This chapter seeks to explore the possibility of setting up a dispute settlement mechanism (DSM) for Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) disputes that may take place along the BRI\u2019s Maritime Silk Road as well as the Land Belt overland routes for road and rail transportation through Central Asia towards Europe.\u00a0 The key focus of this chapter is to initially examine how one may deal with contractual disputes that may take place between a Chinese party and an Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) party.\u00a0 The same proposed solution may be subsequently extended to the rest of the countries along the Maritime Road and potentially across the BRI\u2019s Land Belt.<\/p>\n
The BRI consists of two different strands.\u00a0 The first strand is a land-based Silk Road Belt and the second strand is the Maritime Silk Road (MSR).\u00a0 The priority of the MSR is to connect China with BRI partner countries that are situated along two main economic passages.\u00a0 The first and most important one being the China-Indian Ocean-Africa-Mediterranean Sea followed by the China-Oceania-South Pacific.<\/p>\n
The most important sub-group of the MSR is ASEAN.\u00a0 The reasons for this being the most important part of the MSR is because the combined population and market between China and ASEAN comprises more than 2 billion consumers and is one of the largest markets in the world in terms of trade volume.<\/p>\n
It is clear that appropriate financing arrangements are an essential element for each BRI project initiated by Chinese state owned entities (SOE).\u00a0 Most of these can be expected to come from Chinese banks and financial institutions, including the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Silk Road Fund and the New Development Bank.\u00a0 Given the diversity of BRI countries and legal systems, it is inevitable that both Chinese and BRI parties will encounter complex legal issues involving cross-border laws.\u00a0 There are challenges in navigating different legal and regulatory systems.\u00a0 There are a range of common law jurisdictions (Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore amongst the ASEAN and South Asian countries that have adopted the British common law heritage), civil law jurisdictions (the rest of the Asian countries and Central Asian countries have adopted a civil law heritage), and Islamic law jurisdictions (the countries of the Middle East and some African countries have adopted an Islamic Syariah law heritage) that Chinese investors and contractors will encounter.\u00a0 It is inevitable that disputes and conflicts will arise out of misunderstandings between contracting parties or a misunderstanding of the different laws and legal systems at play.<\/p>\n
It is therefore critical that all countries along the BRI, including China, come up with a solid legal foundation and a respected DSM for the healthy success of BRI projects.\u00a0 Clarity of the law and legal certainty will be crucial components for BRI projects to promote both the continued flow of international capital to fund projects as well as to operate completed projects.\u00a0 It is in the interests of all parties, particularly Chinese SOEs who will often bear the initial financial burden, to find a way to resolve legal disputes with BRI\/ASEAN countries in an efficient and fair manner.\u00a0 While there are popular choice-of-law clauses that contracting parties tend to agree to use as the governing law of their contracts, it is clear that there is no single agreed \u201cinternational standard\u201d of law.\u00a0 Any uncertain legal risk will ultimately translate into an increase in the cost of doing business.<\/p>\n
Mediation has steadily gained acceptance over the years because it is seen to be a much cheaper way of settling disputes and has the perceived advantages of speed and flexibility over both litigation and arbitration.\u00a0 Mediation works best in such situations where it is necessary to try to get the litigant parties to speak to each other and to understand the other side\u2019s views as to what went wrong.\u00a0 Mediation between culturally diverse contracting parties can often avoid a pointless blame game taking place in court and it can help to bridge differences and get the disputing parties to focus on finding \u201cwin-win\u201d solutions rather than spending time analysing problems or how they got to the point of a legal dispute.\u00a0 However, there are limits to what the mediation process can do in resolving large quantum disputes which may involve multiple players and the need for political transparency.\u00a0 The Singapore Convention (the Singapore Convention on Mediation, formally the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, was signed on the 7 August 2019 and became effective on the 12 September 2020).\u00a0 The Singapore Convention lays to rest the traditional complaints that settlement agreements arising from mediation are non-binding.\u00a0 The main commercial players \u2013 including contractors, financiers, insurers, Chinese SOEs and host states \u2013 would need to be assured of a finality to disputes.\u00a0 Unless parties agree to mediate in good faith and reach settlement agreements, there is no end to any dispute.\u00a0 Some proponents have also come up with the untested idea that the Singapore Convention may be misused for other untoward purposes.\u00a0 While mediation will continue to be an important dispute settlement tool, it will need to be used alongside more permanent DSMs including litigation and commercial arbitration.<\/p>\n
