International Commercial Mediation at a Time of Uncertainty —The Italian Case

Abstract

There are at least four alternatives to manage conflicts: negotiation, mediation, arbitration, litigation. In negotiation, the conflicting parties try to find a solution by themselves. In mediation, a neutral third party facilitates the communication between/among the disputing parties, but does not have the power to impose a solution. In arbitration a private judge, chosen by the conflicting parties, enforces the law and imposes a solution. In litigation, a public court finds and imposes a solution. There is a problem in international disputes: the enforceability of the final result. The rules for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment in civil and commercial matters of international litigation are laid down by the Hague Convention , 1992 . The rules for international arbitration are written in the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards , signed in New York in 1958. The Uncitral Conciliation Rules were approved in 1980 and the Model Law on In ternational Commercial Conciliation in 2002. International arbitration has gained momentum. But, in disputes where “ time is money ” or it is necessary to maintain ongoing business relationships, the conciliation/mediation procedures started to be used more and more often. They are confidential, flexible, quick and cheap. The Singapore Convention on Mediation (SCM) 7.8.2019 ruled the enforceability of the mediation agreements. On 30.05.2025, it has been signed the Convention of the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed). Hybrid procedures (med-arb; arb-med-arb; etc.) have been used in several countries, especially in South East Asia . What is the scenario, for international commercial mediation, in a situation of relevant geopolitical and trade uncertainty? And what about Italy, likely the first western jurisdiction to introduce mandatory mediation in its contemporary legal system?