28 SPECIAL REPORT
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 1/3LY
CONCLUSION Dr Julian Lew– a leading commentator upon suchmatters – has stated that Asia has the highest concentration of countries in the worldwhich have adopted the UNCITRALModel Law. This underscores the changes that have occurred, but also the reality that, technically and procedurally, Asia’s arbitration centres are increasingly similar, and supportive of the arbitration process. This similarity runs from formof arbitration law to available facilities: following Singapore’s example, Hong Kong, Seoul and nowKuala Lumpur are establishing state-of-the art hearing venues. Increasingly, therefore, it is what distinguishes one Asian arbitral centre fromanother which makes it most appealing. Asmore andmore governments appreciate the benefits that can accrue fromarbitration services, competition between arbitral centres is fierce. The one difference which is difficult to overcome is familiaritywith national and cultural identity. In an increasingly homogenousmarket, the statistics still show that Chinese parties feel comfortable arbitrating in Hong Kong; both Indian and Chinese parties feel a cultural familiarity with Singapore; and Japanese parties prefer to arbitrate in Japan. Those with looser cultural ties – or more choice –may decide on the basis of their preferred – or more familiar – type of legal system. Seoul and Tokyo have the appeal of civil law jurisdictions, whereas partiesmore comfortable with the common law regime (for example, because it dovetails with the proper law of the contract)may opt for Singapore or Hong Kong as a seat. Innovation is vital in growing or retaining a position as a regional centre. For example, in recent years, both HKIAC and SIAC have introduced emergency arbitrator provisions in their arbitration rules, with corresponding legislative changes passed in Singapore and Hong Kong providing for the enforceability of emergency arbitrator awards. But innovations soon catch on; existing centres face threats fromnew entrants, such asMalaysia, who learn fast and effectively.
Institutions and jurisdictionsmust constantly evolve and adapt to the needs of users (and government support, for example with legislative change or consultation, can assist). This can only be good for arbitration’s consumers. As a further example, HKIAC has recently announced that it will offer a tribunal secretary service for arbitrations administered by HKIAC and ad hoc arbitrations, and has issued an accompanying set of guidelines on the use of tribunal secretaries. SIAC has recently launched a ‘training video’, withworkshops taking place throughout Asia. It seems clear from the example of Singapore that the extent to which a jurisdiction promotes its arbitration services (preferablywith government support), will have an impact on its success as a centre for arbitration. Further, a strong institution based in the jurisdictionwith an active business development strategy can be immensely influential in the growth of the centre. Governmental initiatives such as support for establishingmodern hearing facilities, or the provision of tax incentives, can also greatly assist. Whilst diversity between Asia’s arbitration centres is important in enabling consumers to choose between them, it is the case that, as with all consumer products, the advertising andmarketing strategy applied to each centremay ultimately dictate its success.
INCRE A S INGLY, I T I S WHAT DI S T INGUI SHES ONE A S I AN ARBI TRAL CENTRE FROM ANOTHER WHI CH MAKES I T MOS T APPE AL ING. A S MORE AND MORE GOVERNMENT S APPRECI ATE THE BENEF I T S THAT C AN ACCRUE FROM ARBI TRAT ION SERV I CES , COMPE T I T ION BE T WEEN ARBI TRAL CENTRES I S F IER CE .
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter