When it came to almost any emerging issue in international law, Professor Caron was at the forefront and, in many cases, had already written about it. We saw this with issues ranging from the minimum standard of treatment in Glamis Gold v. United States of America, in which he served as arbitrator, to the effects of rising sea levels on baselines, on which he published in the 1990s before the issue was at the forefront of discussions.
Professor Caron saw the value in alternative forms of dispute resolution, and I think he would have taken a keen interest in some of the recent developments taking place at the United Nations (UN) on the use of mediation for the resolution of international disputes. And that is the topic of my presentation: the recent uptick in the dialogue about international mediation and whether mediation could emerge as a viable alternative or complement to international arbitration—particularly in the context of the recent entry into force of the Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (the Singapore Convention on Mediation) and Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (which amends the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation, 2002) (the Model Law).
