Tag results for 'dispute resolution'
When Seeing Is No Longer Believing: Evidentiary Challenges of Deepfakes in Arbitration
This article examines how deepfakes – AI-generated or manipulated audio, image, and video – destabilise evidentiary assessment in arbitration. Beyond the risk of convincingly falsified exhibits, deepfakes fuel the ‘liar’s dividend,’ whereby the mere possibility of manipulation is invoked to discredit authentic proof. Detection remains technically challenging, costly, and unevenly accessible – especially for mid- and small-value cases. Drawing on recent litigation experience, the EU AI Act’s transparency framework, and broader evidentiary principles, the article highlights how these difficulties risk undermining fairness, efficiency, and equality of arms. After a brief technical primer on deepfakes and their detection limits, the discussion distills lessons from court cases (including the emergence of the ‘deepfake defence’) and evaluates arbitration’s current evidentiary toolbox, highlighting risks of chilling effects and cost inflation if authenticity burdens are misplaced. While arbitration is not without safeguards – party autonomy, due process, procedural loyalty, ethical duties, and soft-law instruments – the article questions whether these tools are sufficient in practice. The contribution is ultimately pragmatic: safeguard fair and efficient truth-finding by reinforcing proportional verification, targeted expert input, and principled tribunal case management – so that access to justice is preserved when seeing is no longer believing.
Released on Nov 21, 2025
The APEC Collaborative Framework for Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) of Cross-Border B2B Disputes: An Overview and Analysis (Part 1)
The APEC Collaborative Framework for Online Dispute Resolution (the ‘Framework’) addresses the growing need for efficient and affordable resolution of cross-border B2B disputes, particularly for micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises. Traditional litigation and arbitration are often too costly and slow for low-value, high-volume disputes, creating a barrier to trade. Developed by APEC with input from UNCITRAL’s earlier work, the Framework establishes a decentralised network of accredited ODR providers who offer a standardised, tiered process combining negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. Key innovations include expedited timelines, simplified procedures, a single neutral practitioner, and cost proportionality. By enhancing accessibility, reducing costs, and building trust in digital trade, the Framework supports inclusive economic growth and smoother commercial exchanges across the Asia-Pacific region.
Released on Nov 21, 2025
Fishing in Uncharted Waters: The First Ever Arbitral Award Under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement
This article examines the first arbitral award rendered under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), prompted by the UK’s prohibition of sandeel fishing in English and Scottish waters. It analyses the tensions between regulatory autonomy and treaty-based obligations, with particular attention to the role of scientific evidence, the principle of proportionality and allegations of discrimination. The tribunal’s reasoning, which upholds the Scottish ban while identifying procedural deficiencies in the English measure, sheds light on the dynamic relationship between environmental protection and international trade law. The article further considers the award’s procedural innovations and reflects on its broader implications for the future operation of dispute resolution mechanisms under the TCA.
Released on Nov 21, 2025
Dispute Resolution International - October 2025
Released on Nov 20, 2025
Better Late Than Never: Pakistan Attempts Arbitration Reform
Domestic arbitration in Pakistan is still governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 even though both India and Bangladesh repealed and replaced that law in 1996 with new statutes based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. However, in 2023, Pakistan initiated a formal reform process which has resulted in a new Draft Act. The Draft Act is based upon the Model Law and yet differs significantly from it. For example, the Draft Act does not deal with foreign arbitrations at all but instead deals only with domestically seated arbitrations (albeit both international and purely domestic arbitration). The article examines, and tries to explain, the various choices made in preparing the Draft Act. In broad terms, those choices were driven by the need to make the Draft Act comprehensible and practically workable in the particular context of Pakistan. For example, the Draft Act provides different standards of review in relation to purely domestic awards as opposed to domestically seated international awards. This is because the needs of sophisticated business consumers are quite different from those of the average unsophisticated Pakistani. The Draft Act also tries to pre-empt practical concerns regarding implementation by establishing minimal institutional frameworks for arbitral appointments and oversight.
Released on Nov 20, 2025
Editorial – Dispute Resolution International – October 2025
Released on Nov 20, 2025
Editorial – Dispute Resolution International – May 2025
Released on Jul 8, 2025
Mediating Disputes Involving Chinese Parties
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.
Released on Jul 8, 2025
Expedited Arbitration Procedures as A Fast and Cost-effective Option – User Experience and Practice
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.
Released on Jul 8, 2025
The Application of Transnational Issue Estoppel and Observations on the Primacy Principle by the Singapore Court of Appeal in The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG
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.
Released on Jul 8, 2025
Transnational Issue Estoppel and the Primacy Principle in International Arbitration: A Way Forward
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.
