Behind the scenes at SIAC: the Registrar's insights into the SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025

Singapore has emerged as a global hub for international arbitration, thanks to its strategic location, robust legal framework and a thriving legal ecosystem, complemented by world-class institutions like the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). With arbitration laws closely aligned with the UNCITRAL Model Law[1], the country continues to take significant steps to enhance its international arbitration regime. In March 2025, the Ministry of Law launched a public consultation[2] to gather input on how to better support users of the International Arbitration Act 1994[3].

At the forefront of this evolution is SIAC, renowned for its efficiency and innovative approach to dispute resolution. The year 2025 is set to be a landmark year for SIAC, with the appointment of its new Registrar, Vivekananda Neelakantan, the introduction of an updated suite of Arbitration Rules[4], and impressive statistics from the 2024 annual report[5]. Notably, SIAC recorded its highest number of arbitrator appointments to date, with a remarkable 91% of new cases being international, alongside the highest requests for its expedited procedure.

In this exclusive interview for LexisNexis Arbitration UK, Dr Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at LexisNexis UK, assisted by Jennifer Puntis from the arbitration team at LexisNexis UK, engages with the SIAC Registrar, Vivekananda Neelakantan, to discuss SIAC’s new arbitration rules and share insights.

Vivek, it is a pleasure to have you with us. Congratulations on your new role as SIAC Registrar! How have your first few months as SIAC Registrar been, and what insights have you gained so far?

Thank you very much. It has been a fast-paced but incredibly rewarding start to the role for me.

I have the privilege of working with a team of 16 lawyers in the SIAC Secretariat who are very experienced with case administration. They are qualified in civil and common law systems and are qualified in and hail from a diverse range of jurisdictions. Together, we oversee a growing caseload across a wide range of jurisdictions, industries, and sectors. My remit really has been to ensure the continuation of a strong ethos of focus on quality case management, user friendliness, fairness in the conduct of the process, and efficiency in the administration of cases by the SIAC Secretariat, qualities for which we have been long known.

We are particularly pleased to now be administering cases under the SIAC Rules 2025 which came into force on 1 January 2025, and which have introduced a unique and innovative range of procedural tools.

I have also spent time travelling to meet with practitioners and users across different jurisdictions. We are very heartened to see that the new SIAC Rules 2025 have resonated well with the arbitration community, and the feedback we have received has been very positive.

Users from our established user bases around the world are experienced and sophisticated users of arbitration. In markets where arbitration was, perhaps, once less familiar as a mode of dispute resolution, there is now growing awareness and interest in leveraging arbitration to resolve cross-border disputes, particularly as parties grapple with the challenges posed by an increasingly uncertain geopolitical landscape.

Against this backdrop, SIAC is well-positioned to support our international users in both their domestic and cross-border disputes in navigating these shifting tides.

The changing global business and trade environment also underscore the importance of staying ahead of the curve and continuing to deliver arbitral services anchored in our core ethos of Efficiency, Excellence, and Enforceability—and this is precisely why the launch of our new SIAC Rules 2025 is timely.

Personally, it is my privilege to be entrusted with this important position and responsibility and to continue the traditions of case management that have been well-received and appreciated by our users over the years.

We are pleased to have you with us, Vivek. With that in mind, let us delve into the questions.

Inspiration and drives for change

1. What were the key driving forces behind the overhaul of the SIAC Rules 2025? How do these changes elevate SIAC’s status among the other contenders in the provision of international arbitration services?

The SIAC Rules 2025 mark SIAC’s first comprehensive revision since the 2016 SIAC Rules. Over the past eight years, SIAC has seen a steady increase in new case filings and growing use from diverse industries and jurisdictions. In 2024, we received 625 new cases from users from 72 different jurisdictions. Since 2016, SIAC has administered over 3,500 cases. The revisions to the rules reflect the deep experience derived from administering these cases at SIAC and were driven by extensive consultations with arbitration end users, practitioners, arbitrators, corporates, and other stakeholders, ensuring that the rules align with evolving business needs and international best practices.

We took the time to engage in a thorough process of consultation with our users and experts in international arbitration to develop and shape the new rules. Our aim was clear: to craft a set of rules that uphold and refine the fundamental tenets of arbitration viz, speed, flexibility, cost-effectiveness, and confidentiality.

