On June 17, 2026, the International Mediation Institute (IMI) hosted a webinar exploring the private international law dimensions of commercial mediation. The panel discussion revealed the legal aspects that mediation advocates and mediators should consider in cross-border commercial disputes.

The session marked the first deliverable from IMI’s newly established Regulatory Reforms and Implementing Policies Subcommittee, operating under the Mediation Public Policy Committee. In her opening remarks, IMI Executive Director Ivana Ninčić Österle framed the session’s core premise: while mediation is valued for its flexibility without rigid procedural rules, informality cannot mean a lack of certainty. Hence, this flexibility must be anchored by predictability, enforceability, and trust. Following over 250 expressions of interest, the panel discussion generated a high turnout, attracting approximately 120 active participants who joined the conversation.

The basis for the webinar was Dr Haris Meidanis’ recently published book, ‘The Private International Law of Commercial Mediation.’ Rather than a formal book presentation, the session was designed as an open, practitioner-led conversation, working through what happens before, during, and after a mediation, and how private international law bears on each of those stages. The panel brought together Dr Meidanis, author, attorney, and Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators; Prof. Bas van Zelst, attorney, arbitrator and professor at Maastricht University; and Prof. Nadja Alexander, Director of the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (SIDRA) at Singapore Management University, researcher and trainer. Corrado Mora, IMI Certified Mediator and Chair of the Regulatory Reforms and Implementing Policies Subcommittee, and Zainab Adnan, member of the Subcommittee, moderated the discussion. 

Before Mediation: Is there a “Venue” in International Mediation?

The discussion opened with a foundational point: mediation cannot escape law altogether, and is at all stages surrounded by a “legal shell”. Nadja Alexander observed that even in the absence of mediation-specific legislation, general law inevitably applies, and courts have always had to determine applicable law in international mediation disputes. She turned to the Singapore Convention on Mediation (the “Convention”) to draw a key distinction from arbitration: there is no seat of mediation in the way arbitration has one, since the Convention’s only relevant connecting factor is the state of enforcement. Bas van Zelst built on this, noting that while mediation has no seat per se, an unsuccessful mediation is likely to be followed by litigation or arbitration that does have one, and the law of that eventual forum can shape how a mediation clause is interpreted. Haris Meidanis added that this reflects a deliberate authorial choice in his book. Rather than speaking of “jurisdiction” in mediation, he proposes the concept of “venue” as a parallel, adapted to mediation’s distinct character.

During Mediation: Confidentiality, Ethics, and the Lex Mediationis

Turning to what happens once parties and mediator are at the table, Haris Meidanis introduced the idea of a lex mediationis, a body of process principles, such as confidentiality and impartiality, that apply universally across mediations even though their specific legal content varies considerably from one jurisdiction to another. Nadja Alexander expanded on confidentiality specifically, breaking it down into three distinct layers: the general principle that what happens in the room stays in the room, the narrower rule governing private sessions between mediator and one party (caucus), and the evidential rule determining what communications may later be admissible in court. She also highlighted that mediators, lawyers, and parties hold different duties for good-faith participation in mediation. If a matter ends up in court, this can impact what is treated as confidential. 

In this context, Bas van Zelst cautioned mediation advocates and mediators alike to be alert to attempts to use mediation sessions to surface information that could later support document production requests in litigation or arbitration. He suggested that mediators play a role in candidly testing advocates on whether their stated legal positions could actually be upheld in court, rather than treating posturing within the mediation neutrally. 

After Mediation: Enforcement and the Singapore Convention

The conversation’s final substantive pillar addressed the enforcement of mediation settlement agreements (MSA). Haris Meidanis suggested that MSAs occupy a unique legal space somewhere between an ordinary contract and a court decision. Its legal form  and the jurisdiction will influence the agreement’s enforcement, with at least six different enforcement pathways under different legal systems. The speakers agreed that MSAs falling under the Convention simplify enforcement significantly, also because no specific legal form is required. While enforceability is a crucial issue, Nadja Alexander stressed that evidence shows high compliance with MSAs. Yet, lawyers in particular place significant value on having a direct enforcement mechanism available, since it strengthens confidence in using mediation for cross-border disputes in the first place, even where enforcement is rarely invoked in practice.

Why Choose Mediation at All?

In the closing Q&A, panellists were asked by the audience why parties would choose mediation over arbitration at all, given the latter’s clearer rules on jurisdiction and enforcement. Nadja Alexander quoted SIDRA’s 2024 International Dispute Resolution Survey to explain why users would choose mediation over arbitration: 

“Mediation has, at least anecdotally, higher compliance than arbitration. It’s generally less expensive because it’s quicker, and even if it doesn’t settle, you’re already on the preparation pathway for arbitration, or something different. Something else that came up a lot in the survey was that, if the business relationship is relevant, then mediation is more suitable.”

The survey analysed user experience and satisfaction with international commercial arbitration, mediation,  litigation, and mixed mode (hybrid) dispute resolution. 

On the whole, the speakers agreed that neither method is inherently superior to the other. Each has its own strengths, and the right choice depends on the nature of the dispute and the needs of the parties. Mixed-mode approaches which combine mediation with arbitration or other methods were highlighted as particularly useful in certain cases. Where a business relationship is at stake and a swift resolution is possible, there is little to lose by trying mediation first, and if it does not resolve the dispute, the transition to the next process is streamlined. 

Looking Ahead

This webinar marked the first deliverable from IMI’s Regulatory Reforms and Implementing Policies Subcommittee, and the Subcommittee looks forward to continuing this work through future sessions exploring the practical intersections of law, policy, and mediation practice. 

Stay tuned for upcoming events, and in the meantime, explore the new IMI platform! As part of our soft launch, we are continuously making improvements and would love your feedback. If you have any questions or spot anything that needs our attention, please contact us through this form.

Rewatch the webinar here.

Passcode: 9^d#KHRR