By Anika Tahsina LLB, ADC Intern and LLM Student, University of Dhaka*
Mediation has become a defining feature of modern dispute resolution, offering efficiency, confidentiality, and party autonomy in both domestic and international contexts. Yet Bangladesh's mediation framework remains fragmented and institution‑driven, lacking statutory coherence and global enforceability. The Arbitration Act 2001 provides only incidental recognition of mediation, while the Bangladesh International Arbitration Centre ('BIAC') has pioneered institutional practice without the support of a national accreditation system or binding ethical code.[1] This limited architecture contrasts sharply with jurisdictions that have embraced comprehensive reforms.
A range of systems exist internationally. This article will first map Bangladesh's fragmentation and institutional gaps, then conduct a comparative analysis of these global models. Following this, this article will consider two complementary theories: Legal Transplant Theory and Access to Justice Theory. In order to analyse whether or not the global models could be adopted, the paper uses the perspective of the legal transplant. The second theoretical perspective, namely, the theory of access to justice, will help to ensure that the reforms are analysed through the lens of social equity and cost-effectiveness. Finally, the paper will propose reform pathways to fill the gaps identified through comparison.
Contemporary Mediation Practices in Bangladesh: Tradition, Institutions, and Legal Framework
Bangladesh has a long-standing Shalish tradition dating back to ancient times with historical institutions like Pugas, Srenis and Kulas to resolve disputes.[2] Bangladesh does not have a national statutory accreditation system for mediators. BIAC, an independent, not-for-profit, established an institutional mediation framework in 2014.[3] BIAC maintains its own Panel of Mediators, facilitates mediator training and accreditation programmes in collaboration with recognised institutions, and today administers mediation under the BIAC Mediation Rules 2019 and the BIAC Mediators' Code of Conduct 2019, which establish standards governing mediator appointment, independence, impartiality, confidentiality, competence, and professional conduct.
BIAC is a valuable starting point, and its foundation can be further strengthened through legal reform, national accreditation, and international integration to help Bangladesh's mediation framework fully align with evolving standards in peers like Australia, Europe, and Vietnam.
Section 89A of the Code of Civil Procedure now obligates courts to refer civil disputes for mediation after written statements are filed, unless urgent judicial intervention is necessary.[4] Mediation must conclude within 60 days of the date of referral, extendable by another 30 days. Courts must maintain a panel of trained mediators to ensure neutrality and professionalism. A settlement arising out of court-connected mediation at a pre-litigation stage is binding and enforceable between the parties as a court order.[5] In Bangladesh, family courts are empowered to follow mediation procedures at the pre-trial and post-trial stage of the suits.[6] The money loan Court, at the pre-trial stage of the suit, will send the suit for mediation to the appointed lawyers or parties, where lawyers are not appointed.[7] Mediation disputes may be applied not only at the revisional stage[8] but also at the executing stage[9] of the suits. Although The Arbitration Act 2001 provides rules and procedures to resolve disputes through arbitration, there remains scope for mediation under the legislation.[10] Settlement options other than arbitration, which include mediation, conciliation, or any other procedures may be pursued at any time during the arbitral proceedings to encourage settlement of the disputes, with the consent of the parties.[11]
Some statutory bodies such as the Income Tax Authority and Customs Authority are empowered to resolve disputes speedily through mediation under different laws in Bangladesh. For industrial disputes between workers and employers, the employer or the Collective Bargaining Agent shall inform his/her or its opinion in writing to the other party.[12] The government shall take steps to appoint a conciliator or mediator to settle the industrial disputes and shall determine the local jurisdiction and function of the conciliator.[13] NGOs have grown dramatically in a few countries of the world as much as in Bangladesh and currently 26,000 NGOs are registered with NGO Bureau of Affairs.[14]
Legal Aid Officers (LAO) have the power to settle any case which is referred by any court or tribunal[15] but also any case brought by the disputants voluntarily in the legal aid office.[16] The mediation service provided by LAO is unique since it targets the most vulnerable, marginal, poor, and under-privileged people in society.
Comparative Models of Mediation: Australia's Accreditation System, Singapore's Arb‑Med‑Arb, European Code of Conduct for Mediators and Vietnam's Statutory Framework
Australia: Accreditation System
The Australian Mediator and Dispute Resolution Accreditation Standards (AMDRAS) and Bangladesh's mediation framework differ fundamentally in scope and institutional strength. AMDRAS is a uniform national code for mediator training, accreditation, and practice standards, overseen by the AMDRAS Board.[17] This ensures that mediators across Australia can meet consistent ethical and professional benchmarks, with strong integration into federal and state courts where judges routinely refer disputes to mediation.[18]
By contrast, Bangladesh relies on the Arbitration Act 2001 and BIAC has no standalone mediation law or national accreditation system. This means that standards can vary, and enforcement depends on arbitration mechanisms rather than direct recognition of mediated settlements.