Our forward-looking procedures and rule enhancements are guided by three core principles that we set out explicitly in our rules as the objectives to which everyone involved in the process ought to work towards (including tribunals and the institution itself):

a. fairness of the proceedings;

b. efficiency proportionate to the value and complexity of the dispute; and

c. enforceability of arbitral awards.

Since 2010, the SIAC Rules have provided a toolkit of efficiency tools and the SIAC Rules 2025 generously add to the list of options for users. Further, the rules include design tweaks to ease case administration and provide clarity to parties and arbitral tribunals on various procedural matters and tools at their disposal.

SIAC has consistently been at the forefront of procedural innovations within its rules, providing a range of options for parties and tribunals to achieve the aforementioned objectives. The SIAC Rules 2025 further showcase our commitment to innovating, with the introduction of new procedures such as the Streamlined Procedure and the Preliminary Protective Order mechanism, which are unique to SIAC.

At the same time, we have taken care to enhance and refine many procedures which have seen consistent use over the years including the Expedited Procedure, the Emergency Arbitrator mechanism, and the Early Dismissal mechanism.

Streamlined procedure

2. With the introduction of a notably swift track under the new rules (Rule 13 and Schedule 2), how do you anticipate these provisions will meet the varying needs of specific industries? Do you foresee an increase in usage within particular sectors and among stakeholders?

What risks, if any, are parties willing to accept by opting for the streamlined or expedited procedure? For example, the Singapore Court of Appeal has recently set aside an arbitral award in a case that examined the balance between the desire for an expedited process and the arbitral tribunal’s duty to uphold procedural fairness in the context of an expedited, documents-only arbitration. The court found that the award was rendered in breach of natural justice, as the arbitrator acted on a mistaken belief that resulted in prejudice to the appellant.[6]

Our Streamlined Procedure is designed to be applicable across different industries and types of contracts—targeting cases involving low value and low complexity disputes within those industries. The framework offers a fast-track option for cases involving claims of SGD 1 million or below, with an award to be rendered within three months of the tribunal’s constitution.

The tribunal’s fees and SIAC’s administrative fees are capped at 50% of the maximum amounts set out in our Schedule of Fees. While we are still in early days, I am happy to report that the Streamlined Procedure has already seen significant uptake amongst parties.

The Streamlined Procedure has been designed carefully to give parties and tribunals the confidence and procedural backing to dispense with procedural stages and steps such as document production and discovery, witness evidence, or even hearings, where they are not merited for the value and complexity of the dispute at hand. This is intended to provide access to a process that is proportionate on time and cost spent for parties considering the use of international arbitration for low value and low complexity claims, which may not otherwise be brought to a process such as arbitration.

The recent decision by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Wan Sern Metal Industries v Hua Tian Engineering was a reminder of the importance of natural justice being observed in the context of a documents-only process. There, an unpleaded issue had been raised belatedly in the applicant’s final written submissions. The implications of raising an unpleaded issue and the need for amendments have been dealt with by the Court in earlier cases which did not involve a documents-only arbitration. The Court took the opportunity to reiterate that the same rules apply to a documents only arbitration and that because of its nature, it would be prudent ‘for a tribunal to clarify the parties’ positions’. In other words, the Court underlined the importance of this aspect of natural justice even in documents-only arbitrations.

The Singapore courts have enforced awards which were made following an expedited procedure, such as in AQZ v ARA [2015] SGHC 49[7], BXS v BXT [2019] SGHC(I) 10[8], CIM v CIN [2021] SGHC 75[9] and Hunan Xiangzhong Mining Group Ltd v Oilive Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 43[10]. The Singapore courts have also recognised that where a documents-only procedure is agreed on by parties, arbitrators may make determinations on that basis, in CBS v CBP [2021] SGCA 4 [11].

At SIAC, we recognise the need for balance between efficiency and procedural fairness.  We are mindful of the risks that may arise when parties opt for a streamlined or expedited procedure, particularly in cases conducted on a documents-only basis. We are, accordingly, careful in our appointment of arbitrators for cases conducted under the expedited and streamlined tracks.  We actively monitor the progress of cases on these tracks, drawing the tribunal’s attention to questions of procedure, timing, and parties’ agreements on procedure.

