8. Investor-State Mediation in a China-EU Bilateral Investment Treaty: Talking About Being in the Right Place at the Right Time

The phrase “Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) system” used in this paper refers to a comprehensive system composed of different mechanisms, such as negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration.

This has promoted a strong backlash and various corresponding efforts to improve the situation. Criticism was made and measures were taken by different subjects (such as States, international institutions, scholars, and practitioners) on various issues (such as amicus curiae, transparency, and appeal mechanisms). Taking transparency as an example: To realize greater transparency in investment arbitration which had been held behind closed doors, there were efforts made by international institutions, such as the issuance of UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration in 2014; by States, such as the EU’s proposal of an investment court system characterized by transparency reflected in EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (finally updated in 2016); and by academics, such as Stephan Schill, Transparency as a Global Norm in International Investment Law, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 15 September 2014 (http://​kluwerarbitratio​nblog.​com/​2014/​09/​15/​transparency-as-a-global-norm-in-international-investment-law/​) (accessed 4 December 2017).

In this case, at the end of a hearing, the tribunal observed that the aims of both sides seemed to be approximately aligned, and a legal decision was not the optimum outcome. Thus, it recommended the parties to seek out somebody acting as a mediator or reconciliatory to settle the dispute. See Achmea BV v. Slovakia, Final award, PCA Case No 2008-13 (7 December 2012), 14–15.

Echandi (2013).

In this paper, the phrase “international investment agreement (IIA)” is used in a broad sense, which refers to an agreement on investment concluded by States, no matter it is in the form of an independent treaty or part of a comprehensive economic agreement in a bilateral or multilateral context.

It was pointed out that in fact, many investors who commenced Investor-State arbitration preferred to remain active participants in the host State market. See Jean E. Kalick, Mediation of Investor-State Disputes: Revisiting the Prospects, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 2013 (http://​kluwerarbitratio​nblog.​com/​2013/​06/​14/​mediation-of-investor-state-disputes-revisiting-the-prospects/​) (accessed 4 December 2017).

Legum et al. (2013).

Ali (2015); Ali and Repousis (2016‐2017).

Bradley (2010); Davidson (2012).

Menkel-Meadow et al. (2010).

Wälde (2006).

Interest-based mediation and rule-based mediation are used to describe the mediators’ function in the substantive aspect of dispute resolution—suggesting a resolution according to parties’ interests or making an assessment of parties’ positions based on the applicable law. See Schonewille and Lack (2014).

Coe (2007).

Welsh and Schneider (2013).

Not all of these DSMs are included in an ISDS system under an IIA. For example, under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), mediation is not provided for ISDS. See NAFTA (entered into force on 1 January 1994), Chapter 11.

Fuller (1962).

Bottini and Lavista (2010); Salacuse (2007); Esme Shirlow, The Rising Interest in the Mediation of Investment Treaty Disputes, and Scope for Increasing Interaction between Mediation and Arbitration, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 2016 (http://​kluwerarbitratio​nblog.​com/​2016/​09/​29/​the-rising-interest-in-the-mediation-of-investment-treaty-disputes-and-scope-for-increasing-interaction-between-mediation-and-arbitration/​) (accessed 4 December 2017).

For example, in the case Metalclad v. Mexico (Metalclad Corporation v. The United Mexican States, ICSIID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1 (19 May 1997)), after winning a $17 million USD arbitral award against Mexico, the Chief Executive Officer of Metalclad expressed regret at having resorted to this mechanism by noting that despite “winning” the case, “the arbitration had been so dissatisfying that [he] wished the company had relied on other options to resolve the dispute”. See Timothy Gracious, Investor-State Mediation/Conciliation in India, 2015 (www.​mediate.​com/​articles/​TimothyG3.​cfm#) (accessed 4 December 2017). See also: Franck (2007); Jr Jack J. Coe, above n.13, 8–9.

Nancy Welsh and Andrea Kupfer Schneider, above n.14, 82–83.

