The Singapore Convention Refused To Allow The Study Of Relief Clauses

The key to the wide application of international commercial mediation is whether the settlement agreement is enforceable.?The Singapore Convention?,which is about to enter into force,lays the foundation for the cross-border implementation of the settlement agreement.However,Article 5 of the Convention allows the executive authorities to The refusal to grant relief settlement agreements may to some extent limit the cross-border implementation of settlement agreements.This article analyzes the report of the expert group drafting the convention and its legislative intent,and finds that the provisions of the convention are a compromise between the discussions and arguments of representatives of various countries.Therefore,there are problems of semantic overlap and lack of objective judgment standards in the refusal to grant relief clauses.Relief clauses are very similar to Article 5 of?Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards(New York,1958)?.This article also analyzes the cases of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.Through research,it is found that although some cases have certain reference significance,the The scope of application and the logical relationship between the provisions are not the same.When applying the Singapore Convention for refusal to grant relief provisions,full consideration must be given to its particularity.When applying the Convention's refusal to grant relief clauses,first of all,the application's prerequisites and exclusions should be clarified.For settlement agreements that do not fall within the scope of application,the Singapore Convention is directly excluded,and there is no need to refuse to grant relief in accordance with Article 5.Secondly,Article 5 of the Convention is divided into two paragraphs according to different start-up procedures,namely refusal to grant relief at the request of the parties and refusal to grant relief at the review of the competent authority.First,when determining that the parties are incapacitated,it should be clear that the parties 'incapacity includes not only their ability to enter into a settlement agreement,but also whether they are incapacitated during the implementation phase,otherwise Article 5 of the Convention will appear Paragraph(b)covers the logical issues of(a).Second,the three provisions of the settlement agreement that are not enforceable have semantic overlap.Only the first point of(b)relates to the determination of the legal effect of the settlement agreement in its applicable law.The applicable applicable law should choose to make the settlement The law of the agreement is valid,and the competent authority should evaluate whether the settlement agreement is binding or final,based on the specific terms of the agreement or whether there is an arbitration award or court decision that contradicts the settlement agreement.Third,the mediator's misconduct should have a causal relationship with the conclusion of the settlement agreement.For the mediator's misconduct,including violations of the code of conduct and failure to fulfill the disclosure obligation,the failure to perform the disclosure obligation must cause the parties to"create legitimate doubt" before they can refuse to grant Relief,the competent authority can refer to the circumstances listed in the IBA International Arbitration Conflict of Interest Guidelines and judge based on the objective evidence of the mediation meeting record when judging what is"justified",so as to effectively prevent the competent authority from falling into its subjective experience.The author also believes that when a remedy settlement agreement is denied in accordance with public policy,a settlement agreement that violates an international public policy may be denied relief;for a settlement agreement that violates a domestic public policy,it is necessary to combine the existing jurisprudence and specific systems in the country and be cautious Apply the public policy retention system.Each executive court may determine that certain commercial disputes cannot be resolved through mediation in accordance with its domestic laws.However,when determining these matters,it is necessary to consider the degree of relevance of the disputed matters to the location of the competent authority,and strictly apply to disputes that cannot be resolved through mediation.Terms.