In this article, the authors study and analyze the recent decisions of the courts of general jurisdiction (the appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow City Court of 26 July 2019 in case No. 33-34038/19 and the ruling of the Second General Jurisdiction Court of Cassation of 12 March 2020 in case No. 88-3792/2020). The authors, in the process of analyzing these examples of law enforcement law, come to the conclusion that the lack of a pro-arbitration approach in the courts of general jurisdiction to the application of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on the procedure for enforcing decisions of arbitration courts may not only block for a long time decision, but also to help reduce the popularity of arbitration proceedings as a way to resolve commercial disputes in Russia. In addition, the researchers note that the existing norms of the procedural law contribute to the emergence of situations that increase the time and cost of enforcing the arbitral award and create additional risks, including those associated with both delaying the process and blocking the execution of the arbitral award.

Once Singapore Convention on Mediation was adopted in 2018 and it has become possible to facilitate performance of the international commercial settlement agreements resulting from mediation abroad interest to mediation as a means of settlement of the international commercial disputes started to grow. In the eyes of the lawyers such mediated settlement agreements have much in common with the awards of international commercial arbitration, the most popular dispute resolution tool for disputes arising during foreign trade activities. Today in the age of turbulence and chaos mediated settlement agreements allow to satisfy the needs of business in the expediate settlement of foreign trade conflicts on the terms acceptable for the parties and to obtain guarantee of quick, simple and cost-efficient performance of the agreements reached. For this reason, it is worth considering adjustment of the internal laws to the best world practices. Article considers the means available under the Russian laws to make mediated settlement agreement enforceable and the tests it would have to undergo on the way. Deeming it advisable for Russia to join the Singapore convention on mediation, author concludes that it is necessary to prepare the internal legislation for such step as it was done, e.g., in Belorussia. Possible solution could consist either in introduction of a special chapter on granting relief in connection with the performance of international commercial mediated settlement agreements corresponding to the provisions of the Singapore Convention on mediation and the UNICTRAL Model law on mediation in the Russian Code of Procedure with Commercial Courts or in the adoption of a separate law on international commercial mediation. Since international commercial arbitration and the internal arbitration are regulated in Russia by two separate laws taking into account the special features of the disputes resolved, it would be logic to keep dualistic regulation for mediation as well.