This is also why the Streamlined Procedure (in Schedule 2) explicitly recognises the power of the tribunal to conduct arbitrations on a documents-only basis after considering the views of the parties. Similarly, the Expedited Procedure (in Schedule 3) also explicitly recognises the power of the tribunal to conduct an arbitration on a documents-only basis unless a party requests a hearing.

The care taken in the appointment of arbitrators and monitoring the progress of the case is continued through to the award.  We review draft awards prior to issuance through our scrutiny process which is in turn guided by our SIAC Award Checklist (Checklist). On this, our Secretariat is tasked with scrutinising draft awards. We have to approve draft awards as to their form and also retain the ability to (and routinely) draw the tribunal’s attention to points of substance that might affect the overall integrity and enforceability of the award. To aid in this process, we have published the Checklist to assist our arbitrators in preparing their awards, while offering users a clear and transparent point of reference. In particular, it is stipulated in Item 22, Part E of the Checklist that the ‘award sets out all claims and requests for relief, and indicates the dispositive issues to be decided’.

Together, these safeguards give users the confidence to adopt streamlined and expedited procedures, knowing that procedural fairness and enforceability remain firmly at the core of what we do.

With over 1,000 applications for the Expedited Procedure handled and over 600 arbitrations conducted under the procedure since the procedure was introduced in 2010, we are able to draw on our accumulated experience in managing cases with tighter timelines. Even within shorter timeframes under the Streamlined Procedure, we remain committed to ensuring that both fairness and procedural efficiency are given due attention.

Emergency arbitrator enhancements

3. The newly introduced ex parte applications for protective preliminary orders were long advocated for by practitioners. How do you expect these changes to impact parties’ behaviour when seeking urgent relief, and what potential pitfalls might emerge from these shifts? Also, does the introduction of these orders reinforce the SIAC’s position as a ‘one stop shop’ for arbitration, given that parties may no longer need to rely on courts for without notice interim relief?

The introduction of Protective Preliminary Orders (PPOs) in the SIAC 2025 Rules marks an important step forward in addressing a long-standing need raised by practitioners and users. Effectively, PPOs allow parties to seek urgent relief on an ex parte basis, with the aim of preserving the status quo until the application for interim relief can be fully heard by the Emergency Arbitrator (EA).

PPOs are designed to serve a very specific and nuanced purpose: they are temporary, protective orders intended to prevent the frustration of the underlying interim relief and/or conservatory measures sought by the applicant. To that end, PPOs solve practical pain points—specifically in urgent situations where notifying the other party may precipitate a set of circumstances that render the interim relief sought ineffective.

The feedback we have received on the introduction of the mechanism has been positive as it offers an added layer of protection in urgent situations. As a point of reference, in 2024, SIAC received 21 Emergency Arbitrator applications, all of which were accepted. This brings the total number of EA applications accepted since the mechanism was first introduced in 2010 to 173.

While hearing the PPO application on an ex parte basis and granting such orders against the counterparties may naturally give rise to concerns around fairness, we have taken a measured and thoughtful approach in designing the PPO mechanism to address those concerns.

To minimise any potential prejudice, the applicant has a duty to notify the counterparties immediately upon a PPO being made, with the PPO expiring 3 days after it is made if the counterparties are not notified. The Emergency Arbitrator is also required to promptly deal with any objection from a counterparty to the PPO, and the PPO shall in any event expire within 14 days of it being made while the EA may adopt, modify, or vacate the PPO as appropriate after hearing all parties.

As to whether the introduction of PPOs makes SIAC a true ‘one-stop shop’ that might potentially ‘shake up’ the role of the national courts, we take a more measured position. The emergency arbitrator process and the added layer of the ability to secure PPOs are seen to complement rather than to displace court-ordered interim relief. The strategic decision to choose one or the other option is a fact sensitive one, depending often on issues such as the relevant jurisdictions where the parties are based, the need to maintain confidentiality of the dispute, and the overall impact of the determination of the request for interim relief on the main dispute between the parties. We know and expect that parties and counsel consider these factors carefully before adopting a particular course of action, and there is certainly no one size fits all approach.

In this first part of our interview with the SIAC Registrar, we have explored how the 2025 SIAC Rules introduce a more agile and responsive framework through streamlined, emergency procedures, and PPOs. These procedural innovations reflect SIAC’s commitment to efficiency, but this is just the beginning.