On 10 September 2021, Australia became a signatory to the Singapore Convention, which reaffirmed its commitment to alternative dispute resolution within the international context.[19] Although Australia has not yet ratified the Singapore Convention, Australia's signature of the Singapore Convention reinforces Australia's intentions as a premier hub for dispute resolution for international trade and business.[20]
Bangladesh has not yet signed the Convention and international settlement agreements resolved through private mediation cannot be automatically enforced abroad under its framework.[21]
Singapore: SIAC-SMC Model
In Singapore, leading institutions have embraced the trend of offering hybrid methods of dispute resolution alongside template clauses. One example is the Singapore International Arbitration Centre–Singapore International Mediation Centre Arb‑Med‑Arb process, which allows parties to refer disputes to mediation before or during arbitration; if mediation succeeds, the settlement can be recorded as a consent award enforceable under the New York Convention, and if it fails, arbitration continues, ensuring confidentiality, flexibility, and finality.[22]
In contrast, Bangladesh's framework is institution‑driven. BIAC does not provide a standalone Arb-Med-Arb framework but does provide a Med-Arb Clause that enables parties to adopt a mediation-arbitration process by agreement. Settlements are enforced through arbitration or court orders, but there is no provision for converting mediated agreements into consent awards with international enforceability. Bangladesh's lack of ratification of the Singapore Convention on Mediation further limits options for the enforceability of cross-border mediated settlement agreements.
The EU: European Code of Conduct for Mediators
The European Code of Conduct for Mediators (2004, revised 2017) offers Bangladesh an ethical and professional standards framework worth consideration.
In Europe, the Code of Conduct developed by the European Commission sets out uniform ethical and professional standards for mediators across member states.[23] It covers impartiality,[24] competence,[25] confidentiality,[26] and fairness,[27] and provides a voluntary but widely respected benchmark for practice. Many EU countries have integrated mediation into their civil justice systems, with court‑annexed mediation and national laws reinforcing the Code.
Europe's Code provides a pan‑regional ethical framework, ensuring mediators meet consistent standards across jurisdictions. Bangladesh's practice remains institution‑driven with no binding national accreditation or ethical code. Europe benefits from integration into civil justice systems, while Bangladesh's mediation remains peripheral to arbitration and litigation. Internationally, Europe aligns with global best practice, while Bangladesh risks being left behind without reform.
Vietnam: Statutory Framework
A useful comparison for Bangladesh is with a country of similar economic and geographic profile, such as Vietnam. Bangladesh is also a lower middle‑income economy in Asia, heavily engaged in manufacturing and export‑driven trade, and with comparable population size and development challenges. Vietnam adopted the Law on Commercial Mediation (2017), providing a statutory foundation for mediation in commercial disputes.[28]
Mediation is increasingly a preferred commercial dispute resolution method in Vietnam, owing its popularity to reasonable costs, speed and confidentiality.[29] The Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC)[30] adopted conciliation rules in 2007 and in 2018, the Vietnam Mediation Centre (VMC) and the Vietnam International Commercial Mediation Center (VICMC) were established.[31] The 2017 Decree provides a general code of conduct for mediators.[32] Mediation is supported by the Civil Code 2015,[33] Code of Civil Procedure 2015,[34] Commercial Law 2005,[35] Law on Investment 2020,[36] Law on Protection of Consumer Rights 2023,[37] and the Construction Law 2014 (amended 2020).[38] Vietnam allows both institutional and ad hoc mediation, with 17 commercial mediation centres, 8 arbitration centres conducting mediation, and over 100 ad hoc mediators registered with the Ministry of Justice.[39]
Bangladesh's Arbitration Act 2001 governs ADR but does not establish mediation as a standalone process. BIAC operates its mediation framework centrally from Dhaka – administering domestic and international disputes involving parties from Bangladesh and around the world. BIAC also provides institutional mediation services and training. However, there is no statutory accreditation system or national code of conduct. Court‑annexed mediation exists, particularly in family and civil disputes, but commercial mediation uptake remains low.
The comparative survey of Australia, Europe, Vietnam, and Bangladesh shows clear patterns: countries that have adopted standalone mediation laws, uniform accreditation systems, and international treaty alignment enjoy stronger credibility, enforceability, and integration of mediation into their justice and commercial systems. Bangladesh, by contrast, presents opportunities for proactive regulatory action and expanded international integration.