There has been a proliferation of international commercial courts across the world over the last decade.\u00a0 One of the advantages of international commercial courts is that they reduce the likelihood of conflict of interests, as compared with international arbitrations, where a party has the right to select its own arbitrator in an arbitration which is to be presided over by a three-member tribunal.\u00a0 One cannot shop for one\u2019s judge and unlike a domestic arbitrator, the national court judge is not dependent on any law firms or parties for cases.\u00a0 Another advantage that courts have over arbitration is the ability to join non-parties and the ability to provide experienced judges with their own expertise in commercial dispute resolution.<\/p>\n
The London Commercial Court remains the oldest and still most-active court for international commercial disputes (other new players include: the Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) court in Kazakhstan; the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC); and the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (QICDRC)).\u00a0 However, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), which was set up in 2015, and the China International Commercial Court (CICC), which was set up in 2018, are current choices for BRI projects.\u00a0 The judges appointed to the CICC are restricted to judges of the Chinese Courts who are Chinese nationals with experience in international commerce, together with the ability to work in both English and Mandarin Chinese.\u00a0 The CICC put together an International Commercial Expert Committee (ICEC) consisting of foreign legal experts from other jurisdictions who are renowned legal jurists.\u00a0 The initial role of the ICEC was originally limited to providing advice and assisting CICC judges in ascertaining the content of foreign laws and also presiding over mediation.\u00a0 The ICEC\u2019s role was subsequently expanded to assist the CICC\u2019s \u201cOne-stop Mechanism\u201d for international commercial dispute resolution, which integrates mediation, arbitration, and litigation.\u00a0 In addition to presiding over mediations and arbitrations in international commercial cases, ICEC members also acts as a conduit between the CICC and the international legal community.\u00a0 This both ensures and improves the CICC\u2019s ability to handle the complexities of international commercial disputes with supporting expertise and the facilitation of an efficient dispute resolution.<\/p>\n
The SICC has the advantage of being part of the Singapore Court, which is considered one of the world\u2019s leading judiciaries, whose judges are often considered to be on a par with London.\u00a0 In addition to judges of the Singapore Supreme Court, there is a group of eminent international jurists from both common and civil law jurisdictions sitting in the SICC.<\/p>\n
The CICC has the advantage as host countries and players from financially weaker countries may lack bargaining power with Chinese contractors and may be forced to agree to accept CICC dispute resolution clauses.\u00a0 However, there is frequent push-back because contracting parties often do their best to avoid litigating before the national courts of their business partners.\u00a0 However, while litigants to SICC proceedings may engage registered foreign lawyers to make submissions on foreign law in offshore cases with no substantial connection to Singapore, litigants to CICC proceedings may only be represented by Chinese law-qualified lawyers.\u00a0 Non-Chinese lawyers are not entitled to have a right of audience in Chinese Courts.\u00a0 This is the single greatest unattractive feature of the CICC, as it means that non-Chinese parties are not only forced to litigate in China, but they would also need to expend more money to engage two sets of lawyers \u2013 one who may be representing them on the dispute, and another set of Chinese lawyers to formally represent them before the CICC.\u00a0 It is also strategically disadvantageous for the foreign party as their Chinese lawyers will be reliant on their international lawyers for both the background and preparation of evidence and witnesses.\u00a0 While the CICC acts neutrally, one can see the apprehension if an ASEAN\/MSR party were to litigate a case before a Chinese SOC before the CICC.\u00a0 This would be exactly the same for a Chinese party who is expected to litigate a case between \u201cX\u201d ASEAN SOE party before the courts of \u201cX\u201d.\u00a0 Parties look for absolute neutrality in settlement of disputes.\u00a0 Justice must not only be carried out, but Justice must also be seen to be done.<\/p>\n
