One of the questions I am most frequently asked when engaging with policymakers, judges, arbitral institutions and dispute resolution professionals across the Middle East and North Africa is deceptively simple: what next?

The question usually arises in the context of the Singapore Convention on Mediation. For some states in the region, the Convention has already been signed and ratified. For others, it remains under active consideration as part of wider legal and institutional reform agendas. Yet regardless of where a particular jurisdiction stands on the formal treaty process, the central issue remains the same. What follows the act of signature? What practical, institutional and legal steps are required to ensure that the Convention delivers meaningful change in commercial dispute resolution practice?

This is precisely the question that Professor Nadja Alexander addresses in her important article, The Singapore Convention: What Happens After the Ink Has Dried? Her central insight is both persuasive and timely: signing the Convention is not the end of the journey, but the beginning of a broader transformation in dispute resolution culture.

For Arab states, this observation is especially significant. Across the region, there is increasing momentum behind mediation as part of a wider shift towards modern, commercially responsive dispute resolution systems. The real challenge, however, lies not in treaty status alone, but in what states do next. The first step after signature or ratification must be effective domestic legal implementation, whether through direct incorporation via ratification instruments, legislative transformation through dedicated mediation laws or amendments to existing procedural legislation, or a hybrid approach combining statute and court rules. Several MENA states have already introduced, or are in the process of introducing, mediation laws and institutional rules as part of broader dispute resolution reforms. However, these reforms are often developed in isolation, without expressly linking domestic mediation frameworks to obligations arising under the Singapore Convention. For example, Qatar’s Law No 20 of 2021 on Mediation for the Settlement of Civil and Commercial Disputes, enacted after Qatar signed and ratified the Convention, does not expressly refer to it. Instead, article 2 provides that the law applies ‘without prejudice to the provisions of international agreements in force in the State’, leaving the relationship between the domestic regime and the Convention implicit rather than clearly operationalised. At the same time, several states in the region that have signed, ratified, or acceded to the Convention have yet to introduce dedicated mediation legislation that fully incorporates it into the domestic legal system. This creates uncertainty for commercial parties, who require clarity on recognition and enforcement. Going forward, domestic laws should expressly address triggering mechanisms, mediation procedure, enforcement of settlement agreements, and mediator accreditation, while remaining in technical alignment with the Convention to ensure certainty, consistency, and commercial confidence.

Yet legislative reform, however well drafted, cannot operate effectively without corresponding judicial understanding and support. In several MENA jurisdictions, mediation as it presently operates is intrinsically linked to the courts, making judicial engagement central to its success. Qatar provides a clear example: while its Mediation Law recognises consensual mediation, article 15 also expressly provides for court-annexed mediation, permitting the court to invite parties in ongoing proceedings to attempt settlement within a specified period, with the case removed from the roll upon settlement or continued if either party objects. A similar judicially integrated approach can be seen in Saudi Arabia, where the Commercial Courts Law and its implementing regulations provide for mandatory or court-directed mediation in certain commercial disputes before substantive proceedings continue. Likewise, the UAE Federal Law No. 40 of 2023 on Mediation for the Settlement of Civil and Commercial Disputes permits courts to refer disputes to mediation, subject to party consent, further embedding mediation within the formal litigation framework. This judicial dimension becomes even more significant in the context of cross-border disputes and the Singapore Convention. Where mediated settlements may later be subject to international recognition and enforcement, judges must be equipped with a clear understanding of the Convention’s objectives, the limited grounds for refusal under article 5, and the principles governing enforcement of international settlement agreements. Judicial training programmes, specialist commercial benches, and procedural guidance are therefore essential to ensure that court-linked mediation frameworks operate consistently with international obligations and foster commercial confidence.

Beyond courts and legislation, the success of mediation also depends on the strength of the institutional ecosystem within which it operates, supported by credible institutions, professional standards, and market confidence. Several states across the MENA region have already taken important steps towards the institutional inclusion of mediation, reflecting a growing recognition of its commercial value. The Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) Mediation Rules (2016) marked an early institutional move in Saudi Arabia, followed by the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution (BCDR) Mediation Rules (2019), the Oman Commercial Arbitration Centre (OAC) Mediation Rules (2021), and most recently the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) Mediation Rules (2023). These developments demonstrate that mediation is increasingly being embedded within established arbitral institutions that already enjoy strong reputational capital. The next step is to ensure that mediation is positioned not merely as an adjunct to arbitration, but as a sophisticated dispute resolution process in its own right, particularly in sectors central to the region’s economy such as infrastructure, construction, energy, technology, and investment disputes, where speed, confidentiality, and commercial flexibility are especially valuable.

Institutional development must, however, be matched by investment in human capital and professional expertise. The region needs a specialised cadre of mediators with expertise in complex commercial and cross-border disputes, including infrastructure, PPPs, technology, IP, and investment matters. This requires advanced training, certification, and continuing professional development. Encouragingly, mediation training in collaboration with internationally recognised accreditation bodies such as the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR), the Singapore International Mediation Institute (SIMI), and the International Mediation Institute (IMI) is already being offered in several MENA states and should be further promoted. This presents a major opportunity for the region not merely to use international mediation services, but to emerge as a leading global and regional mediation hub.

Equally, the long-term success of mediation in the region will depend on how effectively it is integrated into existing dispute resolution pathways. One of the most promising global developments has been the rise of hybrid models such as Med-Arb and Arb-Med-Arb, which are particularly well suited to the MENA region given its established arbitration institutions and increasingly sophisticated commercial courts. Rather than being treated as a separate or competing process, mediation should be embedded within the wider dispute resolution architecture through multi-tier dispute resolution clauses, mediation windows within arbitral proceedings, and seamless pathways to court enforcement. Several institutions in the region already support this approach through model clauses and procedural frameworks, including DIAC, SCCA and OAC. This integration is especially valuable for large construction, infrastructure, and energy disputes, where early facilitated settlement can preserve relationships and reduce cost and delay.

Perhaps the most important challenge, however, is cultural rather than legal. The Convention cannot transform dispute resolution culture on its own. Commercial parties, legal advisers, state entities and business communities across the Arab world must begin to see mediation as a strategic commercial tool rather than merely a conciliatory option of last resort.  This requires a shift in legal culture. Law firms must become more comfortable advising clients to mediate early. In-house counsel must see mediation as a risk management mechanism. Public sector bodies and state-owned enterprises must begin incorporating mediation clauses into their contracts. Ministries and procurement authorities should consider embedding ADR pathways within standard project documentation.

Yet when these developments are viewed collectively, a deeper structural challenge becomes apparent. Taken together, the measures discussed above demonstrate that the MENA region is, in many respects, responding to what the literature demands: states are signing and implementing the Singapore Convention, introducing mediation laws, expanding institutional rules, investing in professional training, encouraging judicial engagement, and developing hybrid processes. However, the principal difficulty is that these steps are often undertaken in isolation and in an independent, fragmented manner, rather than as part of a cohesive ADR strategy. Reform has too often been reactionary rather than structured, driven by immediate policy needs rather than a long-term systemic vision. Simply signing the Convention, enacting a mediation law, adopting institutional rules, or offering training is not, in itself, sufficient. What is required is a coordinated and systematic framework in which legislation, institutions, courts, professional standards, and enforcement mechanisms operate together as an integrated dispute resolution ecosystem.

This, ultimately, brings us back to the central question posed at the outset: what truly comes next after signature? Ultimately, the true success of the Singapore Convention in the Arab world will not be measured by the number of signatures or ratifications. It will be measured by whether mediation becomes a routine feature of commercial contracting and dispute strategy. That is where the real transformation lies. As Professor Alexander so powerfully notes, the Convention is an invitation to reshape dispute resolution culture. For the Arab states, that invitation now presents a major strategic opportunity. The real work begins after the ink has dried.

‍