Robert B. Davidson, above n.9, 521; Esme Shirlow, above n.17. For more discussion on the distinction between mediation and conciliation, see Lack (2011); Lack and Bogacz (2012).

These proceedings were held under the auspices of the World Bank by applying ICSID Conciliation Rules or ICSID Conciliation (Additional Facility) Rules.

Nitschke (2014); Shahla F. Ali and Odysseas G. Repousis, above n.8, 237. The ICSID conciliation procedures are similar to arbitration in many aspects, while admittedly with two key differences: first, conciliation procedures are more informal, less expensive and, potentially, less time-consuming; second, no binding award is rendered. See Nurick and Schnably (1986).

ICSID, The Icsid Caseload–Statistics (Issue 2017-1), 2017, (https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/resources/ICSID%2OWeb%20Stats%202017-1%20(English)%20Final.pdf) (accessed 4 December 2017).

These two cases are: RSM Production Corporation v. Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No. CONC/1/1 (This case was registered on 6 December 2011 and the Commission rendered its Report on 11 June 2013), and Republic of Equatorial Guinea v. CMS Energy Corporation and others, ICSID Case No. CONC(AF)/12/2 (This case was registered on 29 June 2012 and the Sole Conciliator rendered its Report on 12 May 2015). Based on the published procedural details, these two conciliation cases went through proceedings similar to arbitration, such as parties submitting several rounds of written statements, conciliators issuing procedural orders and participants having hearings, which were quite adversarial and tit-for-tat. Since not all information of these eight cases has been published, except for these two there may be more cases held in similar process.

Lester Nurick and Stephen J. Schnably, above n.22, 348.

This echoes that the qualifications set forth for ICSID conciliators are largely the same qualities required of ICSID arbitrators, except that for ICSID arbitrators, “[c]ompetence in the field of law shall be of particular importance”. See Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (enforced on 14 October 1966), Articles 14(1) and 31(2).

Stevens and Love (2010).

Nancy Welsh and Andrea Kupfer Schneider, above n.14, 132.

Kishoiyian (1994).

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Investor-State Disputes: Prevention and Alternatives to Arbitration, UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2009/11, 2010, 6–7, (http://​unctad.​org/​en/​docs/​diaeia200911_​en.​pdf) (accessed 4 December 2017).

For example, where disputing parties do not have the intention of reaching a settlement or continuing cooperation, other DSMs, such as Investor-State arbitration, are in a better position to resolve the dispute.

Such adjudication process can be investment arbitration or litigation in the investment court system proposed by the EU. For easy reference, “adjudication” will be used in the same way in the following discussion. Regarding the EU’s proposal of the investment court system, see EU-Vietnam FTA (agreed text as of January 2016), Chapter 8 Section 3 Sub-section 4; CETA (provisionally entered into force on 21 September 2017), Articles 8.22–8.43.

It was argued that offering mediation, conciliation, and arbitration alongside each other may, in fact, be the most effective way to achieve sustainable investment dispute settlement and economic development. See Frauke Nitschke, above n.22, 132.

For instance, a recent disclosed Investor-State mediation happened between a French company and the Philippines under the France-Philippines BIT (1994). This case was filed under the IBA Rules for Investor-State Mediation (2012), with the assistance of the ICC-ADR Centre. It was brought by Systra SA and its local subsidiary Systra Philippines Inc., arising out of allegedly long overdue invoices for services and work performed on metro and rail projects. Other information about this case has not entered into public view. See Investment Arbitration Reporter, In an apparent first, investor and host-state agree to try mediation under IBA Rules to resolve an investment treaty dispute, 2016, (www.​iareporter.​com/​articles/​in-an-apparent-first-investor-and-host-state-agree-to-try-mediation-under-iba-rules-to-resolve-an-investment-treaty-dispute/​) (accessed 4 December 2017).

Nancy Welsh and Andrea Kupfer Schneider, above n.14, 144.