Unlike most international commercial courts, including the SICC, which use the English language, Chinese procedural law mandates that the language of court proceedings must only be in the Chinese language.\u00a0 While this may be inconvenient to many non-Chinese lawyers, it is not as significant as the fact that non-Chinese lawyers are completely forbidden to represent their clients before the CICC.\u00a0 This is the main disadvantage of the CICC against the SICC, other competing courts and arbitration centres.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, the most important aspect of any DSM is the ability and ease of enforcing the judgment or arbitral award.\u00a0 While the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (2019) and the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (2005) have gone a long way to assist in the enforceability of court judgments, both Conventions will only be a true game changer if ratification takes places relatively quickly and if ratification is sufficiently widespread.\u00a0 Twenty years after the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements was concluded, there have only been 11 signatory states and only Denmark, the EU, Mexico, Montenegro, Singapore and the United Kingdom have ratified it.\u00a0 It will therefore take a long time before international commercial courts can be considered to be a replacement to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (NYC), with its 172 contracting states.\u00a0 This also means that it continues to be very difficult to enforce CICC or SICC or indeed any other court judgments within China and the BRI countries.<\/p>\n
There is a plethora of arbitral institutions that are capable of serving China-BRI projects.\u00a0 These institutions stretch across the entire range of both the MSR and the Land Belt segment of the BRI.\u00a0 Contracting parties who negotiate a choice-of-jurisdiction clause in a BRI contract are most likely to opt for a better-known arbitral institution and seat of arbitration.\u00a0 According to the 2025 Queen Mary University of London International Arbitration Survey (2025 QM Survey), the five most-preferred seats of arbitration are London, Paris, Singapore, Hong Kong and Geneva \u2013 with London (34%) leading the pack followed closely behind by Hong Kong (31%) and Singapore (31%).\u00a0 87% of the 2025 QM Survey respondents indicated that their preferred forum for resolving cross-border disputes is international arbitration.\u00a0 The absolute neutrality of the world-class judiciaries of both Hong Kong and Singapore would make these two seats of arbitrations amongst the natural contenders as neutral seats of arbitration for China-ASEAN party BRI contracts.<\/p>\n
Due to its close proximity, Hong Kong has historically been the preferred seat for Mainland China parties who have to select choice of arbitration venues outside Mainland China.\u00a0 The special arrangement between China and Hong Kong for enforcement of awards (Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Between the Mainland and Hong Kong<\/em>), coupled with the HKIAC and ICC\u2019s unrivalled experience among non-Mainland arbitration institutions in handling disputes involving Chinese and foreign parties, gives Hong Kong the overwhelming edge over all other non-PRC\/Mainland jurisdictions.\u00a0 Hong Kong is the first and only jurisdiction outside the PRC where, as a seat of arbitration, parties to arbitral proceedings administered by its arbitral institutions would be able to apply to the Mainland Chinese Courts for interim measures under the 2019 Arrangement Concerning<\/em> Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings<\/em>.<\/p>\n Doubts of end-users over the continued independence of the Hong Kong judiciary as caused by some provisions in the National Security Law have benefitted Singapore\u2019s position as a neutral seat of arbitration (https:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/articles\/2020-07-22\/hong-kong-is-losing-to-singapore-as-a-venue-for-arbitration<\/a>).\u00a0 As BRI projects are driven by Chinese parties and as Chinese parties will be part of BRI projects, it remains a possibility for non-Chinese parties to prefer to opt for sovereign city-state Singapore rather than Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration.\u00a0 It all comes down to the bargaining position of the respective contracting parties.<\/p>\n In the long run, it is likely that Singapore will increase its edge over Hong Kong as the leading seat for ASEAN-China and MSR-China disputes simply because it is a sovereign nation that is completely independent from China.\u00a0 In terms of geographical proximity, one cannot discount London as an attractive seat of arbitration to the countries along the Land Silk Road Belt.\u00a0 Geography and history are often important considerations as they can affect the convenience of the end-users and counsel.\u00a0 Many of the Central Asian countries on the Belt and Eastern European countries including Russia have traditionally referred their disputes to London for both commercial court litigation as well as arbitration.\u00a0 Familiarity with London as the seat of arbitration or London courts is another important factor that one needs to consider.<\/p>\n As the majority of major international arbitration centres across the world tend to invite the same group of 200 plus arbitrators from both civil law and common law backgrounds to be on their arbitrator panels so as to improve the prestige of their own institution, it is now no longer a good indicator to just look at the panel of arbitrators.