In Part 2, we will delve into the evolving profile of the SIAC arbitrator, the institution’s unique selling points, and how the SIAC-SIMC Arb-Med-Arb (AMA) Protocol is designed to encourage early settlement

[1] UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration

[2] MinLaw Seeks Feedback on Singapore’s International Arbitration Regime and the International Arbitration Act 1994

[3] International Arbitration Act 1994

[4] SIAC Rules 2025

[5] SIAC Annual Report 2024

[6] Wan Sern Metal Industries Pte Ltd v Hua Tian Engineering Pte Ltd [2025] SGCA 5

[7] AQZ v ARA [2015] SGHC 49

[8] BXS v BXT [2019] SGHC(I) 10

[9] CIM v CIN [2021] SGHC 75

[10] Hunan Xiangzhong Mining Group Ltd v Oilive Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 43

[11] CBS v CBP [2021] SGCA 4

We now turn our attention to the people and principles driving these changes, exploring the evolving profile of the SIAC arbitrator, the institution’s unique selling points, and the SIAC-SIMC Arb-Med-Arb (AMA) Protocol, which is designed to encourage early and effective dispute resolution. Let us dive straight into the questions.

Profile of the SIAC Arbitrator 2025

4. In your opinion, what characteristics will define an effective SIAC arbitrator in the context of the 2025 Rules? How essential is adaptability in their approach, especially when handling diverse case complexities while promoting constructive collaboration?

SIAC is fortunate to draw on a diverse and highly experienced panel of over 600 arbitrators from more than 40 jurisdictions. Our arbitrators bring deep expertise across a wide range of industries, including energy, construction, banking and finance, technology, shipping and commodities, private equity, life sciences, and intellectual property.

We maintain rigorous and transparent standard of admissions to the panel of arbitrators and the list of rising arbitrators, which are available publicly. We appoint arbitrators carefully on a consideration of a number of factors which include the nationality of the parties, the subject matter of the dispute, the nature of any special expertise required, the procedural and substantive complexity of the case, the relative experience and seniority required for the case, and other soft factors that are inevitably applicable such as familiarity with the legal traditions, business cultures, or other special factors of the parties involved in the case.

We mandate and require that arbitrators are conflict-free, make disclosures of facts and circumstances that might give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality and independence, and are available to conduct the arbitration diligently and efficiently.

Apart from these, there are some unstated attributes that we expect from our arbitrators. We expect our arbitrators to be well prepared, to be responsive to parties, to write well, to listen and be composed in dealing with parties’ requests and applications, to be flexible and adaptable to the needs of different cases, to be compassionate to the diversity of international arbitration, to be decisive, and above all, to be focused on ensuring the enforceability of any award made in the arbitration. We also expect arbitrators to be candid if they cannot meet these attributes for a particular case.

These are all elements of adaptability and accountability which our arbitrators already possess and exhibit. This is particularly relevant where arbitrators are appointed to hear cases under the Streamline Procedure (Schedule 2) or Expedited Procedure (Schedule 3), both of which involve more structured and time-bound frameworks. Rules 53.1 and 53.2 of SIAC Rules 2025 now also introduce clearer timelines for the submission of draft awards by tribunals for scrutiny, requiring this to be done within 90 days of the last directed submission in the proceedings pertaining to the award. These new developments call for arbitrators to be even more adaptable and accountable in managing proceedings efficiently.

In addition, the ability to be adaptable in handling complex and diverse cases is particularly pertinent in the context of Coordination (Rule 17), a new feature introduced under the SIAC 2025 Rules. This mechanism allows for greater procedural synchronisation where common legal or factual issues arise across multiple cases involving the same tribunal. In such situations, they are expected to take a broader view of the overall landscape of the disputes, while maintaining careful attention to the details of each individual case. This level of adaptability, including the ability to shift between multiple proceedings, is essential to managing interconnected matters effectively, particularly where the outcome of one arbitration may have an impact on the direction or outcome of another.

SIAC’s unique selling points (USPs)

5. In light of the notable amendments to the SIAC Rules, what unique selling points should SIAC highlight to attract practitioners in this fiercely competitive market? How can these points reflect SIAC’s commitment to innovation in dispute resolution?

Prior to joining SIAC, I spent a considerable amount of time in private practice. From a practitioner’s perspective, having well-defined pathways for different types of disputes and a range of procedural tools in the toolkit for use across the various stages of the arbitral lifecycle is of particular importance. These options provide real avenues for users (and clients) to seek to achieve their end objectives of securing an end to the dispute and the reliefs they seek efficiently.

As someone advising clients and managing arbitrations on a day-to-day basis, I valued institutional rules and administration that ensured careful procedural control over the process particularly on time and costs. These provide certainty for users. The SIAC Rules 2025 were developed with exactly that in mind—introducing curated innovations and thoughtful enhancements that promote transparency, predictability, and clarity for users.

Some of the standout innovations in the SIAC Rules 2025 are the introduction of two distinct fast-track arbitral pathways (streamlined and expedited) and the PPO under our EA procedure. 

There are also a number of other procedural tools in the SIAC Rules 2025:

• Preliminary determinations of dispositive issues, which allows parties to apply to the tribunal for a final and binding determination of any issue at a preliminary stage, if it would save time and costs or expedite the resolution of the dispute. Tribunals must, in turn, render a decision on such applications within 90 days. This feature introduces a much-needed explicit cue to tribunals and parties to seek to address discrete issues early and render final and binding determinations which may pave the way for efficiency in dealing with other issues in the case.
• Early Dismissal of claims or defences, which allows parties to apply for early dismissal of claims or defences that are clearly (manifestly) without merit or outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Tribunals must, if they decide that the application for early dismissal ought to proceed, decide whether the claim or defence is to be dismissed within 45 days of the application. The process promotes efficiency by potentially reducing the scope of the dispute early on in the proceedings.
• Coordinated Proceedings, as referred to earlier, allows for coordination of procedural steps across cases, where there is a common question of law or fact involved in the cases and where the same tribunal is constituted in each of those matters. This allows parties and tribunals to enhance efficiency in a multi-contract, multi-party scenario.

Last but not least, at the tail end of the arbitral lifecycle, we recognise that parties and practitioners place great importance on the timely issuance of arbitral awards. To this end, as mentioned earlier, Rule 53 of the SIAC Rules 2025 introduces a clearer deadline: tribunals must now submit draft awards for SIAC’s scrutiny within 90 days of the last directed submission pertaining to the award. This replaces the more discretionary ‘close of proceedings’ concept under the 2016 Rules—which left it to the tribunal’s discretion to determine when proceedings were closed—providing counsel with a firm reference point to advise their clients on when to expect a final outcome.

Encouraging early settlements, and the rise of the modern arbitrator

6. The conversation surrounding the arbitrator’s role as a ‘settlement facilitator’ has gained traction, marking a significant shift from the traditional view of the arbitrator’s function as purely adjudicative. In 2023, the ICC published a report[1] outlining the various techniques for facilitating settlement in arbitral proceedings. SIAC has had in place the SIAC-SIMC Arb-Med-Arb Protocol. Also, numerous soft law instruments advocate for the arbitrator’s role as a ‘settlement facilitator’ between the parties. Now, with a robust emphasis on early settlements in the new rules, my questions are two-fold:

a) Are we witnessing a shift in the arbitrator’s role towards a more conciliatory approach?

b) Are we now seeking arbitrators who combine the strategic mindset of project managers with the ability to facilitate amicable resolutions, guiding negotiations while ensuring they remain focused on the proceedings?

I would not go so far as to say that the arbitrator’s role is being redefined. What we are seeing, however, and what the various prompts for mediation in the SIAC Rules 2025 reflect, is a growing recognition that arbitration can be used as a vehicle for prompting parties to consider settlement: filing an arbitration can be a protective move to preserve the right to commence proceedings, especially where there are limitation periods applicable, for example. Once proceedings are afoot, parties may then enter into a structured mediation process or settlement discussions. While arbitrators remain focused on resolving the dispute, they are also encouraged to stay proceedings to allow opportunities for early resolution, if and when the circumstances allow and it is what the parties desire.

