2019年8月，《新加坡调解公约》（以下简称《公约》）开放签署，包括中国在内的46个国家作为第一批签署国对其进行了签署。2020年9月12日，《公约》生效，至此，国际商事纠纷解决机制将形成诉讼、仲裁、调解三驾马车并驾齐驱的态势。中国虽然是《公约》的第一批签署国，但《公约》并未对中国生效，因而批不批准《公约》成为现阶段中国面临的主要问题。
《公约》的产生背景是为打破和解协议在国际间执行难的困境，因而其主要内容是赋予经调解所达成的国际商事和解协议以执行力，而这与中国的法律规定及传统法律观念极为不符。根据中国的法律规定，和解协议并不具有执行力，其须经过法院或其他法定机构的审查，才可申请强制执行。《公约》与中国法律制度的主要矛盾便由此产生，即针对和解协议效力的规定存在不同。对二者关于和解协议效力规定进行细致分析后可知，《公约》赋予其项下和解协议的效力内容包含执行力与既判力，而根据中国法律规定，和解协议仅具有约束当事人的效力。以此为基础，从执行程序与拒绝救济理由两方面对《公约》与中国有关商事和解协议的执行机制进行比较，可发现，《公约》在启动方式、启动条件、审查方式、处理方式以及时限要求等方面与司法确认、公证及支付令程序存在不同，而在救济理由方面，《公约》规定得也较为宽泛，不利于虚假和解及虚假执行的预防。在详细对比《公约》与中国有关和解协议的执行机制后，分析中国批准《公约》的积极意义与消极影响。批准《公约》可倒逼中国商事调解制度的发展，促进相关法律制度的完善，推进ADR制度在中国的发展，同时还可为“一带一路”提供法律保障。当然，也不可忽视《公约》潜在的制度缺陷，如易导致虚假和解协议的虚假执行等等，同时，也可能产生加重法院司法审查负担等对现有司法制度的影响。与之相比，不批准《公约》会带来更多问题，首先，通过《公约》获得执行的国际商事和解协议将会陷入在中国国内不存在任何法律规定作为依据支撑的尴尬境地，其次，现行的国际商事和解协议跨国执行机制均存在自身弊端，不具有直接执行机制所具有的优势。
因此，在衡量批准与不批准《公约》两种选择后，本文认为批准《公约》具有巨大意义，而批准《公约》所带来的消极影响可以通过限缩商事概念和建立公示制度等措施来克服，因此，应批准《公约》。除此之外，中国还应补充及完善相关立法事项，包括确认和解协议的效力，完善“双轨制”审查和执行程序，统一调解员的认证资质与守则，以做好批准《公约》后的衔接工作。最后，还应尝试建立区域统一商事和解协议执行机制，包括建立两岸三地和解协议执行机制和完善“一带一路”争议解决机制，以最大程度发挥批准《公约》后的积极意义。

In August 2019, the Singapore Mediation Convention (hereinafter referred to as the “Convention”) was opened for signature, and 46 countries, including China, signed it as the first batch of signatories. On September 12, 2020, the "Convention" entered into force. At this point, the international commercial dispute resolution mechanism will form a troika of litigation, arbitration, and mediation. Although China was the first group of signatories to the "Convention," the convention did not come into force for China. Therefore, whether to ratify the "Convention" has become a major issue it faces at this stage.
The background of the "Convention" is to break the dilemma of settlement agreements that are difficult to implement internationally. Therefore, its main content is to endow the international commercial settlement agreements reached through mediation with enforcement power, which is extremely incompatible with Chinese legal provisions and traditional legal concepts. According to Chinese law, the settlement agreement is not enforceable, and it must be reviewed by the court or other statutory bodies before applying for enforcement. This leads to the main contradiction between the "Convention" and the Chinese legal system. After a detailed analysis of the two provisions on the effectiveness of the settlement agreement, it can be seen that the effectiveness of the settlement agreement under the Convention includes enforcement and res judicata. According to Chinese law, the settlement agreement only has the effect of binding the parties. Based on this, comparing the implementation mechanism of the Convention and China’s relevant commercial settlement agreements in terms of the implementation procedures and the reasons for refusal of relief, it can be found that the Convention is in terms of activation methods, activation conditions, review methods, processing methods, and time limit requirements, etc. It is different from the judicial confirmation, notarization and payment order procedures. In terms of relief reasons, the convention stipulates that it is also relatively broad, which is not conducive to the prevention of false settlements and false executions. After comparing the "Convention" and China's implementation mechanism in detail, analyze the positive and negative effects of China's ratification of the Convention. The ratification of the "Convention" can force the development of China's commercial mediation system, promote the improvement of related legal systems, and promote the development of the ADR system in China. At the same time, it can also provide legal protection for the improvement of the Belt and Road Initiative. Of course, the potential system defects of the Convention cannot be ignored, such as the false implementation of a false settlement agreement. At the same time, it may also have an impact on the existing judicial system, such as increasing the burden of judicial review by the court. In contrast, non-ratification of the Convention will bring more problems. First, the international commercial settlement agreement implemented through the Convention will fall into an embarrassing situation where there are no legal provisions as a basis for support in China. The transnational enforcement mechanisms of international commercial settlement agreements all have their own drawbacks and do not have the advantages of direct enforcement mechanisms.
Therefore, after weighing the two options of ratifying and not ratifying the Convention, this article believes that ratifying the Convention is of great significance, and the negative impact of ratifying the Convention can be overcome by restricting the concept of commercial affairs and establishing a publicity system. Therefore, The Convention should be ratified. In addition, China should also supplement and improve relevant legislative matters, including confirming the validity of the settlement agreement, improving the "dual-track" review mechanism and implementation procedures, and unifying the qualifications and codes of mediator certification, so as to do a good job in connection with the ratification of the convention. Finally, we should also try to establish a regional unified commercial settlement agreement implementation mechanism, including the establishment of a cross-strait three-place settlement agreement implementation mechanism and the improvement of the "Belt and Road" dispute resolution mechanism to maximize the positive significance of the ratification of the convention.