SPECIAL REPORT 27
T OK YO
TOKYO IS SOMETHING OF AN ANOMALY A S AN ARBITRATION CENTRE IN A SIA , GIVEN THAT ARBITRATION IS NOT PARTICUL ARLY COMMON A S A DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM IN JAPAN. REPORTS SUGGEST THAT, ON AVERAGE THE JAPANESE COMMER CIAL ARBITRATION A SSOCIATION (JC AA) – JAPAN’S ONLY INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION PROVIDER – GETS BET WEEN 15 AND 20 C A SES A YE AR, ONLY A HANDFUL OF WHICH ARE INTERNATIONAL. Nevertheless, on some analyses Tokyo is an important regional arbitration centre –7% chose it as a preferred arbitral seat in the QueenMary/ White&Case 2010 International Arbitration Survey – though thismay simply have been because of a high number of Japanese respondents. The Japanese Arbitration Law (LawNo 138 of 2003) governs arbitration proceedings with their seat in Japan, and is based on theModel Law. The Japanese Courts have consistently adopted a pro-arbitration attitude with respect to the enforcement of awards and have, for example, narrowly interpreted ‘public policy’ in light of the purposes of the Arbitration Law. In terms of legal infrastructure, therefore, Tokyo is in a comparatively strong position.
Anecdotally, though, Japan is not seen as a go-to venue for international arbitration. Whether this is to do – as some have suggested –with an approach to business which dislikes confrontational processes or simply a combination of soft factors such as the lack of an established bar of arbitration practitioners and a perception that Japan is a high cost venue is not clear. Competition in Asia between arbitral seats is fierce. Tokyo is unlikely to grow in terms of popularity until arbitration takes off as a formof dispute resolution in Japan, and it doesmore tomarket itself internationally as an arbitration centre. The annual International Bar Association conference took place in Tokyo in October 2014which, no doubt, would have contributed to Japan’s profile as an arbitration centre. But it will takemore than this. There will need to be further initiatives to attract international arbitration consumers to Tokyo. Some examplesmight be the setting up of specialised hearing rooms (such asMaxwell Chambers in Singapore, or SIDRC in Seoul), perhaps with Government backing, and themore active involvement of arbitral institutions outside Japan (such as the ICC), which government initiatives could support.
COMPET I T ION IN A S I A BE T WEEN ARBI TRAL SE AT S I S F IER CE . TOKYO I S UNL IKELY TO GROW IN T ERMS OF POPUL ARI T Y UNT IL ARBI TRAT ION TAKES OFF A S A FORM OF DI SPUT E RESOLUT ION IN JAPAN, AND I T DOES MORE TO MARKE T I T SELF INT ERNAT IONALLY A S AN ARBI TRAT ION CENTRE .
Image credit: Luciano Mortula / Shutterstock.com
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter