Empowering Mediators in the MENA Region

Every mediator or negotiator who has stepped into a high-stakes negotiation knows the feeling of pushing the Sisyphus rock and being scared if it rolls back. We invest time to build trust, to get the conflict parties to the negotiation table and once the conversation starts, something shifts- the stone rolls back down.

Albert Camus used Sisyphus as a symbol of the human condition: endlessly pushing a boulder uphill, only to watch it fall back down. Yet Camus argued that Sisyphus' strength lay not in reaching the summit, but in his willingness to continue the journey with awareness and purpose. Dispute resolution experts spend hours building consensus, aligning interests, and chipping away at decades of hostility. We finally get to the top of the hill... only for an unexpected grievance or a sudden shift in political will to roll the rock right back down to the bottom.

In mediation, it can easily feel like we are Sisyphus, condemned to push the same heavy stone up, over and over again. But here is the secret that keeps mediators going: The joy isn’t just in reaching the summit; it’s in mastering the physics of the push.

Camus wrote that Sisyphus was condemned to push his boulder uphill for eternity, only to watch it roll back every time he neared the top. He called it the most dreadful punishment imaginable — futile and hopeless labour.

But then he said something that changed everything: "The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy"

I've been thinking about this a lot in relation to mediation and negotiation. Not as a consolation — but as a technique. Because the mediator who carries the Sisyphus rock isn't just enduring. They're doing something precise on the way back down the mountain. And how they use that descent is what separates a skilled practitioner from an exhausted one. Here's what I mean, practically:

1-When the process collapses, don't restart from zero:
The boulder rolling back doesn't erase what was built. Trust built in session one doesn't disappear because session three broke down. A skilled mediator uses the descent to take stock: what held? What cracked? Where did the emotional temperature spike before the conversation derailed? The collapse contains more information than the progress did.

2-Resistance is an art, not failure:
When a party suddenly withdraws, hardens, or lashes out after apparent progress, the instinct is to diagnose this as obstruction. The trauma-aware lens reads it differently: as a signal that the process moved faster than the person's nervous system could follow. The appropriate response isn't to push harder. It's to slow down, go back one step, and ask: what just happened for you?

3- Reframe- Read the energy in the room as part of the process:
Name it in the room. "It looks like we've hit a wall. That's not unusual at this stage — it often means we've reached something real. Let's take a breath and come back to what we know both of you agree on"; The mediator who normalizes the stone rolling back removes its power to derail the process entirely.

4- Protect the relationship with the process itself:
Emotions management is required in this phase. The most dangerous moment in a mediation isn't when parties fight each other. It's when one or both of them start fighting the table. A mediator carrying the Sisyphus rock knows that keeping parties committed to the process even when they're furious at each other is the whole job. That means the process itself must feel fair, visible, and safe to return to, even after a collapse.

5- Know when the boulder is too heavy for this room:
‍Camus doesn't say Sisyphus is a fool for pushing. He says the struggle is what fills the heart. There's a version of mediation where the stone is genuinely too heavy where the structural violence underneath the conflict, long history full of grievances and hostilities, or the power imbalance in the room, makes informal resolution not just difficult but actively harmful. Knowing when to stop pushing and name that — that's not failure. That's professional integrity and wisdom.

The Sisyphus mediator isn't the one who never feels the weight of the rock. They're the one who, on the way back down the mountain, is already thinking about the next step up.

What moment in your own mediation or negotiation work has felt most like the stone rolling back, and what did you do with it?

‍

Mediation has traditionally been understood through formal procedures and institutional negotiation frameworks. The UAE approach complements this by prioritising trust-building as a precondition for dialogue. It reflects a distinctly Emirati style of communication, grounded in long-standing social practices where human connection, presence, and mutual respect precede formal negotiation, and applies these principles in a structured way to modern diplomacy. The UAE blends its own cultural traditions with its mediation style to shape dialogue and ensure effectiveness.

In Emirati tradition, this often begins with the simple yet meaningful gesture of a warm welcome and the offering of Arabic coffee (gahwa), creating a human connection before any substantive exchange takes place. The majlis, a traditional Emirati gathering space for socialising, exchanging views, and consultation, offers more than a cultural reference point. It provides an underlying logic for how trust is formed and dialogue initiated in Emirati diplomatic practice.

Within a majlis, communication is not immediately transactional, nor driven by rigid protocol. It begins with the creation of relational space, where presence, attentiveness and hospitality precede negotiation. Arabic coffee, which was recognised by UNESCO as intangible cultural heritage, is central to this process This is not merely symbolic; the practice of welcoming guests with Arabic coffee serves as an intentional first step in communication, signalling openness, respect, and readiness to engage before moving into matters of substance. The sequence of serving coffee, moving through shared interaction and concluding with expressions of continuity reflects a progression from access to trust.

