Dispute Resolution International (DRI)
About Dispute Resolution International (DRI)
Dispute Resolution International is the journal of the IBA's Dispute Resolution Section. It provides in-depth discussion of current developments and topical issues in all areas of dispute resolution, including litigation, arbitration, mediation and other areas of alternative dispute resolution, as well as negligence and damages.
Dispute Resolution International is edited by Kim Rooney, an independent arbitrator and barrister at Rede Chambers, Hong Kong. Kim is assisted by an Editorial Board comprising leading practitioners from around the world.
Dispute Resolution International is distributed to all members of the IBA Dispute Resolution Section, giving it a readership of approximately 4,000. It is published twice a year and was launched in May 2007.
If you are interested in contributing to Dispute Resolution International, please contact Kim Rooney at: kim.rooney@redechambers.com and Chloe Woodhall at chloe.woodhall@int-bar.org.
If you are not a member of the IBA, you can find out more about how to join here.
Members of the Dispute Resolution Section committees receive Dispute Resolution International as part of their membership. PDF-only subscriptions are also available to non-members. Please email editor@int-bar.org to order.
ISSN 2075 5333
Pricing: £84 per issue
£169 per year, two issues per year
Five per cent agency discount available on annual subscription
Latest Issue - Vol 19 No 1 May 2025
Mediation is on the rise internationally as a means to settle disputes in a cost-effective manner. Chinese parties appear to be increasingly interested in mediation as an option. This article examines the evolving landscape of mediation in China and internationally. It considers how mediation for Chinese parties is evolving and whether mediation is a good option for Chinese parties in cross-border disputes.
Commercial mediation has seen remarkable growth, bolstered by a supportive PRC judicial system and legislative initiatives encouraging parties to find harmonious ways to resolve disputes. The article analyses the three primary types of mediation in China: people’s mediation, administrative mediation, and commercial mediation. It also looks at mediation rules and proceedings in common law jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United States.
The article anecdotally considers the cultural elements, emphasising the Chinese parties’ preference for evaluative mediation styles as a reflection of civil law. Through case studies of international disputes involving Chinese and US parties, the article illustrates the practical dynamics of mediation involving Chinese parties and underscores the importance of cultural sensitivity in international mediation.
As Chinese parties continue to go global, mediation is emerging as an attractive option for efficient and cost-effective dispute resolution. This analysis assesses whether the promotion of mediation is yielding tangible outcomes and explores the future of mediation involving Chinese and foreign parties.
Arbitration is no longer perceived as a cheap and fast option for resolving commercial disputes. Against the backdrop of increased user dissatisfaction with time and costs in arbitration, this article takes a fresh look at expedited procedure as one of the most effective techniques in response to this concern. The article begins by outlining the main features of expedited arbitration and then explores three areas where procedural rules diverge: (1) whether expedited procedures apply automatically, (2) the value threshold for their application, and (3) the appointment of arbitrator/s. Building on this general overview of procedural and institutional framework, the main part of the article identifies various genuine or perceived challenges encountered with expedited procedures. The article considers issues such as the suitability of expedited procedures for arbitration matters, their ability to deliver genuinely fast dispute resolution, challenges encountered with the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and due process considerations. These issues are analysed through the lens of user experience and practice gathered from caselaw, doctrine and empirical evidence, including from surveys conducted by the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (SIDRA) since 2019.
The Singapore Court of Appeal’s landmark decision in The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG [2024] 1 SLR 56 clarified the application of transnational issue estoppel in international arbitration under Singapore law. The case arose from India’s attempt to resist enforcement in Singapore of an arbitral award made in Switzerland, after its challenges had already been rejected by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal held that transnational issue estoppel prevents parties from re-litigating issues before an enforcement court that have been finally determined by the seat court, provided the elements of transnational issue estoppel are met. The majority of the Court also discussed obiter the ‘Primacy Principle’, which would give presumptive weight to seat court decisions on award validity, subject to exceptions like public policy or procedural injustice. The judgment aligns Singapore with other leading jurisdictions in promoting finality and efficiency in arbitration while positioning the Singapore judiciary as a thought leader, cementing Singapore’s position as a leading arbitration hub. The decision provides clarity and reduces opportunities for dilatory tactics in award enforcement, though the scope of the Primacy Principle remains open for further development.
Many common law jurisdictions have relied on the test of transnational issue estoppel to prevent repeated attempts to resist the enforcement of an arbitral award, particularly when such attempts have proved fruitless when attempting to set aside the award in the courts of the seat. However, the traditional test of transnational issue estoppel also carries significant disadvantages in terms of time and cost. The Singapore Court of Appeal in the case of The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG [2023] SGCA(I) 10 has proposed a new test, known as the Primacy Principle, that creates a presumption that a prior seat court decision on the validity of the award is determinative, and thus leads to a refusal to entertain subsequent attempts to resist enforcement of an arbitral award. However, the Primacy Principle remains vague and undefined, which may lead to potential unforeseen consequences. This article examines the Deutsche Telekom case, the Primacy Principle, and considers whether such a principle will provide practical benefit to international arbitration practitioners.
- Volume 18 Number 2, October 2024
- Volume 18 Number 1, May 2024
- Volume 17 Number 2, November 2023
- Volume 17 Number 1, May 2023
- Volume 16 Number 2, October 2022
- Volume 16 Number 1, May 2022
- Volume 15 Number 2, October 2021
- Volume 15 Number 1, May 2021
- Volume 14 Number 2, October 2020
- Volume 14 Number 1, May 2020
- Volume 13 Number 2, October 2019
- Volume 13 Number 1, May 2019
Open access articles
The Global Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Commercial Dispute Resolution in the First Year
While the pandemic disruption has extended for far longer than initially expected, courts (after the first wave), arbitral institutions and stakeholders in commercial dispute resolution have largely continued operations, increasingly supported by innovative digital technology, flexible scheduling and flexible cost structures, among other tools.
Released on Jun 02, 2021
The Global Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Commercial Dispute Resolution in the First Seven Months
In 2020, most of the world’s countries have had to respond to the severe disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, which emerged in late December 2019 (the ‘pandemic’). The pandemic poses enormous health and socio-economic challenges. As of September 2020, it is not known when the pandemic will end; some countries are already experiencing further waves of infection. Globally, judiciaries and arbitral institutions have been under great pressure to continue operating during the pandemic [...]
How to order
Members of the Dispute Resolution Section committees receive Dispute Resolution International as part of their membership. PDF-only subscriptions are also available to non-members. Please email editor@int-bar.org to order.
ISSN 2075 5333
Pricing: £84 per issue
£169 per year, two issues per year
Five per cent agency discount available on annual subscriptions
Guidelines for authors
Copyright and Disclaimer
Copyright: The IBA holds copyright in all articles, newsletters and papers published by them. If you wish to reproduce or distribute any IBA publication or any part of an IBA publication, permission must be requested in writing from the Managing Editor at editor@int-bar.org, and due acknowledgment given.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in journals, newsletters and papers are those of the contributors, and not necessarily those of the International Bar Association.