A final agreement of TPP was drafted on 5 October 2015, made public on 5 November 2015, and signed on 4 February 2016. After the US’s withdraw in January 2017, the other 11 TPP countries (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam) agreed in May 2017 to revive the deal without the US’s participation. Currently, this agreement is not in force.

CETA was concluded on 29 February 2016, the provisional application of which started from 21 September 2017. See International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, EU, Canada Confirm CETA Provisional Application Date, 2017 (www.​ictsd.​org/​bridges-news/​bridges/​news/​eu-canada-confirm-ceta-provisional-application-date,) (accessed 4 December 2017).

CETA (provisionally entered into force on 21 September 2017), Annex 29-B.

EU-Vietnam FTA (agreed text as of January 2016), Chapter 8-Chapter II Section 3 Annex II; EU-Singapore FTA (authentic text as of May 2015), Annex 9-F.

EU-Vietnam FTA (agreed text as of January 2016), Chapter 8-Chapter II Section 3 Annex I; EU-Singapore FTA (authentic text as of May 2015), Annex 9-E.

EU-Vietnam FTA (agreed text as of January 2016), Chapter 8-Chapter II Section 3 Annex I, Article 4.2; EU-Singapore FTA (authentic text as of May 2015), Annex 9-E, Article 4.2.

EU-Vietnam FTA (agreed text as of January 2016), Chapter 8-Chapter II Section 3 Annex I, Article 4.3. This echoes the relevant provision in the EU-Singapore FTA, see EU-Singapore FTA (authentic text as of May 2015), Annex 9-E, Article 4.3.

As shown in its name, this set of rules specifically serve mediation to resolve disputes between investors and States. It was drafted by a subcommittee of the IBA’s mediation group, comprising members of the IBA mediation and arbitration committees, present and former officials of country governments, members of the secretariats of the ICC, ICSID, the PCA and the SCC, academics, and in-house counsel for major investors. See Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, International Bar Association Launches Investor-State Mediation Rules, 2012 (http://​hsfnotes.​com/​adr/​2012/​10/​23/​international-bar-association-launches-investor-state-mediation-rules/​) (accessed 4 December 2017).

IBA Rules for Investor-State Mediation (2012), Article 10.1.

Ibid, Article 10.3.

Ibid, Articles 4.1 and 9. For comments on these innovations, See Munir Maniruzzaman, A Rethink of Investor-State Dispute Settlement, 2013 (http://​kluwerarbitratio​nblog.​com/​2013/​05/​30/​a-rethink-of-investor-state-dispute-settlement/​) (accessed 4 December 2017); Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, above n.43; Barton Legum, Anna Joubin-Bret and Inna Manassyan, above n.7, 269.

Nancy Welsh and Andrea Kupfer Schneider, above n.14, 84.

International Energy Charter, Guide on Investment Mediation, CCDEC 2016 12 INV, 2016 (www.​energycharter.​org/​fileadmin/​DocumentsMedia/​CCDECS/​2016/​CCDEC201612.​pdf) (accessed 4 December 2017). The Guide was prepared with the support of the International Mediation Institute (IMI), the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).

The Energy Community, Energy Community Secretariat establishes Dispute Resolution and Negotiation Centre, 2016 (www.​energy-community.​org/​news/​Energy-Community-News/​2016/​10/​25.​html) (accessed 4 December 2017).

The Energy Community, Call for expression of interest: Creating a panel of mediators, 2017 (www.​energy-community.​org/​news/​Energy-Community-News/​2017/​01/​18.​html) (accessed 4 December 2017).

International Mediation Institute, IMI Competency Criteria for Investor-State Mediators, 2016 (https://​imimediation.​org/​private/​downloads/​RTdBTV1oyxkSpTLK​tlLV5w/​IMI_​IS_​Med_​Competency_​Criteria_​19_​Sept_​2016.​pdf) (accessed 4 December 2017).

UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2017, UNCTAD/WIR/2017, 2017 (http://​unctad.​org/​en/​PublicationsLibr​ary/​wir2017_​en.​pdf) (accessed 4 December 2017); UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2015, UNCTAD/WIR/2015, 2015 (http://​unctad.​org/​en/​PublicationsLibr​ary/​wir2015_​en.​pdf) (accessed 4 December 2017).

European Commission, EU and China Begin Investment Talks, 2014 (http://​europa.​eu/​rapid/​press-release_​IP-14-33_​en.​htm) (accessed 4 December 2017). The negotiations for a China-EU BIT officially started in January 2014.

Up to now, there have been 12 rounds of negotiations. The 12th round of negotiations took place in Brussels during the week of 26 September 2016. See Directorate-General for Trade European Commission, Note to File: EU-China Investment Agreement: Report of the 12th Round of negotiations, 2016 (http://​trade.​ec.​europa.​eu/​doclib/​docs/​2016/​october/​tradoc_​155061.​pdf) (accessed 4 December 2017).

Regarding the real use of an Investor-State mediation mechanism, it is equally important, if not more, that mediation is a familiar and possibly functional option to investors, which is expected to be affected by the role of mediation in the legal systems of investors’ home States.

This Model BIT has not been officially published, but the content can be reached through an academic article. The discussion here is based on the disclosed information in this article. See Xiantao Wen 温先涛, Discussion on “China Model Bilateral Investment Treaty” (draft) (1) 《中国投资保护协定范本》 (草案) 论稿 (一), 18(4) Guo Ji Jing Ji Fa Xue Kan 国际经济法学刊 (2011), 169–204; Xiantao Wen 温先涛, Discussion on “China Model Bilateral Investment Treaty” (draft)(2) 《中国投资保护协定范本》 (草案) 论稿 (二), 19(1) Guo Ji Jing Ji Fa Xue Kan 国际经济法学刊 (2011), 132–161; Xiantao Wen 温先涛, Discussion on “China Model Bilateral Investment Treaty” (draft)(3) 《中国投资保护协定范本》 (草案) 论稿 (三), 19(2) Guo Ji Jing Ji Fa Xue Kan 国际经济法学刊 (2011), 57–90.

It is noticeable that the promotion of using Investor-State mediation is more comprehensively reflected in a new agreement on investment arrangement between mainland China and Hong Kong, which was just concluded on 28 June 2017 under the framework established by the Mainland China and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA). In this agreement, for disputes between investors from mainland China that invest in Hong Kong and Hong Kong investors that invest in mainland China, mediation takes a dominant position in the whole dispute resolution system created thereunder (three out of six DSMs are in nature mediation). Although considering the relationship between mainland China and Hong Kong, it is hard to use this agreement as a concrete reference to infer China’s attitude in its prospective IIAs with other States, it still heralds a potentially greater use of Investor-State mediation by mainland China. See Mainland China and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement Investment Agreement 《内地与香港关于建立更紧密经贸关系的安排》投资协议 (2017), Articles 19.1 and 20.1.

Bilateral Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Government of the Republic of Colombia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China (signed on 22 November 2008, entered into force on 2 July 2013), Article 9.3.

Administration of Administrative Mediation of Contract Dispute by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (enforced on 3 November 1997), Article 6.

Administrative reconsideration applies to the situation where a citizen, legal person or any other organization considers that his or its lawful rights and interests have been infringed upon by a specific administrative act and applies for administrative reconsideration to an administrative organ. Mediation can be conducted during the administrative reconsideration process. See Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China (enforced on 1 October 1999, as amended on 27 August 2009), Articles 2, 50, and 51.

This kind of mediation is realized through conducting mediation during the arbitration process whenever there is consent from parties. See Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (enforced on 1 September 1995, as amended on 27 August 2009), Article 51.

During litigation, mediation can be referred to in three stages: before case registration, after case registration but before a hearing, and during or after a hearing but before the issuance of the final judgment. See Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (enforced on 9 April 1991, as amended on 31 August 2012), Articles 122, 133 and 142.