Released on Jul 8, 2025
Dispute Resolution International - May 2025
Released on Jul 7, 2025
Editorial – Dispute Resolution International – October 2024
Released on Nov 27, 2024
Regulation and Use of AI in Dispute Resolution in the EU and Switzerland
The ethical rules, codes of conduct, and regulations that govern the practice of law in the EU and Switzerland also regulate lawyers’ use of AI in dispute resolution. Bar associations and other professional regulatory bodies have also issued specific guidance regarding the use of AI, including as long ago as 2018. Additionally, the Swiss government is considering possible regulatory approaches to AI and plans to issue a proposal in 2025. Meanwhile, the EU AI Act, which came into force on 1 August 2024, treats as ‘high risk’ the use of AI systems by judges, or on their behalf, to research, interpret, and apply the facts and the law and to AI systems ‘used in a similar way in alternative dispute resolution’. Depending on how this provision is enforced, it could raise potentially significant issues for the use of AI in alternative dispute resolution, including in arbitration.
Released on Nov 27, 2024
The Current State of US Regulation of the Use of AI in Dispute Resolution
Since the release of Chat GPT in late 2022, the use of generative AI by attorneys has exploded in the United States. The two main drivers are: (1) the ease of access to and use of generative AI to seemingly do what heretofore required human capital; and (2) a relentless market pressure to perform legal work more efficiently. This article explores the current state of how courts and State Bars throughout the United States, along with ADR provider JAMS, are regulating the use of GenAI in the litigation context. It identifies emerging trends common to the approach taken by the federal judiciary and State Bars including limited use, transparency, proficiency, disclosure, human oversight and verification. Finally, it explains why it is unlikely, in contrast to the EU’s approach, that the US Congress will pass federal regulation limiting the use of AI by judges and arbitrators, and instead, leave such potential future AI regulation to the provenance of the States.
Released on Nov 27, 2024
The 2024 IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration
The IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration of 2024 update – without overhauling – the 2014 version by fine-tuning drafting, clarifying ambiguities, incorporating established arbitral practice, and reinforcing various fundamental principles. The 2024 Guidelines were the result of work by a taskforce composed of over 60 individuals involved in the field of international arbitration with diverse backgrounds. Their work was informed by comments received from the international arbitration community during a consultation phase. The 2024 Guidelines include eight key updates that: (1) clarify their scope of application; (2) clarify that Part I of the 2024 Guidelines (General Standards) prevails over Part II (Application Lists); (3) clarify the role of the subjective versus objective standards in evaluating conflicts of interest and disclosure; (4) reinforce the arbitrator’s disclosure obligations; (5) broaden and clarify the definition of ‘relationships’ for the purposes of evaluating conflicts of interest and disclosures; (6) reiterate the arbitrator’s duty to investigate; (7) reiterate the parties’ duty to investigate and inform; and (8) update the ‘traffic light system’ of Red, Orange and Green Lists to reflect current international arbitral practice.
Released on Nov 27, 2024
Emergency Arbitration: Where Are We Now and Where Do We Go from Here?
This article reviews the development of emergency arbitrator proceedings (EA) internationally in institutional arbitration rules and in national laws since the ICDR Rules first offered EA in arbitration in 2006, including the forms of urgent interim relief available in EA pending the constitution of an arbitratlon tribunal. Among other topics, it reviews why parties choose EA, the interaction of EA with national court systems, provides a comparison between EA and national courts’ proceedings including as to cost, the types of interim measures available, coercive powers to require compliance, their respective scope as to third parties, whether ex parte applications are permissible, the enforceability of interim relief orders, the nature of the order or award and whether a binding decision is made in EA, and the approach of jurisdictions to enforcement of orders made in EA. The article provides statistics as the uptake and use of EA proceedings from 2020 to 2023 in ICC, SIAC, HKIAC, SCC and LCIA arbitrations and reviews the different approaches to the substantive standards for granting relief in EA proceedings. It discusses EA relief and performance bonds. Finally, it reviews the considerations relevant to the future development of EA.
Released on Nov 27, 2024
Dispute Resolution International - October 2024
Released on Nov 26, 2024
Dispute Resolution International - May 2024
Released on Jun 14, 2024
Is China Becoming an Arbitration-friendly Jurisdiction for Foreign Arbitral Institutions? A Judicial Perspective
This article provides an overview of developments in international arbitration in Mainland China amid the absence of amendment to the 1995 PRC Arbitration Law. It explores China’s gradual transition towards becoming a more arbitration-friendly jurisdiction through judicial rulings on individual cases. Chinese courts are actively shaping the legal landscape to meet the demands of a growing international arbitration market. Key topics covered include the validity of arbitration agreements, the treatment of incomplete arbitration clauses, the adoption of the seat of arbitration, the interpretation of foreign-related factors, the adoption of international guidelines and soft law. This article discusses the significant role review of ICC cases by PRC Courts has played in the development of the legal principles applicable to foreign related and international arbitration cases conducted in Mainland China.
