Abstract
Many states have recognised the economic importance of being ‘arbitration-friendly’, and many have naturally advertised themselves as such. Beyond the catch-phrase lie these questions: What arbitration regimes are sufficiently ‘arbitration-friendly’? Looking into the past, is there a standard pathway of arbitration reform in the Asia Pacific? Or are there divergent modes of development? To what degree have political, legal, social, cultural, and other factors influenced a jurisdiction’s ability to replicate successful reform patterns? This Chapter looks into the development of arbitration regimes across the Asia Pacific, and aims to reflect on key ingredients for successful arbitration reform in the East. Among the Asia Pacific jurisdictions, some have reached greater success and have attracted many more commercial disputes within and outside the region. Others have been less successful, even with efforts to substantially reform the arbitration laws and institutions. To examine arbitration reform efforts and outcomes of Asia Pacific jurisdictions, this Chapter relies on a hypothetical model of arbitration reform. This model is then tested against the reform pathways undertaken by 12 Asia Pacific jurisdictions for accuracy as a ‘formula’ for arbitration reform in the region.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This Chapter uses ‘state’ in the private international law sense. Thus, the word refers not only to a country (e.g., China or Australia), but also the individual states, provinces or administrative regions making up a country (e.g., the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China or the state of New South Wales of Australia).
- 2.
Pradhan (2013, p. 407).
- 3.
Most of the jurisdictions here are active in arbitration and economic developments.
- 4.
A full list of the 159 contracting states of the New York Convention is available at UNCITRAL (2019).
- 5.
Li Nigel et al. (2018, pp. 78–79).
- 6.
Gu (2018b, p. 665).
- 7.
Aragaki (2018, pp. 221–250).
- 8.
Gu (2017, pp. 809–810).
- 9.
Reyes and Gu (2018, p. 288).
- 10.
Gu (2018a, p. 21).
- 11.
Including Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan awards.
- 12.
Gu (2017, p. 807).
- 13.
Chan (2018, p. 159).
- 14.
Ali (2018, p. 55).
- 15.
Kim (2018, p. 118).
- 16.
Kim (2018, p. 120).
- 17.
Lam (2018, p. 139).
- 18.
The KLRCA was renamed in 2018 into the AIAC.
- 19.
Lam (2018, p. 125).
- 20.
Reyes and Gu (2018, p. 289).
- 21.
Lam (2018, pp. 129–138).
- 22.
Teramura and Nottage (2018, p. 104).
- 23.
Teramura and Nottage (2018, p. 100).
- 24.
Teramura and Nottage (2018, p. 108).
- 25.
Trakman (2018, p. 276).
- 26.
Trakman (2018, pp. 276–277).
- 27.
Trakman (2018, p. 276).
- 28.
Trakman (2018, p. 276).
- 29.
Trakman (2018, p. 277).
- 30.
Butt (2018, pp. 197–202).
- 31.
Butt (2018, p. 193).
- 32.
Autea (2018, p. 187).
- 33.
Autea (2018, p. 187).
- 34.
Aragaki (2018, p. 242).
- 35.
Aragaki (2018, p. 242).
- 36.
Dang (2018, pp. 213–214).
References
Ali S (2018) Balancing procedural and substantive arbitration reforms: advancing international arbitration practice in Hong Kong. In: Reyes A, Gu W (eds) The developing world of arbitration: a comparative study of arbitration reform in the Asia Pacific. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Portland, Oregon, pp 39–66
Aragaki HN (2018) Arbitration reform in India: challenges and opportunities. In: Reyes A, Gu W (eds) The developing world of arbitration: a comparative study of arbitration reform in the Asia Pacific. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Portland, Oregon, pp 221–250
Autea AP (2018) Philippine arbitration reform: fresh breathing space from congested litigation. In: Reyes A, Gu W (eds) The developing world of arbitration: a comparative study of arbitration reform in the Asia Pacific. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Portland, Oregon, pp 163–188
Butt S (2018) Arbitration in Indonesia: largely dependable recognition and enforcement. In: Reyes A, Gu W (eds) The developing world of arbitration: a comparative study of arbitration reform in the Asia Pacific. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Portland, Oregon, pp 189–204
Chan LS (2018) Making arbitration work in Singapore. In: Reyes A, Gu W (eds) The developing world of arbitration: a comparative study of arbitration reform in the Asia Pacific. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Portland, Oregon, pp 143–162
Dang XH (2018) Arbitration law and practice in Vietnam: fundamental changes over the past 20 years and potential for the future. In: Reyes A, Gu W (eds) The developing world of arbitration: a comparative study of arbitration reform in the Asia Pacific. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Portland, Oregon, pp 205–220
Directorate-General of Budget (2018), Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, Republic of China (2018) Statistical yearbook of the Republic of China 2017. https://eng.stat.gov.tw/public/data/dgbas03/bs2/yearbook_eng/Yearbook2017.pdf
