Session 1

The co-moderators and speakers, all of whom have significant experience in handling Asia-related ADR (including arbitration) proceedings, will include the current or past representatives/leaders of Asian global arbitral institutions or bodies as well as experienced practitioners and ADR service users.

​

This session will be conducted in the format of a fireside chat, rather than a series of formal presentations by the speakers. The session will proceed in an interactive manner, and the moderators will engage the audience for their intervention as much as possible.

​

The participants will assess where the current state of Asian ADR stands and explore the feasibility and desirability of developing Asian models or best practices to improve the existing suite of services. Key questions for this session include: (i) whether, and to what extent, the ADR service providers satisfy the demand of Asian users; (ii) if not, then what are the needs and how can the gaps be addressed? In other words, would there be new ways to improve Asian ADR services to accommodate the needs of users?; and (iii) how can the size of the whole Asian ADR market be expanded?

​

Is there an Asian ADR model or a meaningful set of features that distinguish Asian ADR from that in other jurisdictions? If yes, would it be desirable to think about formulating an Asian model/best ADR rules and practices? What is the international ADR community’s wish list for this newly suggested Asian Arbitration/ADR Model? Some examples of specific issues that can be addressed include the following:

​

First, are Asian users interested in resolving their cross-border disputes in a more conciliatory/non- adversarial manner (e.g., through mediation)? Do they have hesitations about arbitration? Are currently existing international legal instruments (e.g., the Singapore Convention on Mediation) and arbitration rules sufficient to address service users’ demand in the dispute settlement markets in Asia? Is there a lack of a legal framework to facilitate the use of non-adversarial ADR (it may be noted that there is a framework in place for mediation, including the Singapore Convention and the Model Law)? Do users prefer a combined type of services? If so, what kind of combined services integrating both arbitration and non-adversarial ADR services be provided to Asian users?

​

Second, given that most leading arbitral institutions in Asia are based in common law jurisdictions whereas the majority of the Asian service users (parties to dispute) are from civil law traditions, would this pose a problem or not, for example, in terms of its sustainability?

​

Third, could enhanced efficiency be an advantage of the Asian ADR service providers? If so, how can such efficiency be ensured? For example, some Asian arbitral institutions currently consider revising their arbitration rules in order to make arbitral proceedings more efficient and speedy (e.g., appointment of arbitrators for the multi-party proceedings; simplifying the conditions for consolidation/joinder; dismissal of counsel who are retained at the later stage and possibly cause conflicts with already appointed tribunal members, authorizing the arbitral institution to reduce arbitrator’s fees when the Tribunal causes undue delays, implementing the electronic ODR system including the electronic award signing procedure). Would it head in a desirable direction or cause undue compromise of the party autonomy principle? Would it be welcomed by the users and their counsel in the Asian ADR context?