convention to provide the competent authority with the signed settlement agreement together with evidence that the settlement resulted from mediation. Such evidence may include the mediator’s signature on the settlement agreement, a separate document signed by the mediator, an attestation from the institution administering the mediation or other evidence acceptable to the competent authority.
Therefore, whether the mediation is conducted through a mediation institution or with an individual mediator, the mediation process and the mediator’s involvement should be properly documented. This is not merely an administrative formality; it may become relevant when enforcement is sought.
The Convention does not mean that every mediated settlement agreement will automatically be enforced. Article 5 contains other grounds for refusing relief, including incapacity of a party, invalidity of the settlement agreement, certain serious issues concerning the mediator’s conduct or disclosure, and circumstances where enforcement would be contrary to public policy.
The UAE’s accession therefore adds another consideration to the settlement process. In a cross-border commercial dispute, the question should not end with whether the settlement adequately records the commercial understanding reached between the parties. Consideration should also be given to what happens if one party does not perform and the settlement has to be enforced in another jurisdiction.
The Convention is not immediately operative in the UAE merely upon issuance of Federal Decree No. 85 of 2026. It enters into force for the UAE six months after the instrument of accession is deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and applies to settlement agreements concluded after the Convention enters into force for the UAE.
For parties involved in cross-border commercial transactions and disputes, the practical point is fairly simple: if the Singapore Convention may form part of the enforcement strategy, that strategy should be considered when the settlement is being negotiated and structured, rather than only when enforcement becomes necessary.