Dispute resolution today is not always a science, it is often an art. While the ecosystem may commonly be tiered—litigation, arbitration, mediation—each mechanism serves a different purpose, and users approach them with specific objectives in mind, whether that is enforceability, subject-matter expertise, or finality. But at the end of the day, the ultimate goal is the same: resolution and finality. And if parties are open to settlement, we believe institutions should support that path.

In that spirit, SIAC, as an arbitral institution, has taken meaningful steps to empower parties who wish to explore amicable settlement avenues, dating back to 2014. One such initiative is our collaboration with the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) to introduce the SIAC-SIMC Arb-Med-Arb (AMA) Protocol—a unique hybrid framework that integrates both arbitration and mediation.

In summary, under the AMA Protocol:

• Arbitration is first commenced at SIAC.
• Proceedings are then stayed to allow parties to attempt mediation at SIMC.
• If parties reach a settlement, the mediated terms can be recorded as a mediated settlement agreement enforceable under the Singapore Convention, or be recorded as a consent award enforceable under the New York Convention.
• If no settlement is reached, parties may resume the arbitration.

This structure gives parties the best of both worlds: an opportunity to resolve matters amicably through mediation, while preserving procedural continuity and benefitting from enforceability. We also believe that this structured process gives parties a good chance at achieving success through mediation, once parties have pulled the trigger as it were, and have carried out a preliminary assessment of their positions and their likely cost exposure in an arbitration.

Many of our arbitrators are practitioners, they are commercially minded and very alive to the expectations of users of the process. They are experienced, discerning, and responsive to the evolving needs of parties. While their core role remains adjudicative, the SIAC Rules 2025 provide more structured opportunities for arbitrators to engage with parties on potential settlement, where appropriate. Notable enhancements include:

• Rules 6.4 and 7.3: Parties are also encouraged to consider ADR options and comment on the adaptation of such processes at early stages of arbitral proceedings—such as during the filing of the Notice of Arbitration and Response to the Notice of Arbitration.
• Rule 32.4: Tribunals may, as soon as practicable after constitution, consult with parties on the potential for settlement of all or part of the dispute using amicable methods such as mediation.
• Rule 50.2: Unless otherwise agreed, tribunals have the power to direct a suspension of proceedings to allow for mediation, including under the AMA Protocol.

These enhancements reflect our belief that early settlement and adjudication are not mutually exclusive goals—and SIAC is committed to offering support to both parties and tribunals to pursue amicable resolution if appropriate.

This second part of our interview has revealed how the SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025 are not only reshaping the procedural landscape, but also enhancing support for parties and tribunals in their pursuit of amicable resolutions when appropriate. We have also examined how SIAC’s carefully curated procedural innovations, from early dismissal mechanisms to coordinated proceedings, provide users with a flexible and efficient path to dispute resolution. With the AMA Protocol, SIAC is actively promoting settlement discussions while safeguarding the integrity of the arbitration process.

In the third and final part of the interview, we will broaden our focus to address how SIAC is championing diversity and inclusion, responding to global geopolitical shifts, and embracing AI and technology - all while ensuring that user feedback continues to steer its evolution.

[1] ICC 2023 Report 'Facilitating Settlement in International Arbitration'

In the final part of our interview, we delve into the wider forces shaping the future of arbitration as we explore the SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025.

Now, we focus on how SIAC is championing diversity and inclusion, navigating geopolitical shifts, and embracing AI and technology, all while placing user feedback at the heart of its rulemaking and institutional development. Let us dive right into our final set of questions.

Commitment to diversity and inclusion

7. How do the new rules reinforce SIAC's dedication to promoting diversity and inclusion within the arbitration community?

The SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025 emphasise party autonomy and defer to parties on procedural aspects of the arbitration and appointments. Where SIAC is tasked with making appointments, the Secretariat and the President do place great emphasis on ensuring diverse appointments, while maintaining the quality that SIAC is known for. For instance, we actively attempt to avoid repeat appointments in quick succession (ie, appointing the same arbitrators repeatedly). Diversity in this context does not refer only to gender diversity but also diversity in nationality, ethnicity, age, professional background, and cultural diversity, among others.