\u00a0 One needs to look deeper into the statistics of each arbitral institution to understand who, from those panel of arbitrators, are actually appointed by each institution.\u00a0 It is also a helpful indicator to look at the different arbitral institutions and the percentage of the split between common law experienced lawyers and civil law experienced lawyers within their panel of arbitrators.\u00a0 The statistics will also show whether there is diversity in the type of court members and representatives who are appointed or tasked to represent the arbitral institution.<\/p>\n The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has been consistently identified as being the world\u2019s most-preferred arbitral institution for decades.\u00a0 In Asia, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) were both ranked as the most-preferred arbitration seats on the Asian continent.\u00a0 The 2025 QM Survey has concluded that the ICC Rules continue to remain the most commonly used arbitral rules (39%).\u00a0 This is followed by the HKIAC Rules (25%), SIAC Rules (25%) and the LCIA Rules (22%).<\/p>\n Leaving aside the ICC and HKIAC, which are perfectly balanced in their choice of appointment of a default arbitrator, many arbitration institutions have a track record of appointing a great majority of arbitrators from either a civil law or a common law background.\u00a0 Parties need to understand how each arbitral institution will be likely to act in the event of a default situation, and whether it is likely to appoint an arbitrator who will be familiar with and uphold the principles of the governing law of the contract that has been agreed by the parties.\u00a0 One can envisage that Chinese SOEs and Chinese parties may prefer to advocate for the selection of PRC law as the governing law of the BRI contract.\u00a0 Counterparties tend to be more concerned about the selection of a neutral seat of arbitration and about selecting a well-known and reliable arbitral institution.\u00a0 However, parties also know that the arbitration is only as good as the arbitrator.\u00a0 The arbitrator or presiding arbitrator must, however, be experienced in the governing law of the contract as there would otherwise be injustice caused by a failure to understand or to apply the governing law of the contract.<\/p>\n Experienced counsel, advisors and parties will understand this issue really well.\u00a0 As an example, if one has an arbitration governed by civil law, such as PRC law, and counsel believes that he or she has a weak case under the PRC law concept of good faith, then counsel is likely to appoint a senior English or common law arbitrator but retain the right to accept or reject the appointment of the presiding arbitrator.\u00a0 The opposing side may appoint a Chinese arbitrator or PRC law expert and may then try to seek agreement for a presiding arbitrator who understands PRC law or civil law.\u00a0 Opposing counsel may have a case strategy of deliberately not allowing his or her own party-appointed arbitrator to appoint the chairperson and to force the appointment process to fall onto the appointing authority (Colin Ong, \u201cCase Strategy and Preparation for Effective Advocacy<\/em>\u201d (2025), GAR Guide to Advocacy (7th<\/sup> Ed); https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-advocacy\/seventh-edition\/article\/case-strategy-and-preparation-effective-advocacy<\/a>) if this is perceived to be advantageous to one\u2019s position.<\/p>\n If it is an authority such as SIAC, then based on its own statistics and the percentage split between civil and common law arbitrators, it is very much more likely for the SIAC authority to appoint an English or non-civil law arbitrator in a default situation where the parties are unable to agree upon a sole arbitrator or presiding arbitrator.\u00a0 This will increase the likelihood of the two common law arbitrators being on the same wavelength regarding common law principles.\u00a0 Conversely, where an arbitration is seated in a civil law jurisdiction such as Indonesia but is subject to common law (such as English law), the same tactical consideration may come into play when black-letter law does not favour a party.\u00a0 The party that has a weaker case and does not want someone who understands English law would object to all proposed names so that the Indonesian National Board of Arbitration (BANI) would then appoint the default arbitrator or presiding arbitrator.\u00a0 This appointee would in all likelihood be an Indonesian or civil law experienced arbitrator without the requisite experience in English law.<\/p>\n It is important for end-users to carefully go through the statistics of the arbitral institution and then decide whether that institution has a preference of appointing a common law or civil law experienced arbitrator who truly understands the governing law.\u00a0 According to the SIAC Annual Report 2024 (https:\/\/siac.org.sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/SIAC_AR2024_FA-spread-Online.pdf<\/a>), the SIAC received 625 new cases.\u00a0 The top five foreign users were South Korea (295 cases), China (227), India (183), Hong Kong (129) and the United States (128).