The UAE Joins the Singapore Convention on Mediation: What Changes for Cross-Border Settlements

The UAE has approved its accession to the Singapore Convention on Mediation. Here is what changes, what does not change, and why parties should revisit the wording of their settlement agreements now.

At a glance

• Federal Decree No. 85 of 2026, issued on 8 June 2026, approves the UAE’s accession to the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (the “Singapore Convention” or the “Convention”).
• The Convention is not yet in force in the UAE. It will enter into force six months after the UAE deposits its instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations .
• The UAE has entered both reservations permitted under Article 8: the Convention will not apply where the UAE Government, a governmental agency, or a person acting on their behalf is a party; and it will apply only where the parties have expressly agreed that it should.
• Only settlement agreements concluded after the Convention enters into force for the UAE will qualify. Existing settlements cannot be brought within the regime retrospectively.

The enforcement gap the Convention closes

Mediation has long been the most commercially attractive and least enforceable of the principal dispute resolution methods. An arbitral award travels across borders under the New York Convention. A mediated settlement agreement, by contrast, has generally been treated as no more than a contract: if the counterparty fails to perform, the aggrieved party must sue on the settlement, obtain a judgment or award, and then enforce that instrument — in effect litigating twice over a dispute the parties had already resolved.

The Convention removes that second round. It obliges contracting states to enforce qualifying mediated settlement agreements directly, and it allows a party to rely on the settlement agreement defensively as well — invoking it to prove that a matter raised against it has already been resolved.  That defensive use is often overlooked and is, in practice, one of the Convention’s more valuable features.

What qualifies

A settlement agreement falls within the Convention only if it satisfies four gateway conditions. It must be in writing, it must resolve a commercial dispute, it must result from mediation, and it must be international.

The internationality test is set out in Article 2(1) and is not the same as the test parties may be used to in arbitration. It is met where at least two parties to the settlement agreement have their places of business in different states, or where the state in which the parties have their places of business differs from the state in which a substantial part of the obligations under the settlement is performed, or from the state with which the subject matter is most closely connected.

Exclusions

The Convention expressly carves out several categories. It does not apply to settlement agreements arising from transactions entered into by a consumer for personal, family, or household purposes, nor to disputes relating to family law, inheritance, or employment matters.

It also excludes settlements that already benefit from an established cross-border enforcement route: those approved by a court or concluded in the course of proceedings before a court, and enforceable as a judgment in the state of that court; and those recorded and enforceable as an arbitral award. The purpose is to avoid overlap rather than to narrow the Convention’s reach — a settlement recorded as a consent award, for example, remains enforceable under the New York Convention instead.

The UAE’s two reservations – and the drafting consequence

Both reservations available under Article 8 have been exercised. The first excludes settlement agreements to which the UAE Government or a governmental agency is a party. The second, and more consequential for private parties, means the Convention applies in the UAE only on an opt-in basis.

The practical effect is that the benefit of the Convention is now a drafting point rather than a default. Parties mediating a cross-border commercial dispute with any prospect of UAE enforcement should include express wording to the effect that the settlement agreement is intended to fall within, and be enforceable under, the Convention. A settlement agreement that is otherwise perfectly within scope will fail at the enforcement stage if that wording is absent.

What you will need at the enforcement stage 

Article 4 sets out what a party must produce to the competent authority: the settlement agreement signed by the parties, and evidence that it resulted from mediation. Acceptable evidence includes the mediator’s signature on the settlement agreement itself, a separate document signed by the mediator confirming the mediation was carried out, or an attestation from the institution that administered the mediation.

This is a straightforward requirement that is easily overlooked in the relief of having reached agreement. The cleanest course is to have the mediator sign the settlement agreement or issue a confirmation at the same sitting; reconstructing that evidence months later, once a dispute over performance has arisen, is considerably harder.

The limited grounds for refusal

Once the Convention applies, enforcement may be refused only on the grounds listed in Article 5. These include the incapacity of a party; the settlement agreement being void, inoperable, not binding, not final, or subsequently modified; obligations that have already been performed or that are not sufficiently clear; relief that would be contrary to the terms of the settlement; public policy; and subject matter incapable of settlement by mediation.

Timing, and what remains to be confirmed

Accession has been approved, but the Convention has no effect in the UAE until six months after the instrument of accession is deposited. Until then, the existing framework continues to govern the recognition and enforcement of mediated settlements.

Several points will become clearer as implementation progresses: the date of deposit, and therefore the date from which the Convention operates; which authority will be designated as competent to hear applications; how the Convention will interact with the ratification mechanics of the Mediation Law; and how it will apply in the financial free zones.

What to do now

• Review template settlement and mediation agreements and add express Convention opt-in wording, ready for use once the Convention is in force.
• Where a mediation is in progress, consider the timing of signature. A settlement concluded before entry into force will not qualify, however clearly it opts in.
• Build the Article 4 evidence into the process — mediator signature or written confirmation, obtained at the time.
• Prefer institutional mediation under published rules where enforcement risk is material, both for the standards it supplies and for the attestation it provides.
• Revisit multi-tier dispute resolution clauses. Mediation now carries a materially better enforcement outcome than it did, which may change where it sits in the escalation ladder relative to arbitration.
• Monitor the deposit of the instrument of accession, as this fixes the operative date.

The UAE’s accession is consistent with a wider strategy of aligning the domestic dispute resolution framework with recognised international instruments, and it addresses the single most cited obstacle to the uptake of commercial mediation in the region. Once in force, parties to qualifying international commercial disputes will have a genuinely efficient route to enforce a negotiated outcome, without converting it first into a judgment or an award. The reservation-driven opt-in requirement means, however, that the benefit will accrue only to those who draft for it.

Ahmed Ziad Galadari Partner & Director [email protected]