It is also important to consider the extent to which rights may be conferred on third parties in a settlement agreement (e.g. .B. under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 under English law or Section 252 of the Civil Code of the United Arab Emirates). When settled with one of the defendants or potential defendants, it is important to expressly reserve the right to assert claims against other or potential defendants. An ongoing challenge for mediation as a means of resolving an international trade dispute is that the result of successful mediation is an internationally negotiated settlement agreement (IMSA) that traditionally has no better legal status than any other treaty. At present, there is no mechanism to impose ASMS directly at the international level. This means that if one of the parties to an IMSA refuses to abide by the agreement reached by the parties, the other party must rely on one of the available methods that are explained below. In the case of payment of a settlement amount, the tax impact should be taken into account. For example, the parties may explicitly state that the amount of the statement is a VAT (VAT) statement.
This is also an important reflection for parties established in the Gulf after the introduction of VAT in the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf countries. A technical problem arises in the legislation that transforms an IMSA into an arbitral award (usually through the appointment of an arbitrator confirming the IMSA). Most commentators agree that the New York Convention requires that there be a dispute at the time of appointment; Therefore, if an arbitrator is appointed after the settlement, the converted IMSA will likely not be enforceable as an arbitral award under the New York Convention. When one party to an IMSA refuses to abide by the parties` agreement, the other party has traditionally had to take legal action or arbitrate. This undermines the benefits behind the original reason for going through mediation. Enforcement procedures may be simplified (because the dispute has been circumscribed by IMSA, unlike a new procedure under the conditions of the original dispute), but the additional time and costs may be considerable. Where a party attempts to impose an IMSA through domestic disputes, the possibilities for enforcement outside the national jurisdiction are limited (as are national judgments). It became clear that the treatment and applicability of IMSA should not focus on the date of appointment of an arbitrator to confer arbitrator status on the conciliation agreement. It is time to abandon the legal fiction created between the approval judgments that were issued after , unlike what happened before – after the opening of arbitration proceedings. The terms of these agreements are concluded primarily without court control, and the court has little or no influence on the content and form of the settlement agreement.
The date of appointment of the Tribunal therefore has only a limited impact on the content of an IMSA. Reviving the underlying conflict rather than using the agreement Most participants in the UNCITRAL working group appear to be in favour of an international mechanism for IMSA. This view is not universal: some participants expressed concern about the lack of a fundamental difference between agreements resulting from negotiations and agreements resulting from mediation or mediation. . . .