Theoretical Framework
This article considers two complementary theoretical lenses: Legal Transplant Theory[40] and Access to Justice Theory.[41] Together, they provide a robust framework for analysing Bangladesh's fragmented mediation architecture considering comparative models from Australia, Europe, Singapore, and Vietnam.
Legal Transplant Theory posits that laws and institutional practices can be borrowed across jurisdictions, but their success depends on adaptation to the recipient country's socio‑economic and cultural context. In the case of Bangladesh, the comparative survey demonstrates that transplanting Australia's accreditation standards, Europe's ethical codes, Singapore's Arb‑Med‑Arb hybrid model, and Vietnam's statutory framework could provide greater coherence and enforceability. However, direct imitation would be insufficient. Bangladesh's Shalish tradition, NGO‑driven dispute resolution, and court‑annexed mediation practices require reforms to be localised. For example, accreditation that integrates community mediators alongside professionals, and hybrid mechanisms that reconcile with the Arbitration Act 2001. Legal Transplant Theory thus underscores the need for contextual adaptation rather than wholesale adoption.
Access to Justice Theory emphasises that legal reforms could expand equitable access to dispute resolution, particularly for marginalised groups. Justice is not only about efficiency, but also inclusivity, affordability, and fairness. Bangladesh's Legal Aid Officers already provide mediation for vulnerable populations, but reforms must strengthen this role. Ratifying the Singapore Convention would democratise access to international dispute resolution for Bangladeshi businesses, while expanding mediation centres beyond Dhaka may be one strategy for helping more rural and marginalised communities benefit from mediation. Embedding online mediation provisions, as seen in India's Mediation Act 2023,[42] could reduce geographic and financial barriers, advancing justice for all citizens. Access to Justice Theory therefore highlights that reforms must be socially legitimate and inclusive, not merely technically sound.
Taken together, these theories provide a dual lens: Legal Transplant Theory explains how Bangladesh can borrow and adapt global best practices, while Access to Justice Theory ensures that reforms serve the broader population, not just elites or commercial actors. This combined framework elevates the analysis from descriptive comparison to normative prescription, indicating that successful mediation reform in Bangladesh relies on being both contextually adapted and socially equitable.
Reform Roadmap for Mediation in Bangladesh
- Legal Reform Needed
Bangladesh needs a dedicated mediation act. The experience of countries like India, which recently enacted the Mediation Act 2023, highlights the transformative potential of comprehensive legislation.[43] This would provide parties with greater confidence in the mediation process and reduce the need for subsequent litigation to enforce agreements.[44] The current system largely mandates mediation after a suit is filed.[45] The establishment of a successful Unified Mediation Act requires a unified legal framework regarding the procedural issues of confidentiality and enforceability of mediation settlements. This process should include the establishment of a National Accreditation System that will help define the criteria for mediator training, certification, and ethical practice. A court-connected and hybrid process can be followed to offer mandatory referral, consent awards and link to arbitration that will help in enforcing the agreement. A mediation act could promote pre-litigation mediation, encouraging parties to resolve disputes before they escalate to formal court proceedings, thereby significantly reducing the inflow of new cases into the already overburdened judiciary. Recent discussions by the Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Adviser Dr Asif Nazrul indicate a move towards making pre-litigation ADR mandatory for certain types of cases.[46]
- National Accreditation System
Inspired by Australia's AMDRAS and Europe's Code of Conduct, Bangladesh has an opportunity to establish a national accreditation and ethical code for mediators, ensuring uniform standards and professional credibility. A dedicated Act would pave the way for the development of a professional cadre of mediators. It could mandate specific training and qualification requirements, leading to higher quality mediation services and greater public trust in the system.[47]
- Hybrid Mechanisms
Bangladesh could also adopt a hybrid Arb‑Med‑Arb model like SIAC–SIMC, allowing mediated settlements to be converted into consent awards enforceable under the New York Convention. International investment agreements commonly provide for a "cooling‑off period" to foster negotiation before arbitration, and conciliation is likewise often listed as an alternative alongside arbitration.[48]
- International Alignment
The Singapore Convention establishes a global standard for enforcing mediated settlement agreements, aiming to harmonise cross‑border mechanisms much like the New York Convention did for arbitration.[49] Ratifying the Singapore Convention on Mediation would give Bangladesh's mediated settlements global enforceability, strengthening its position in cross‑border trade and investment.