In respect of gender diversity, as reported in SIAC’s 2024 Annual Report[1], of the 183 arbitrators appointed by SIAC, 64 (35%) were female. Among the 34 members of the SIAC Court of Arbitration, 8 (24%) are women. Women also make up 73% of SIAC’s overall workforce, including in leadership roles. Our leadership representation further reflects this commitment: our President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration is the first woman to hold that position, and the institution is led by a female CEO. In respect of diversity in nationalities and geographic spread, of the 385 total appointments in the reporting period, 308 (80%) involved non-Singaporean arbitrators, whether appointed by SIAC, nominated by parties, or co-arbitrators.

Navigating geopolitical and economic turmoil

8. How do you foresee the SIAC Rules 2025 addressing disputes arising from today’s geopolitical and economic challenges? Are there any procedural adjustments you believe will be necessary to accommodate such prospective disputes?

The SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025, as with previous editions of the Rules, are drafted flexibly to apply and adapt to disputes however triggered. Previous editions of the rules, for example, have been used in disputes triggered by the global financial crisis and the COVID pandemic. The SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025 are drafted in the same tradition of flexibility to deal with disputes of varying underlying origins and arising out of a range of contracts, industries and global conditions, including, those we are seeing currently with the numerous global economic and political shifts and challenges.

Businesses around the world face heightened geopolitical uncertainty and economic challenges resulting from the global trade war. Increasing trade tensions—through, for example, the imposition of tariffs—have already begun to reshape global supply chains. Key export-oriented economies across Asia are experiencing intensified scrutiny and higher trade barriers, prompting business parties to reassess their contractual commitments and risk exposure.

When the imposition of tariffs is likely to affect the commercial viability and profitability of cross-border deals, parties may seek to invoke contractual mechanisms to suspend or avoid performance, potentially giving rise to disputes. In this space, international arbitration remains a preferred mechanism for resolving such cross-border contractual issues, and SIAC together with our SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025 provide a neutral platform and a robust framework for the resolution of complex, tariff-driven commercial disputes. We have already seen this in many cases resulting from the impact of the COVID pandemic.

With over 90% of the cases handled by us being international in nature, SIAC is well equipped to handle disputes involving cross-border elements. Users from more than 100 jurisdictions have engaged our arbitral services over the past decade. On the administrative front, our case management is supervised by the SIAC Court of Arbitration, composed of leading arbitration practitioners from a broad range of legal systems, and supported by a Secretariat of multilingual lawyers qualified in both civil and common law traditions.

I should add that although SIAC arbitration is seat-agnostic, Singapore offers a neutral, legally sophisticated, and stable socio-political environment—particularly attractive to parties looking for a neutral forum to resolve their disputes. In Singapore courts and SIAC, the rule of law reigns, party autonomy is respected, and justice is delivered without interference. Particularly, in a world increasingly divided, Singapore offers what few can — a stable, principled, and truly neutral ground.

Neutrality is further underscored in how we appoint arbitrators. For instance, Rule 19.7 of the SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025 reinforces procedural neutrality by providing that, where parties are of different nationalities, the President shall appoint a sole or presiding arbitrator of a different nationality (unless otherwise agreed or deemed appropriate). This provision is especially relevant in sensitive cross-border disputes, where the nationality of the arbitrator can be an important consideration, and neutrality is both appreciated and valued by parties. We further consider not only nationality but the real perception of neutrality in the eyes of the parties in making appointments.

 

AI considerations

9. How are the SIAC Rules 2025 empowering SIAC to leverage AI and technology while navigating the complexities these could pose to arbitration?

SIAC has taken a forward-looking yet measured approach to the intersection of arbitration and emerging technologies. We recognise that the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is a transformative development in today’s digital era, with the potential to reshape legal practice and case management.

This is reflected in the SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025 and our ongoing investment in digital infrastructure—most notably the SIAC Gateway, our cloud-based case management platform offering features such as electronic filing, an integrated online payment system, secure document upload and storage, and real-time case management at no additional cost to parties. To this end, a key procedural development under Rules 4.2 and 4.3 is that the Registrar may direct parties to upload all written communications via the Gateway from the commencement of arbitration or at any stage thereafter. Additionally, Rule 6.1 of the SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025 provides that, subject to compliance with Rule 4, a claimant may submit its Notice of Arbitration directly to the SIAC Secretariat through the Gateway.

While we embrace the use of legal technology, we remain mindful of the ethical, legal, and practical risks associated with AI—such as bias, opacity, the need for confidentiality and data security, and the need for human oversight. Striking the right balance between innovation and accountability remains a guiding consideration.

