THE AUTHOR:
Joel Soon, LL.M. Candidate at Harvard Law School & Vice President (Masterclasses) of Harvard International Arbitration Law Students Association (“HIALSA”)
This article is part of the HIALSA × Daily Jus series “Recent Arbitration Developments,” published in collaboration with Jus Mundi. The series channels the expertise of the next generation of international arbitration practitioners to track the legislative, institutional, and judicial developments redefining the field worldwide.
Three of the five most preferred seats for international arbitration are in Asia, namely Singapore, Hong Kong, and Beijing. Recent developments across the region reflect a strong focus on improving procedural efficiency, the continued modernization of arbitration laws, and judicial innovation. Asian jurisdictions are making a concerted effort to enhance their attractiveness as venues for cross-border arbitration. This post highlights some of the most significant developments that have shaped arbitration in the region over the past year.
Institutional Rules Reforms: A Push for Greater Efficiency
A defining feature of recent reforms across Asian arbitral institutions is the prioritization of procedural efficiency. Efficiency is no longer simply a desirable attribute of arbitration; it has become a key competitive differentiator among arbitral seats and institutions seeking to attract international users. Indeed, several leading Asian arbitral institutions have introduced or announced substantial rule reforms aimed at streamlining proceedings and enhancing party autonomy.
The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) Rules 2025, which came into force on 1 January 2025, is one such example. The SIAC Rules 2025 are the seventh edition of the SIAC’s Arbitration Rules since SIAC’s establishment in 1991. Key changes include a new Streamlined Procedure for disputes under SGD 1 million (Rule 13), a new procedure for Preliminary Determination (Rule 46), Coordinated Proceedings (Rule 17), and disclosures regarding Third-Party Funding (Rule 38), as well as enhancements to the emergency arbitration regime (Rule 12; Schedule 1). Overall, these changes reflect SIAC’s continued emphasis on efficiency without compromising procedural fairness.
Similar developments can be observed elsewhere in the region. The International Arbitration Center of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (“KCAB International”) comprehensively revised its International Arbitration Rules(“KCAB Rules”), which took effect on 1 January 2026. Most notably, the KCAB Rules establishes the International Arbitration Court (“KCAB Court”), a body that “independently performs the case-administrative functions”. This brings the KCAB into closer alignment with leading regional and international arbitral institutions including SIAC, HKIAC, and ICC. Additional changes to the KCAB Rules include:
- Shortened timelines for tribunal constitution (Article 12);
- Establishment of a formal mediation mechanism (Article 16)
- Clarification of rules for multi-party, multi-contracts and multiple proceedings (Articles 21 to 24);
- Introduction of an early determination process (Article 36);
- Introduction of a scrutiny process for draft awards (Article 39);
- Reorganization of the expedited procedure and introduction of the fast-track procedure (Article 50); and
- Updated costs structure (Articles 54 and 55, and Appendix 2).
The Asian International Arbitration Centre (“AIAC”) has also contributed to this trend through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, which recently came into effect on 1 January 2026.
Legislative Reform: Continued Modernization
Legislative reform across Asia further underscores the region’s commitment to modernizing its arbitration frameworks and integrating more fully into the global arbitration system. Nowhere is this more evident than in China’s recent amendments to its Arbitration Law, which came into force on 1 March 2026.
These amendments introduce the following significant changes. Most notably, Chinese law now formally recognizes the concept of the “seat of arbitration.” This represents a shift from the historical approach that conflated the seat with the location of the arbitration institution. The amendments also permit a limited scope of “ad hoc arbitration”, enhance the ability of tribunals to gather evidence, and refine rules on arbitrator appointment and disclosure obligations. In addition, offshore arbitral institutions are now permitted to administer certain arbitrations within China, and a clearer framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has been established.
While these reforms represent a substantial step toward the internationalization of China’s arbitration regime, they also reflect a cautious approach. The introduction of ad hoc arbitration, for instance, remains limited in scope, and institutional arbitration continues to dominate. China’s reforms could therefore be understood as a form of controlled internationalization.
Elsewhere in the region, Singapore and Hong Kong are both in the process of reviewing their arbitration laws. On 21 March 2025, the Singapore Ministry of Law launched a public consultation on the International Arbitration Act 1994. In particular, the Ministry commissioned the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy to study the international arbitration regime in Singapore, which produced a report focusing on eight issues that touch upon costs principles, procedural efficiency, and substantive matters. Likewise, Hong Kong put together a Working Group on Arbitration Law Reform, which seeks to review the Arbitration Ordinance in Hong Kong with a view to identifying potential areas for reform. These initiatives demonstrate a continued commitment to maintaining legislative frameworks that are both modern and responsive to user needs.
Judicial Attitudes: Significant Case Law
One of the most significant recent decisions in Asia is Gayatri Balasamy v ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd [2025] INSC 605, in which the Supreme Court of India (by a 4-1 majority) held that Indian courts may modify arbitral awards under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. According to the majority of the Court, this limited power may be exercised in specific circumstances: (i) when the award is severable in that the invalid portion may be severed from the valid portion of the award, (ii) to correct any clerical, computational or typographical errors, (iii) to modify post-award interest, and (iv) to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution. In dissent, Justice Viswanathan argued that section 34 does not confer any power to modify arbitral awards, emphasizing that the power to set aside and the power to modify are conceptually distinct and do not emanate from the same genus. Accordingly, there is no power to modify subsumed within the power to set aside an arbitral award. Nonetheless, he acknowledged that the power to set aside under section 34 includes the ability to sever invalid portions of an award.
In DJP v DJO [2025] SGCA(I) 2, the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld the setting aside of an award on the ground of breach of natural justice, where 212 out of 451 paragraphs of the award were copied and pasted from parallel arbitrations. The Court was particularly concerned that only one arbitrator had recourse to, and relied on, extraneous material from proceedings in which the other arbitrators had not participated. As a result, the tribunal members were “not equally placed” and denied an “equal, fair and independent opportunity to discharge their adjudicative function.” The Court held that the possibility that such extraneous material could have influenced the outcome of the arbitration was sufficient to justify setting aside the award.
In CCC v AAC [2025] HKCFI 2987, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance found that proper notice of an arbitration may be effected by SMS, and was in fact validly given on the facts. The agreements in question incorporated the online arbitration rules of the Hong Kong Arbitration Society, which expressly permit service of notices through electronic means, including SMS. Although the respondent did not participate in the arbitration and denied receiving the message, the Court found that proper notice had been given. That said, the Court observed that, in the context online arbitrations, “good practice suggests that the arbitrator, or the claimant at the request of the arbitrator, should check whether the notice of arbitration has actually been received and understood as such by the non-participating respondent.”
Conclusion
In sum, recent developments across Asia underscore the region’s growing sophistication and competitiveness in international arbitration. Through institutional innovation, ongoing legislative reform, and evolving judicial approaches, key jurisdictions are actively refining their frameworks to meet the demands of international arbitration. While approaches may differ, the overarching trajectory is clear: Asia continues to strengthen its position as a leading hub for international arbitration.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Joel Soon is an LLM candidate at Harvard Law School and a dual-qualified international disputes lawyer admitted in Singapore and New York. He has experience acting as both counsel and tribunal secretary in international arbitrations. He regularly publishes book chapters and articles in international journals and was appointed to a working group commissioned by the Singapore Ministry of Law to review proposed amendments to Singapore’s International Arbitration Act.
*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.