\u00a0 If one were to go according to nationality, the combination of cases from Mainland China and Hong Kong SAR amounts to 356 cases.\u00a0 This would make China the largest country end-user of SIAC.\u00a0 There were only a total of eight Chinese nationals (including one in Mainland China) who were appointed as arbitrators in all of the SIAC cases in 2024.\u00a0 One can see the marked difference and extremely low number of Chinese arbitrators appointed by SIAC when compared with the total number of Chinese and Hong Kong cases that were referred to the SIAC in 2024.\u00a0 There was a total of 90 UK nationals appointed to SIAC cases in 2024.\u00a0 The next largest group of foreign nationalities who were appointed as arbitrators were from India (31), Australia (25) and then the United States (23).\u00a0 The 2024 statistics continue to show that SIAC is the perfect arbitral institution for common law end-users as the default appointments by SIAC indicate a great preference for the appointment of common law lawyers as sole or presiding arbitrator.\u00a0 SIAC has extremely experienced common law lawyers heading the institution.\u00a0 The president and both of the vice presidents of SIAC have always been common law lawyers and are true experts in the US and Singapore common law systems and laws.\u00a0 The current president of SIAC is a US lawyer based in the United States.\u00a0 One of the vice presidents is a UK King\u2019s Counsel while the other vice president is an eminent Singapore senior counsel.\u00a0 All major events held by SIAC year upon year continue to be spearheaded by key speakers who are common law lawyers.\u00a0 The majority of the SIAC Court comprises mainly common law arbitrators.\u00a0 The SIAC statistics certainly makes it very attractive for end-users from common law jurisdictions.\u00a0 End-users can be almost assured to be entrusted with an experienced common law experienced arbitrator in a default situation.\u00a0 SIAC statistics consistently indicate that the overwhelming majority of default arbitral appointments by the institution are common law arbitrators.\u00a0 This is very helpful for counsel who are trained or accustomed to dealing with English law or other common law systems such as the US and India.<\/p>\n However, conversely, this does not necessarily make SIAC attractive for Chinese SOEs or other Chinese end-users to stipulate SIAC arbitration rules in any BRI contracts that are governed under PRC law or under other civil law.\u00a0 The Chinese parties would understand that, in any default arbitral appointment, the statistics suggest that it will be very much more likely for SIAC to end up appointing an English or American or Australian or common law experienced arbitrator to hear their cases.\u00a0 This will increase the likelihood of the two common law arbitrators being on the same wavelength regarding common law principles but perhaps with not as much experience on PRC law.\u00a0 This may reduce the importance of the application of PRC law as the governing law of the BRI contract and may reduce the importance of the application of the concepts of fairness and good faith.<\/p>\n As with other well-known arbitration centres in Asia, including BIAC, CIETAC, HKIAC, KCAB, SIAC has many of the same renowned arbitrators from outside the ASEAN region.\u00a0 This is perfectly logical for SIAC as its focus is to maintain its status as a truly global arbitration centre.\u00a0 However, unlike ICC Singapore or HKIAC, which have their panel of arbitrators from virtually all countries in Asia, the SIAC website reveals that many Asian countries are not on its radar, including those of some ASEAN countries.\u00a0 Nationals of the three smallest ASEAN countries are missing from the SIAC panel of arbitrators.\u00a0 There are only six Indonesian nationals from the largest ASEAN country\/economy and only one Thai national from the second-largest economy in ASEAN.\u00a0 Conversely there are: 57 Australian nationals; 150 UK nationals; and 78 US nationals on the SIAC panel.\u00a0 This is another very good indication as to which nationality lawyers are the preferred choice for the SIAC.\u00a0 This is not conclusive, but it does indicate that it is an overwhelming priority for SIAC to invite common law experienced arbitrators rather than Asian civil law experienced arbitrators to swell the ranks of its panel of arbitrators for their own long-term strategy and their goals.<\/p>\n There are many excellent arbitration institutions in China and the top ones that lead the pack in terms of having the most international arbitrations, involving a foreign party, are: the Beijing Arbitration Commission\/Beijing International Arbitration Center (BAC); the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC); and the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (SHIAC).\u00a0 BAC and CIETAC are both located in the capital Beijing, while SHIAC is located in Shanghai, the second-largest Chinese city and banking hub.\u00a0 All three arbitration centres maintain practices consistent with international standards of neutrality and all three have allowed for the inclusion of foreign arbitration specialists, as well as leading arbitration specialists in China, on their respective panels of arbitrators.