THE AUTHOR:
Benedikt Kaneko, Associate at Gleiss Lutz
The Asian International Arbitration Centre (“AIAC”), with effect from 1 January 2026, updated its rules by introducing the AIAC Suite of Rules 2026. AIAC’s goal is to introduce a modern and integrated framework for arbitration, mediation, adjudication, Islamic arbitration, sports arbitration and domain name dispute resolution. This short article provides an overview of the AIAC Suite of Rules 2026 and the most notable updates and reforms that entered into force on 1 January 2026.
Establishing the AIAC Court of Arbitration
The AIAC Suite of Rules 2026 establishes an AIAC Court of Arbitration (“Court”), which is designed to strengthen institutional governance and align the AIAC with leading arbitral institutions in this respect. While the name references arbitration, the Court’s function is not limited to arbitral proceedings under the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 (“2026 Rules”) but also impacts other proceedings administered by AIAC, such as mediation and adjudication proceedings.
Administrative functions under the 2026 Rules are now split between the Court, its President, and the Registrar. This development is welcome as the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2023 centralized all administrative and appointment decision making with the Director.
While the Court is headed by its President, AIAC has not, in its announcement of the Court’s establishment, provided further information about the Court’s inaugural members. The 2026 Rules define the Court “as the AIAC Court of Arbitration and [it]includes any member(s) or committee consisting of not less than three members of the AIAC Court tasked with performing the functions of the AIAC Court” (Rule 2.4 of the 2026 Rules). It therefore remains uncertain whether the Court follows the governance model adopted by other arbitral institutions, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), or, more recently, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (“KCAB”), which appoint internationally recognized senior practitioners, typically experienced arbitrators, senior counsel, former judges, and arbitration specialists, to their arbitration courts.
The Court can also be involved in providing further guidance for the understanding and development of the 2026 Rules, as it “may from time to time issue guidance notes and circulars to implement administrative aspect of the [2026] Rules” (Rule 1.3 of the 2026 Rules). All draft awards (except emergency awards) are subject to scrutiny by the Court, which is referred to as technical review (Rule 42 of the 2026 Rules), and is designed to uphold the quality of arbitral awards rendered under AIAC-administered arbitral proceedings.
Further Amendments to the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026
- The maximum amount in dispute for fast-track procedures under the 2026 Rules has been increased to USD 3 million for international arbitrations and RM 2 million for domestic arbitrations (Rule 7.1).
- Third-party funding has to be disclosed and a broad rule also allows the arbitral tribunal to potentially take into account funding itself and the disclosure or non-disclosure of such funding when making an order or award, including for the decision on the apportionment of costs (Rule 31).
- Parties and co-arbitrators are encouraged to and the President of the Court may take into account considerations of diversitywhen nominating or appointing arbitrators (Rules 16.2 and 16.3).
- The use of mediation is now not only explicitly taken into account before commencement of arbitral proceedings, but also during or after the commencement (Arb-Med, Arb-Med-Arb or Med-Arb, Rule 49).
- Emergency arbitration procedures are no longer only annexed as schedule but now form an integral part of the 2026 Rules (Rules 12 to 14). The expanded codification makes urgent relief more accessible and procedurally clearer.
- Several incremental changes that are aimed at streamlining arbitration procedures to enhance effectiveness and efficiency.
AIAC Mediation Rules 2026
The Court is also referenced in the AIAC Mediation Rules 2026, which assign it a role in AIAC-administered mediation proceedings. The Court and its President under the AIAC Mediation Rules 2026 are primarily tasked with the appointment of mediators in certain procedural circumstances. The rules also amend the approach to mediator fees: mediators and parties may now negotiate the mediator’s fees or adopt the fee schedule set out in the rules. The schedule is no longer the default basis for mediator remuneration but equal to the parties’ agreed and negotiated mediator’s fees.
Where arbitral proceedings are already pending, the AIAC Mediation Rules 2026 introduce the possibility of concurrent mediation to address one or more issues suitable for resolution by mediation without suspending the arbitral proceedings. Additional amendments aim to streamline procedures and enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of AIAC mediation.
Further Amendments introduced with the AIAC Suite of Rules 2026
Further amendments introduced with the AIAC Suite of Rules 2026 are:
- AIAC i‑Arbitration Rules 2026: The amendments track the major institutional and procedural reforms introduced in the 2026 Rules, while preserving the Shariah‑compliant character of the AIAC i‑Arbitration Rules. Structurally, the 2026 AIAC i‑Arbitration Rules now comprise 58 Rules, up from 25 in the leaner 2023 edition. Whereas the 2023 version largely operated as an overlay to the 2023 AIAC Arbitration Rules and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, the 2026 i‑Arbitration Rules are a self‑contained, chapter‑based framework that spans the entire arbitral process, from commencement through the delivery of awards and post‑award procedures.
- Asian Sports Arbitration Rules 2026: The establishment of the Court is reflected in the Asian Sports Arbitration Rules 2026 by defining the respective roles of the Court, its President and the Registrar.
- AIAC Adjudication Rules and Procedure: The amendments to the AIAC Adjudication Rules and Procedure incorporate the legislative amendments that were incorporated by the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication (Amendment) Act 2024, for which AIAC is the default appointing and administrative authority. The amendments further aim at strengthening the administrative support offered by the AIAC.
- AIAC’s Guide to Domain Name Dispute Resolution: Amendments include, i.a., refined procedures for .MY-domain name disputes, reflect the establishment of the Court for procedural decisions and institutional oversight, and incorporate the updated Malaysian Network Information Centre’s Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
Conclusion and Outlook
While AIAC plays a central role in Malaysia’s arbitration ecosystem as the central arbitral institution, its position in Southeast Asia is somewhat more limited as regional competition is strong and has in recent years attracted a significantly higher case load in comparison. However, with the AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, AIAC is positioning itself as an alternative that is not only limited to specialized rules such as the i‑Arbitration Rules. In the past, AIAC already positioned itself to offer broad services. For example, investor-state disputes arising under the 2009 ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement between Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand can be referred to AIAC.
The AIAC Suite of Rules also coincides with legislative initiates from the Malaysian Government such as the enforcement of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 and the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication (Amendment) Act 2024, for which AIAC is the default appointing and administrative authority. Taken together, AIAC is well positioned to strengthen its footprint as a versatile forum for arbitration and other forms of alternative dispute resolution.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. Benedikt Yuji Kaneko is an associate at Gleiss Lutz. He advises clients on disputes and contentious proceedings, focusing on international commercial and investment arbitrations with a connection to Asia, particularly Japan, Korea, Singapore and China. He is admitted to the German Bar (Rechtsanwalt) and the New York Bar (Attorney at Law).
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