Released on Jun 13, 2024
Editorial – Dispute Resolution International – May 2024
Released on Jun 12, 2024
Use and Regulation of AI in Dispute Resolution: Focus on the United Kingdom, Singapore and India
Countries across the world are grappling with how to deal with the rapid developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its uses. In this article we analyse three such jurisdictions: the UK, Singapore and India. A common theme that prevails across these jurisdictions is the focus on principles and guidelines instead of straitjacketed regulations that tend to be more inflexible. Another common theme is the reluctance to adopt AI tools that serve to replace human decision makers. Some of these approaches are still evolving – particularly in a country like India where the burgeoning case load may yet make way for automated resolution for small value claims.
Released on Jun 12, 2024
Equitable Estoppel, Unconscionable Conduct, and the Contractual Default in Vendor Purchaser Agreements: A Comparative Approach of Common Law Courts in the UK and the US
There are different types of equitable estoppel under English law including promissory estoppel, estoppel by convention and proprietary estoppel. In this article the various types of estoppel under English law are considered and the doctrine of proprietary estoppel in the context of the creation of a trust is discussed. The English doctrine of equitable estoppel is compared to the principle of promissory estoppel in United States law, including the superimposition of the Statute of Frauds. Its protection of the principle of equitable estoppel has extended to the mixed jurisdiction of Louisiana which has adopted the civil law remedies which are equivalent and lead to similar outcomes.
Released on Jun 12, 2024
China’s Foreign State Immunity Law 2023: Implications for Enforcement of Judgments and Arbitral Awards against States and State Entities in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Macau
The new Foreign State Immunity Law 2023 of the People’s Republic of China came into force on 1 January 2024. This shifts the country (as well as its special administrative regions, Hong Kong and Macau) away from absolute state immunity to restrictive state immunity, bringing it more in line with the relatively prevalent practice among the international community. This article discusses the status of state immunity in public international law, analyses the new law’s provisions and examines practical challenges that will be faced by those seeking to utilise this law to enforce judgments or awards against foreign states and state entities, and the new law’s innovations that go beyond the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property of 2004 and the UK State Immunity Act 1978.
Released on Jun 12, 2024
Challenges and Opportunities in Addressing Investors’ Environmental Contractual Obligations Through State Counterclaims in Investor-State Dispute Settlement
Released on Dec 13, 2023
The Power of Arbitrators to Remove Counsel – One Step Too Far?
This article discusses the power of arbitral tribunals to remove legal counsel from arbitration proceedings under two scenarios: conflicts of interest and counsel misconduct. Many leading arbitration institutions have amended their arbitration rules to explicitly grant arbitral tribunals authority to remove counsel based on conflicts of interest. Investment arbitration tribunals have also established that tribunals possess this authority when conflicts arise between counsel and the tribunal or opposing parties. In the case of counsel misconduct, apart from the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules and the International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration, the current arbitration rules of the major institutions do not expressly empower a tribunal to sanction, let alone remove, counsel based on misconduct. Although there is growing demand for institutions to adopt rules regulating counsel misconduct, criticisms exist, raising the question of whether this is one step too far.
Released on Dec 13, 2023
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct: Judges as Arbitrators
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002), although not binding on states, are widely supported as a means of promoting judicial integrity. Diverse jurisdictions with different traditions have relied on the principles as a template in codifying judges’ conduct. The article explores practices across 67 jurisdictions with regard to whether active or serving judges are permitted to act as arbitrators. The article investigates reasons why judges should not act as arbitrators and the effect of active judges acting as arbitrators on setting aside proceedings, prevalent in many jurisdictions, and on appeals on a point of law found in restricted jurisdictions. It also analyses sample judicial codes of conduct and relates this to whether active judges should act as arbitrators. In addition to the different jurisdictions, the article looks briefly at the practice at the International Court of Justice.
Released on Dec 13, 2023
Dispute Resolution International November 2023
Released on Dec 12, 2023
A Brief Discussion on the Implications, Regulation and Prospects of AI in Dispute Resolution Practice with a Focus on China
Released on Dec 12, 2023
Editorial – Dispute Resolution International – November 2023
Released on Dec 12, 2023