The Singapore Mediation Convention: the dual questions of cost and time By Catherine Green
Part five
Part five of a six-part series titled ‘the Singapore Convention: a panacea for trade in the Trans-Pacific or just one piece of the puzzle?’
Part One of the series ‘An Introduction’ may be accessed here. Part Two of the series ‘The “Trans-Pacific” Experience’ may be accessed here. Part Three of the series ‘Facilitation of Trade and Investment’ may be accessed here. Part Four of the series ‘Addressing Diversity and Culture in International Mediation’ may be accessed here.
This is the fifth instalment of a six-part series on the Singapore Mediation Convention in which I have considered the overarching question of whether the Singapore Convention is a panacea for trade in the Trans-Pacific Region or just one piece of the puzzle.
Part One of the series provides an introduction; Part Two of the series considers the ‘Trans-Pacific’ experience and why the question of accession to the Singapore Convention needs to be considered taking into account the specific characteristics of the constituent member states within that region; Part Three gives consideration to the facilitation of trade and investment in the Trans-Pacific Region; and Part Four looks at the impact and influence of diversity and culture.
Part Five now turns to consider how mediation might be well placed to address concerns of cost and time so often associated (rightly or wrongly) with international private dispute resolution processes.
Introduction A fragment of a document attributed to Abraham Lincoln, dated 1 July 1850, contained the following note:1 Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbours to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser -- in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough. Abraham Lincoln’s words are no less salutary today with parties to both commercial arbitration and commercial litigation reported as becoming “increasingly jaundiced as to the rising costs.”2 Evidence of this is also seen in the findings of the 2018 Queen Mary Survey which reported 67% of respondents as ranking cost as the worst characteristic of international arbitration.3 The time taken to complete an international commercial arbitration has also been criticised with estimations espoused that such processes can take one to two years to complete.4 The correlation between time and cost is of course significant and direct. The longer it takes to conclude the arbitration, the longer parties are meeting ongoing fees for both lawyers and the arbitral tribunal, as well as carrying litigation risk which also has