In 2006, the Ministry of Commerce of China promulgated a set of interim measures on complaints coordination dealing with complaints from foreign-invested enterprises, according to which foreign-invested enterprises or foreign investors which deem that their legitimate rights or interests have been infringed by an administrative authority may file a complaint with the complaint acceptance authority for coordination or settlement. See Interim Measures of the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China for the Work Relating to the Complaints of Foreign-funded Enterprises (enforced on 1 December 2006), Article 2.

Draft Foreign Investment Law (released on 19 January 2015), Article 118. More guidance on using complaints coordination is also provided in this draft. See ibid., Chapter 8.

Ibid, Articles 2 and 11. See also: Guiguo (2011).

Since Investor-State mediation does not involve the issue of depriving jurisdictions of Member States over investment cases, it should be less problematic in terms of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)’s Opinion 2/15. See CJEU Opinion 2/15 of the Court (Full Court), 16 May 2017. In this Opinion, upon the request of the European Commission regarding the EU’s competence in entering into comprehensive economic agreements in the context of the EU-Singapore FTA, the CJEU found that the EU did not have exclusive competence over ISDS provisions, since a choice between bringing a dispute before a court of a Member State and submitting it to arbitration had the effect of removing the case from the jurisdiction of a Member State.

Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 136, 24 May 2008.

Green Paper on alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial law, COM(2002) 196 final, 19 April 2002, 5, 9–10 (http://​eur-lex.​europa.​eu/​legal-content/​EN/​ALL/​?​uri=​CELEX:​52002DC0196) (accessed 4 December 2017). See also: Mª Pía Calderón Cuadrado and José Luis Iglesias Buhigues, Mediation as an “alternative” to jurisdiction: Directive 2008/52, in: European Civil Procedure (Thomson Reuters, 2011), 249–250. To follow up the implementation of this Directive on Mediation and guarantee its real effect, some projects have also been initiated. See e.g. Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs Directorate-General for Internal Policies, “Rebooting” the Mediation Directive: Assessing the Limited Impact of its Implementation and Proposing Measures to Increase the Number of Mediations in the EU, PE 493.042, 2014 (www.​europarl.​europa.​eu/​RegData/​etudes/​etudes/​join/​2014/​493042/​IPOL-JURI_​ET(2014)493042_​EN.​pdf) (accessed 4 December 2017).

Director General for Trade European Commission, Summary of contributions to the European Commission’s public consultation on “The future investment relationship between the EU and China”, 2011, 4 and 10 (http://​trade.​ec.​europa.​eu/​doclib/​docs/​2011/​december/​tradoc_​148394.​pdf) (accessed 4 December 2017).

For China, voluntariness is provided for all kinds of mediation, such as mediation held by the people’s courts. See Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (enforced on 9 April 1991, as amended on 31 August 2012), Articles 9 and 93. For the EU, see Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 136, 24 May 2008, Article 3(a).

Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, above n.43; Barton Legum, Anna Joubin-Bret and Inna Manassyan, above n.7, 266.

McAdoo and Welsh (2004).

EU-Vietnam FTA (agreed text as of January 2016), Chapter 8-Chapter II Section 3 Annex I, Article 4.3; EU-Singapore FTA (authentic text as of May 2015), Annex 9-E, Article 4.3.

Chan (2016). In this doctoral thesis, the author explored the features of mediation in China’s contemporary legal system based on a doctrinal analysis and an empirical legal research.

Clarke (1997).

A similar arrangement was argued by Nancy Welsh and Andrea Kupfer Schneider for Investor-State mediation in general. Specifically, the authors suggested that the process should begin in a facilitative manner. Discussion of relevant legal norms and evaluations by the mediator is supposed to be permitted at a later stage. See Nancy Welsh and Andrea Kupfer Schneider, above n.14, 71.

Mediators can make a proposal for changing the mediation style, if he deems the change is appropriate at any point during the process. For example, a mediator may start with an interest-based approach, then propose to transit to a rule-based style for finally reaching a settlement agreement.