This process reflects a communication style rooted in patience, listening, and human connection where relationships are established before positions are negotiated. This pattern is reflected in the UAE’s approach to mediation. Trust is not treated as an outcome of negotiation but as a precondition for it built through consistent, human-centred communication rather than formal exchanges alone.

Emirati diplomatic practice therefore places emphasis on the conditions that allow dialogue to begin, rather than only on the formal structure of talks. The relational discipline embedded in the majlis informs this approach, shaping how access is managed, how engagement is sequenced and how continuity is sustained when formal negotiations are not yet possible. It is a unique style, which has proven its success.

On the other hand, traditional mediation frameworks, while essential to international order, often depend on structured negotiation formats that assume sustained direct engagement between parties and shared readiness to translate dialogue into implementation. In practice, several long-running peace processes have demonstrated the limitations of this model when these conditions are not consistently present. The Israeli–Palestinian peace process, despite multiple structured initiatives since the Oslo Accords, has experienced repeated cycles of engagement without durable implementation. Similarly, mediation efforts on Syria under successive international frameworks, including UN-led Geneva talks and parallel diplomatic tracks, have continued over extended periods with limited convergence on core political settlements. These experiences illustrate the constraints of formal mediation when communication channels are fragmented and trust is insufficient to sustain agreements beyond the negotiation table.

Where these dynamics are present, alternative approaches to mediation, including the UAE’s, place greater emphasis on sustained engagement and on the conditions that enable dialogue to emerge and endure. This extends beyond formal mechanisms to include the quality of communication itself. This perspective is reflected in three consistent mediation techniques used by the UAE:

First, The UAE maintains communication channels with parties that may not directly engage with one another, whilst maintaining a pragmatic view. In practice, this has been reflected in facilitation efforts such as UAE-supported Russia–Ukraine prisoner exchange channels, which required parallel engagement with both sides despite minimal direct contact between them. The UAE has facilitated over 22 mediation initiatives in this conflict alone, resulting in the exchange of over 6000 detainees since 2022. The function of mediation here is not immediate agreement, but the maintenance of connectivity where diplomatic channels are otherwise limited.

Second, sequenced engagement rather than single-intervention diplomacy. UAE mediation efforts tend to evolve through repeated contact, discreet facilitation and incremental confidence-building. This approach has been visible in Abu Dhabi-facilitated dialogue between Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2023 and 2024, in the post-conflict context following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. During this period, multiple rounds of engagements took place, including a high-level leaders’ meeting in Abu Dhabi in July 2025, which was the first formal bilateral meeting following agreement on a draft peace framework earlier that year. Discussions have focused on technical and incremental issues such as border delimitation of a roughly 1,000km shared border, transport connectivity and steps toward normalisation of relations. Progress has occurred in stages, with the emphasis here not on immediate outcomes, but on sustaining dialogue through continuous, relationship-driven communication.

Third, neutral facilitation. This refers to the UAE’s practice of engaging with all relevant parties without alignment to any single position, operating as a balanced intermediary while maintaining credible and consistent access to each side. It is grounded not only in impartiality, but in the ability to communicate credibly and consistently with all parties. Its importance lies in preserving dialogue in environments where trust is limited or absent.

A clear example is the United Arab Emirates’ pivotal role in mediating and ending the long-standing border conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia. It hosted and oversaw the peace negotiations that culminated in the signing of the Abu Dhabi Declaration in July 2018, bringing an end to the state of war and opening new horizons for regional cooperation and stability in the Horn of Africa.

The UAE’s activities are supported by institutional reach. The UAE maintains an extensive diplomatic network with more than 100 missions worldwide. It served as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in 2022–2023, where it emphasised de-escalation and humanitarian access across multiple files. It is also among the leading providers of foreign aid relative to national income, reinforcing its credibility as a long-term international partner.

The same logic shapes how the UAE builds capacity at home. A nation’s ability to mediate abroad is, in part, a reflection of the institutions and human networks it cultivates internally. In this regard, Emirates Foundation occupies a distinctive position. As the UAE’s national foundation for youth development and social impact, it sits at the intersection of government, the private sector and civil society, convening these three constituencies and translating their differing perspectives into collaborative programs that serve a common purpose. In addition, by cultivating a structured community of Emirati specialists across policy, diplomacy, technology, sustainability and development, the National Experts Programme (NEP), developed under the directives of His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the UAE, is another example that bridges institutional divides and informs dialogue wherever it is needed.