- Institutional Expansion
Following Vietnam's example, Bangladesh could encourage the establishment of multiple mediation centres beyond BIAC, including sector‑specific centres (e.g., consumer, construction, investment). This expansion could build on existing ADR mechanisms for employer‑employee disputes, where conciliators or mediators are already appointed under labor law, demonstrating the feasibility of sector‑based mediation frameworks.
- Awareness and Training
Greater investment in mediator training, awareness campaigns, and integration into court systems would normalise mediation as a preferred dispute resolution method.
- Online Dispute Resolution
In an increasingly digital world, a comprehensive Act can provide a legal basis for online mediation, making dispute resolution more accessible and affordable, especially for those in remote areas. ODR, as outlined in the OECD Framework, uses digital tools to make justice more accessible and people‑centred, guided by three pillars: governance, policy levers, and ethics while addressing risks and integrating seamlessly across court and non‑court systems.[50] This is a key feature of India's Mediation Act 2023 and could revolutionise access to justice in Bangladesh promoting Access to Justice Theory.[51] This, in turn, would ensure more timely and cost-effective access to justice for all citizens, including the marginalised and vulnerable populations who often bear the brunt of judicial delays and expenses.[52]
Conclusion
Bangladesh has an opportunity to transform its mediation framework by combining Australia's accreditation model, Europe's ethical code, and Vietnam's integrated legal approach with measures that localise and adapt them to Bangladesh's existing ADR system. This would: enhance domestic credibility, provide international enforceability, support its export‑driven economy with efficient dispute resolution and align Bangladesh with global best practices in ADR. Effectively implementing these reform strategies requires a two-dimensional approach, where Legal Transplant Theory stresses the necessity of adapting foreign frameworks according to the socio-legal framework of Bangladesh, while Access to Justice Theory ensures that such reforms are socially inclusive.
[1] Bangladesh Int'l Arbitration Ctr., The Complete Guide to Commercial Arbitration and ADR in Bangladesh, BIAC, https://biac.org.bd (last visited Apr. 9, 2026).
[2] A. Ranjith Amirasinghe, The Legal Heritage of Sri Lanka (Sorvadoya Vishba Publications 1999).
[3] M.S. Siddiqui, Mediation Law for Commercial Dispute Resolution, Financial Express (Bangl.), Mar. 18, 2015, https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/views/mediation-law-for-commercial-dispute-resolution (thefinancialexpress.com.bd in Bing) (last visited Apr. 9, 2026).
[4] Code of Civil Procedure, Act No. V of 1908, § 89A (Bangl.).
[5] Mohammad Faruque, Mediation for Access to Justice and SDG‑16: A Bangladesh Perspective, 21 JATI J. XXIV (June 2025) (ISSN 2220‑6752).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Money Loan Court Act, 2003, § 22(1) (Bangl.).
[8] Ibid., § 44(ka).
[9] Ibid., § 38.
[10] Arbitration Act, 2001, § 21 (Bangl.).
[11] Ibid., § 22.
[12] Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, § 210(1) (Bangl.).
[13] Ibid., § 210(5).
[14] Asian Development Bank, Overview of NGOs and Civil Society: Bangladesh (2003), https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/28964/csb-ban.pdf (adb.org in Bing) (last visited Feb. 26, 2023).
[15] Legal Aid Services Act, 2000, § 21A(2) (Bangl.).
[16] Ibid., § 4.
[17] AMDRAS Standards, Master Revision A‑1 (Oct. 2025), arts. 13–17.
[18] Ibid., arts. 7–8.
[19] Alicia Hill & Angela Wang, Australia's Long‑Awaited Signing at the Singapore Convention on Mediation, MST Lawyers (Oct. 15, 2021), https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/28964/csb-ban.pdf (last visited Feb. 26, 2023).
[20] Ibid.
[21] Dr. Khaled H. Chowdhury & Barrister Ayesha Fariha, Singapore Convention on Mediation in Bangladesh: A Call of the Time, The Business Standard (July 16, 2021, 12:10 PM), https://www.tbsnews.net/law/singapore-convention-mediation-bangladesh-call-time-271373 (tbsnews.net in Bing) (last visited Apr. 9, 2026).
[22] Singapore Int'l Mediation Ctr., Arb‑Med‑Arb Protocol, https://simc.com.sg/arb-med-arb (last visited Apr. 13, 2026).
[23] European Commission, European Code of Conduct for Mediators (2004, rev. 2017)
[24] European Commission, European Code of Conduct for Mediators art. 2.2 (2004, rev. 2017).
[25] European Code of Conduct art. 1.1.