\u00a0 They also allow for foreign lawyers to participate in their hearing processes and, where it has been agreed between the parties, allow proceedings to be conducted in the English language.\u00a0 CIETAC established the CIETAC Silk Road Arbitration Center in Xi\u2019an to act as a hub to provide commercial arbitration service for countries along the land-based Silk Road Belt.\u00a0 As Chinese arbitration commissions would tend to naturally appoint experienced Chinese national arbitrators in default situations, there is much less possibility of such arbitrators failing to understand or apply PRC law, where PRC law has been designated, as the governing law of the contract.<\/p>\n However, one of the most important factors in selecting a seat of arbitration is absolute neutrality.\u00a0 The ability to select a neutral seat that is not in either party\u2019s \u201chome jurisdiction\u201d is one of the key issues which parties consider when selecting arbitration as a DSM.\u00a0 It is quite likely that the non-Chinese counterpart will insist on an absolutely neutral seat of arbitration such as Singapore, Malaysia or Thailand, as those seats are well known to Chinese parties.\u00a0 This search for a neutral seat of arbitration can in itself end up excluding the participation of the Chinese arbitration commissions in being selected as the forum in projects between Central Asian parties and Chinese parties.<\/p>\n Since 2020, Singapore has overtaken and has been increasing its edge over Hong Kong as the leading seat of arbitration in Asia.\u00a0 Singapore is likely to not just maintain but also to widen its lead over Hong Kong until such time as international parties believe that the legal and political situation in Hong Kong has not changed much.<\/p>\n As stated earlier, the Singapore Courts are the most respected courts in the Asia-Pacific region to enforce both arbitration agreements and awards.\u00a0 Singapore regularly updates its international arbitration laws, which are themselves based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, to ensure that best practices in arbitration are always adopted.\u00a0 Geographically, Singapore is located in the hearts of both ASEAN and Asia itself.\u00a0 It has the best hearing facilities globally at Maxwell Chambers.\u00a0 Most importantly, Singapore as an independent sovereign nation is seen to be an absolute neutral seat vis-\u00e0-vis<\/em> China and is not subject to authorities in China.<\/p>\n It is much more likely for both PRC contracting parties and ASEAN\/MSR parties to reach agreement to elect for choice of the 2021 ICC Arbitration Rules with the arbitration seated in Singapore.\u00a0 The ICC has a great advantage over all other institutions as it has a very diverse team at both its Secretariat as well as at its Court of Arbitration.\u00a0 These ICC organs work hard to ensure that the right qualified and appropriate civil law\/common law experienced arbitrators are appointed in each case.\u00a0 As compared to other institutions that have a propensity to appoint arbitrators from outside the Asia-Pacific region, the ICC is generally known for its gender and geographic diversity and its cost-conscious position.\u00a0 It tends to appoint arbitrators from within the region and to allocate the appropriate civil or common law arbitrators for the arbitration.\u00a0 The ICC takes into account the time zones of the parties when considering the appointment of arbitrators in default situations.\u00a0 This is because there is always the chance of a second pandemic wave that would cause travel lockdowns once again.\u00a0 It would result in end-users of arbitration going back to virtual arbitrations.\u00a0 Such arbitrations can be disruptive in situations where witnesses have to give evidence at night.\u00a0 Even if the seat of arbitration was to be Singapore, if the arbitration centre has a propensity to appoint arbitrators from a distant time zone to Asia, such an appointment will also inevitably tilt the balance of convenience, disruption and fatigue against Chinese parties in a virtual arbitration.\u00a0 Assuming that a party is from Germany and the other party is from China, in the event that the arbitration centre appoints a default arbitrator from say New York or a European city, this could have an impact on the sitting times in a virtual arbitration setting.\u00a0 Instead of beginning the hearing at 1.30pm Beijing time corresponding to 7.30am Berlin time, the parties may have to begin at 6pm Beijing time corresponding to 12 noon Berlin time.\u00a0 Even if there is only a five-hour hearing day, the Chinese parties will have to end their day at 11pm, putting their witnesses at a disadvantage despite the seat of arbitration being in Singapore.\u00a0 This scenario is less likely to happen if the parties select the ICC Rules of Arbitration.\u00a0 While travel lockdowns have currently been removed in all countries, it is not inconceivable that a new strain of Covid can emerge again and force travel lockdowns.<\/p>\nThe focal regions of different leading arbitration institutions<\/strong><\/h1>\n
ICC arbitration seated in Singapore as the likely default choice for China-ASEAN\/MSR parties<\/strong><\/h1>\n