The UAE’s value lies in its distinctive practices to how dialogue is initiated and sustained through a model of communication that prioritises trust, cultural understanding and human connection, both at home and abroad, before formal negotiation begins.

The result is a form of mediation that combines continuity with structured engagement, rooted in a mindset that prioritises people, trust, and dialogue. One should look no further than the Emirati majlis to understand the UAE approach.

‍

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.

‍

The relationship between private international law and mediation is not apparent. As is well known, mediation is primarily a non-legal dispute resolution method, where emphasis is mostly put on relationships and personal dynamics, not on the application of the law. Interest behind the position is what the mediator is looking for, before they embark on the negotiation stage of the mediation.

‍

The “legal shell” of mediation

However, the law is always there, as a “shell” around mediation, starting from the contract (or the court order, or the law as the case may be) to mediation, the law that governs the process of mediation and eventually the law that governs the agreement after mediation. Indeed, in all the above, some law shall apply. In a domestic setting, this is the law of the country where mediation takes place. But what is the case internationally?

‍

The law in cross-border mediations

In an international dispute having cross-border dimension, the relevant private international law questions are related (a) to the venue (b) to the applicable law and (c) to the enforcement, if needed. These points form the second (special – microview) part of the book).
The first (general -macroview) part is about the way that the international community approaches mediation from a legal point of view. In this context, a general discussion on mediation is done (roots, terminology, non-legal aspects, and then a more focused discussion on the “legal shell”, on mediation and the question of access to Justice, on the “special” character of mediation as a dispute resolution method and on the so-called “hybrid” nature of the MSA, as well as on the legislative initiatives of the international community regarding mediation.

‍

Discussing mediation from a private international law standpoint

As is well known, venue, applicable law and enforcement are the three main subparts of private international law. The position on mediation and private international law is as follows:

Venue. While there is no jurisdiction in mediation, venue can be crucial. First of all, the parties must be happy to travel and spend time at the venue. Secondly, the process rules will most probably differ from country to country (for example the question whether internal confidentiality is the default rule, or the exact opposite unless a party chooses not to disclose). It is important to agree in advance on such rules that do not need to be the ones of the venue (as the venue is not forum), save for any public policy rules that apply there and cannot be contracted out. Thirdly, choosing the venue may also be relevant for the enforcement of the MSA, if ever needed. This question needs to be assessed proactively, also with a view to the choice of venue.

In the book, one can find an extended discussion of all above points, with emphasis on commencement of mediation (contract, compulsory mediation under law or court order), or the mediation process, especially on the conduct and duties of the mediator. In this context, the UNCITRAL model mediation law and rules are extensively presented.

Applicable law. There exist few contracts in a mediation environment, next to the substantive law of the actual contract (if any): (i) The agreement to mediate and the agreement with the mediator. One needs to make sure that the applicable laws in these two agreements do not invalidate any provision of these contracts. (ii) More importantly the MSA. The applicable law to it will bear influence on its enforcement and on any action for its annulment. In the book the method that can be used to define the applicable law in all above contracts is discussed. One can find answers to the problems that may arise in this context, to the extent that such answers are feasible at the present stage of development of mediation.

Enforcement. If a party to the MSA does not perform its obligations under it, the question of enforcement arises. In this context, one can find extensive discussion of the 2019 Singapore Convention on Mediation as well as of the EU systems of enforcement, based on the relevant EU regulations and references to the system oh OHADA. The former has adopted the “direct” enforcement model whereby the place of origin of the MSA is not important (although the term used is “relief”, to mitigate the various legal traditions of the contracting parties of the Convention). What matters is for the state of enforcement to have adopted the Convention. The EU has adopted the “cross-border” enforcement model which means that first an MSA becomes enforceable in a member state of the EU and it can then be enforced in the rest of the EU by virtue of the enforcement regulations of the EU. To be noted here that the fact that the EU has not ratified the Singapore Convention makes enforcement of MSAs from third countries literally impossible in those Member States that do not allow for direct enforcement. Therefore, one needs to examine proactively if such enforcement, either cross-border (in which case the venue matters) or direct, is possible in the country where enforcement may have to take place eventually. To be noted that under certain conditions, the 1958 New York Convention on arbitration can also be used for enforcement.

One important point is that the international community has not worked on all the above issues with equal effort. In fact, the systems of enforcement are the most developed internationally, followed by venue, while applicable law has not stirred the interest of the international community in relation to mediation yet, and in this sense the discussion in the book comes from general applicable law standpoint.

‍

This book can be a valuable assistance to the practitioners of international commercial mediation, both mediators and lawyers and is hoped to initiate a wider discussion of the relevant topics.

‍