[26] European Code of Conduct art. 4.
[27] European Code of Conduct art. 3.
[28] Decree No. 22/2017/ND‑CP on Commercial Mediation (Viet.), Feb. 24, 2017, available at https://vmc.org.vn/en/mediation/decree-no-222017ndcp-on-commercial-mediation-a119.html. (vmc.org.vn in Bing).
[29] Singapore Int'l Dispute Resolution Acad., SIDRA Int'l Dispute Resolution Survey, 2024 Final Report, at 35, exh. 6.2 (Singapore Mgmt. Univ. 2024).
[30] Vietnam Int'l Arbitration Ctr., https://www.viac.vn/en (established pursuant to Decision No. 279/QD‑VIAC of Apr. 27, 2018).
[31] Vietnam Mediation Ctr., https://vmc.org.vn/en (established pursuant to Gov't Decree No. 22/2017/ND‑CP of Feb. 24, 2017; licensed by Ministry of Justice Dec. 20, 2018; mediations governed by VMC Mediation Rules 2019, effective July 6, 2019, available at https://vicmc.vn/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/vicmc_quytachogia_intoline_vn_en_publication-1.pdf).
[32] Gov't Decree No. 22/2017/ND‑CP on Commercial Mediation, art. 10.1 (Viet.), Feb. 24, 2017.
[33] Law No. 91/2015/QH13 on State Budget (Viet.), Nov. 24, 2015.
[34] Law No. 91/2015/QH13 (Viet.), Nov. 24, 2015.
[35] Law No. 36/2005/QH11 on Intellectual Property (Viet.), June 14, 2005.
[36] Law No. 61/2020/QH14 on Investment (Viet.), June 17, 2020, art. 14(1).
[37] Law No. 19/2023/QH15 on Protection of Consumer Rights (Viet.), June 20, 2023, art. 54.
[38] Law No. 50/2014/QH13 on Construction (Viet.), June 18, 2014, art. 146.
[39] Ministry of Justice (Viet.), List of Commercial Mediation Organizations, https://bttp.moj.gov.vn/portal/bo-tro-tu-phap/to-chuc-hoa-giai-thuong-mai.html summarised in https://eplegal.com/commercial-mediation-in-vietnam/.
[40] Nina Kršljanin, Gender and the Judiciary in Medieval Serbia, in Gender and the Judiciary in Medieval Serbia 367 (Jan. 2, 2026), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-06885-9_17. (doi.org in Bing)
[41] Robert Rubinson, A Theory of Access to Justice, 29 J. Legal Prof. 89 (2005).
[42] The Mediation Act, No. 32 of 2023, § 30 (India).
[43] Bangladesh Needs a Mediation Act," The Daily Star (Dhaka), Jan. 25, 2025, https://www.thedailystar.net/law-our-rights/news/bangladesh-needs-mediation-act-3807581 (last visited July 2, 2025).
[44] "Key Provisions of the Mediation Act, 2023," Saakshya Law, May 22, 2024, https://www.saakshyalaw.com/post/key-provisions-of-the-mediation-act-2023 (last visited July 2, 2025).
[45] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, §§ 89A, 89C (Bangl.).
[46] "Asif Nazrul for Making ADR Mandatory to Reduce Backlog of Cases," The Financial Express (Dhaka), n.d., https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/national/asif-nazrul-for-making-adr-mandatory-toreduce-backlog-of-cases (last visited July 2, 2025).
[47] "Institutionalization of Mediation: Legal Framework, Benefits & Progress," PMF IAS, Feb. 25, 2025, https://www.pmfias.com/mediation/ (last visited July 2, 2025).
[48] UNCTAD, Investor-State Disputes: Prevention and Alternatives to Arbitration, U.N. Doc. UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2009/11 (2010), https://unctad.org/en/docs/diaeia200911_en.pdf (last visited May 31, 2022).
[49] Clemens Treichl, The Singapore Convention: Towards a Universal Standard for the Recognition and Enforcement of International Settlement Agreements?, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Volume 11, Issue 3, September 2020, Pages 409–429, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idaa013.
[50] OECD, Online Dispute Resolution Framework (2024).
[51] "Mediation Act, 2023," Drishti Judiciary, Sept. 27, 2024, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/editorial/mediation-act-2023 (last visited July 2, 2025).
[52] "Development of Mediation and Civil Litigation Practices for Enhancement of Access to Justice Project Launched in Bangladesh!," JICA, June 4, 2024.
* The analyses and conclusions presented in this article represent the personal perspectives of the author, not the Australian Disputes Centre.