Domestic and International Legal Frameworks for the Enforcement of Mediation Settlement Agreements

The article examines mediation as a modern and non-confrontational mechanism[1] of conflict management[2], the effectiveness of which significantly depends on the legal guarantees for the enforcement of mediation settlements. This study aims to provide a systematic analysis and evaluation of the legal mechanisms for enforcing mediation agreements in Georgia and in international practice. Furthermore, the present study reflects the legislative amendments adopted on 9 December 2025 to the Law of Georgia on Mediation (hereinafter – the Law) and to Chapter XLIV¹³ of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia (hereinafter – the Code), within the framework of which two fundamental dimensions of mediation were substantially modified: (a) the legal regime governing the enforcement of private and court-annexed mediated settlement agreements; and (b) the institutional mechanisms relating to mediators’ professional ethics and disciplinary responsibility. Although this reform represents a new stage in the institutional development of mediation in Georgia - aimed at harmonising the mediation framework with international standards and strengthening professional regulation - it is also accompanied by certain theoretical and practical challenges. In particular, under the new wording of Article 208(1) of the Code, according to which a settlement agreement reached through court mediation is approved by the court in the same ruling, it remains unclear whether such a mediated settlement is subject to automatic enforcement without an additional application by the parties, and whether this could be regarded as a limitation of one of the fundamental principles of mediation, namely the principle of voluntariness. The article examines the role of the Singapore Convention in facilitating the enforcement of settlement agreements reached through international mediation and assesses its impact across European, Asian, and Anglo-American legal systems. Comparative analysis highlights key challenges and approaches for strengthening the reliability and standards of enforcing mediated settlements. It also offers recommendations to enhance the transparency, efficiency, and credibility of mediation at both national and international levels, including clarifying judicial discretion in enforcement refusals, defining essential settlement requirements, integrating hybrid mediation models, and harmonizing international enforcement practices. In light of recent legislative amendments, the paper further proposes an interpretative approach to distinguish the enforcement regimes applicable to settlements reached through private and court-annexed mediation. [1] Kriesberg L., Northrup T. A., Northrup, Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017, 2. [2] Roberts M., Mediation in Family Disputes: Principles of Practice. Ashgate Publishing, 2008, 229.