Gu W (2017) Piercing the veil of arbitration reform in China: promises, pitfalls, patterns, prognoses and prospects. Am J Comp Law 65(4):799–840
Gu W (2018a) China’s arbitration modernisation under judicial efforts and marketisation waves. In: Reyes A, Gu W (eds) The developing world of arbitration: a comparative study of arbitration reform in the Asia Pacific. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Portland, Oregon, pp 17–38
Gu W (2018b) Issues of extra-territorial arbitration in non-foreign-related disputes [无涉外因素争议的域外仲裁问题]. Peking Univ Law J [中外法学] 30(3):651–670
Kim J (2018) Arbitration reform in Korea: at the threshold of a new era. In: Reyes A, Gu W (eds) The developing world of arbitration: a comparative study of arbitration reform in the Asia Pacific. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Portland, Oregon, pp 109–122
Lam KL (2018) Arbitration reform in Malaysia: adopting the model law. In: Reyes A, Gu W (eds) The developing world of arbitration: a comparative study of arbitration reform in the Asia Pacific. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Portland, Oregon, pp 123–142
Laudicina PA, Peterson ER, McCaffrey CR (2018) Investing in a localized world: The 2018 A.T. Kearney Foreign Direct Investment Confidence Index. https://www.atkearney.com/foreign-direct-investment-confidence-index/full-report
Li Nigel NT, Lin AY, Li JCF (2018) Cautious optimism for arbitration reform in Taiwan. In: Reyes A, Gu W (eds) The developing world of arbitration: a comparative study of arbitration reform in the Asia Pacific. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Portland, Oregon, pp 67–82
Pradhan V (2013) The continuing growth of international arbitration in Asia. Arbitration 79(4):407–412
Reyes A, Gu W (eds) (2018) The developing world of arbitration: a comparative study of arbitration reform in the Asia Pacific. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Portland, Oregon
Teramura N, Nottage L (2018) Arbitration reform in Japan: reluctant legislature and institutional challenges. In: Reyes A, Gu W (eds) The developing world of arbitration: a comparative study of arbitration reform in the Asia Pacific. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Portland, Oregon, pp 83–108
The World Bank (2019a) Doing business 2019: Training for reform. http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/doingBusiness/media/Annual-Reports/English/DB2019-report_web-version.pdf
The World Bank (2019b) Foreign direct investment, net inflows (BoP, current US$). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.WD.GD.ZS
The World Bank (2019c) GDP per capita (current US$). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
Trakman L (2018) The reform of commercial arbitration in Australia: recent and prospective developments. In: Reyes A, Gu W (eds) The developing world of arbitration: a comparative study of arbitration reform in the Asia Pacific. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Portland, Oregon, pp 251–278
Transparency International (2018) Corruption Perceptions Index 2017. https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017#table
UNCITRAL (2019) Status: convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards (New York, 1958). http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html
UNCTAD (2018) UNCTAD World Investment Report 2018: country fact sheet: Taiwan, Province of China. https://unctad.org/sections/dite_dir/docs/wir2018/wir18_fs_tw_en.pdf
World Justice Project (2018) The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2017–2018. https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/WJP-ROLI-2018-June-Online-Edition_0.pdf
Acknowledgements
The comparative study of ingredients for successful arbitration reform in the Asia Pacific has been financially supported by the Hong Kong Government Research Grants Council General Research Fund (Project Codes 17602218 and 17609419), as well as the Outstanding Young Researcher Award Scheme of The University of Hong Kong. Some of the research leading to this Chapter has been published in Anselmo Reyes and Weixia Gu, The Developing World of Arbitration: A Comparative Study of Arbitration Reform in the Asia Pacific (Oxford: Hart Publishing, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc., 2018), pp. 279–300. I thank Professors Lei Chen and Andre Janssen at the City University of Hong Kong for kindly inviting me to this wonderful book project. Jack Lau and Wilson Lui are acknowledged for helpful research assistance. The usual disclaimer applies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gu, W. (2020). Reflections on the Key Ingredients for Successful Reform of International Commercial Arbitration in the Asia Pacific. In: Chen, L., Janssen, A. (eds) Dispute Resolution in China, Europe and World. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 79. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42974-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42974-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42973-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42974-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)