Nancy Welsh and Andrea Kupfer Schneider, above n.14, 114.

Welsh and Schneider (2012).

The existence of different sorts of legal-cultural idiosyncrasies counsels that rules should clarify the models that may be used if mediation is added to the investment context. See Timothy Martin (2011).

ON procedural arrangements of international mediation, “difficulties could easily be addressed by providing clear guidelines and definitions on mutually identified parameter”, which would “at least inform disputants of differences and how they may have an impact on the process or the outcome to their dispute”. See Manon Schonewille and Jeremy Lack, above n.12, 21.

Horodyski (2016).

Note: Mediation of Investor-State Conflicts, 127 Harvard Law Review (2014), 2556.

For example, in the EU-Singapore FTA, it is provided that “[m]utually agreed solutions shall be made publicly available. However, the version disclosed to the public may not contain any information that a disputing party has designated as confidential […] All steps of the procedure, including any advice or proposed solution, shall be confidential. However, any disputing party may disclose to the public that mediation is taking place”. See EU-Singapore FTA (authentic text as of May 2015), Annex 9-E, Articles 4.6 and 6.3. This is similar to the relevant provision in the IBA Rules for Investor-State Mediation. See IBA Rules for Investor-State Mediation (2012), Article 10.3.

See e.g. China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT)/China Chamber of International Commerce (CCOIC), CCPIT/CCOIC Mediation Rules (enforced on 1 May 2012), Article 22.

Zhang (2014).

Malanczuk (2015).

For instance, the combination of mediation and arbitraiton as “Med-Arb” is deemed as one of its key advantages by China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). See China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), Why CIETAC 为何选择CIETAC (http://​www.​cietac.​org.​cn/​index.​php?​m=​Page&​a=​index&​id=​117) (accessed 4 December 2017).

Arbitration Rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission for International Investment Disputes (enforced on 1 October 2017), Article 43(2).

There have been several examples of non-confidential public sector resource mediation, which demonstrated the possibility of transparency to various extents in Investor-State mediation cases. See e.g. McGovern (2006).

EU-Vietnam FTA (agreed text as of January 2016), Chapter 8-Chapter II Section 3 Annex I, Articles 5.1 and 5.2. See also: EU-Singapore FTA (authentic text as of May 2015), Annex 9-E, Articles 5.1 and 5.2.

Regarding the EU, see Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 136, 24 May 2008, Article 6. In terms of China’s legal system, there are different ways to add an enforcement effect to a settlement agreement from mediation. For example, parties may make an application to the competent people’s court to confirm their settlement agreement. See Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (enforced on 9 April 1991, as amended on 31 August 2012), Article 26.

In fact, at least in 15 ICSID cases, the arbitral tribunals were asked to incorporate parties’ settlement in the form of a consent award. See Jean E. Kalick, above n.6.

It is noticeable that this does not deal with the unneglectable weakness of the EU’s investment court system that its judgments may not be enforced in the States who are not subject to this system. For more analysis on this point, see Just Published: Analysis of EU’s “Investment Court System”, Stockholm Chamber of Commerce ISDS Blog, 2016 (http://​isdsblog.​com/​2016/​10/​27/​just-published-analysis-of-eus-investment-court-system/​) (accessed 4 December 2017).

Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Forty-Seventh Session (July 7–18, 2014), UN Doc A/69/17, 2014, 124 (https://​documents-dds-ny.​un.​org/​doc/​UNDOC/​GEN/​V14/​053/​54/​PDF/​V1405354.​pdf?​OpenElement) (accessed 4 December 2017). See also Laila El Shentenawi, A New York Convention for Mediation May be Coming Soon, 28 August 2015 (www.​tamimi.​com/​en/​magazine/​law-update/​section-11/​section-13/​a-new-york-convention-for-mediation-may-be-coming-soon.​html) (accessed 4 December 2017).