On a related note, Rule 61 of the SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025 reinforces this balance by encouraging parties and tribunals to consider and agree on implementing appropriate information security measures, including cybersecurity and cyber resilience either at the first case management conference or at any other appropriate stage of the proceedings. The underlying objective of this provision is to underscore the growing importance of data protection in light of the increasing use of digital tools in modern arbitration proceedings.

Looking ahead, SIAC remains open to support the responsible and informed adoption of AI and technology in arbitration—whether in legal research or institutional case management—while remaining anchored in our core values of due process, efficiency, and fairness.

 

User feedback

10. What plans does SIAC have for evaluating the effectiveness of the new procedural mechanisms introduced in the 2025 Rules? Are there feedback mechanisms in place to gather insights from stakeholders regarding the new rules, and how might this feedback inform future revisions?

At SIAC, user feedback has always been integral to how we refine and reformulate our rules, our processes, and our procedures. As mentioned earlier, the development of the 2025 Rules was informed by extensive stakeholder consultation and internal analysis of case management trends. We continue to tweak and improve our processes on an ongoing basis based on feedback and our extensive experience with administering a wide variety of cases.

We will continue to evaluate the success of the procedures in the new Rules by considering how often they are used in our cases, and the ability of tribunals to deliver the cost and time efficiency that parties expect from the use of these procedures under the SIAC Rules.

To that end, SIAC has put in place several avenues for gathering feedback and evaluating the effectiveness of our work and our rules. These include:

• Ongoing engagement with our stakeholders through outreach. Our senior management (including our CEO, Ms Gloria Lim and myself), the Secretariat as well as Strategy & Development teams actively engage with users through outreach events across jurisdictions. These sessions not only serve to raise awareness about SIAC and our new rules but also provide a platform for candid feedback and discussion on their practical application and user experience.

• SIAC’s knowledge-sharing platforms: SIAC Academy, workshops, and YSIAC. We encourage users to share feedback with us and stay engaged through our upcoming events, workshops and seminars, which will explore specific aspects of the 2025 Rules in greater detail. Our SIAC Academy offers skills-based training programmes aimed at nurturing the next generation of arbitration practitioners through hands-on modules on procedure, advocacy, and case strategy. We also invite users under 45 to join YSIAC, our young practitioners’ group, which provides a vibrant platform for discussion, collaboration, and knowledge-sharing. For regular updates, we invite all users to subscribe to our newsletter, available via the SIAC website.

• SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025 as the official rules for the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot 2026. We are honoured that the SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025 have been selected as the official rules for the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot 2026. It will be incredibly valuable for us to observe how the new rules are interpreted, applied, and debated in this academic forum. Seeing students, coaches, and arbitrators engage with the provisions will provide meaningful insights from both doctrinal and practical perspectives.

These feedback streams are valuable to us. As with previous rounds of rule revisions, we heavily rely on user input to identify users’ pain points, clarify procedural uncertainties, and anticipate emerging needs. Our goal is to ensure that the SIAC Rules and all our case administration processes continue to remain practical, forward-looking, and responsive to user expectations and needs.

 

Closing remarks

Vivek, as we wrap up this conversation, it has been exciting to see how SIAC is adapting to the evolving arbitration landscape. With innovative thinking and strong leadership, SIAC is well-positioned to reinforce its status as a leader in international dispute resolution. We anticipate the positive impact of these changes in the coming years.

On behalf of the LexisNexis UK Arbitration team, thank you for your time. We sincerely hope this is just the beginning of many fruitful collaborations ahead!

For more information on SIAC and its services, please visit siac.org.sg and subscribe to their mailing list at: http://tinyurl.com/yjz33zvu

For more information on Lexis+® UK Arbitration Practical Guidance, please visit www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/arbitration.

For more information on Lexis+®  AI and to register for a demo, visit: www.lexisnexis.co.uk/lexis-plus/lexis-plus-ai.html

Lexis+® UK Arbitration Practical Guidance provides up-to-date guidance on conducting arbitration proceedings under the SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025. For more information, please visit: www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/arbitration/institutional-ad-hoc/siac-arbitration

[1] SIAC Annual Report 2024