Comparing arbitration rules of three Asian arbitral institutions
Produced in partnership with Edward Poulton and Katia Finkel of Baker McKenzie LLP
Comparing arbitration rules of three Asian arbitral institutions

The following Arbitration guidance note Produced in partnership with Edward Poulton and Katia Finkel of Baker McKenzie LLP provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Comparing arbitration rules of three Asian arbitral institutions
  • An increasing choice of institutions internationally
  • Subtle differences in the arbitration rules
  • Comparative chart of institutional arbitration rules

This Practice Note provides a high-level comparison of the arbitration rules of three leading arbitration institutions in Asia: the China International Economic Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC).

An increasing choice of institutions internationally

Arbitration users and practitioners often agonise over the choice of the arbitral institution to include in an arbitration agreement (where the parties have opted for institutional arbitration over, say, ad hoc arbitration—see Practice Note: Comparing institutional and ad hoc arbitration). This decision has to be taken in an increasingly fluid market where the major arbitral institutions are regularly updating their rules to ensure they remain competitive in the international arbitration landscape and where new institutions are being launched (or re-launched following a face-lift) all the time.

In a 2018 survey carried out by Queen Mary University of London and White & Case, respondents were asked to identify the criteria key to their choice of an arbitral institution. Respondents' preferences for certain institutions were predominantly based on their reputation and recognition of the institution, the high level of administration and previous experience of the institution. 

Subtle differences in the arbitration rules

It is clear from the recent survey that users choose institutions because of their reputation and perceived neutrality more than their procedural rules. Perhaps this is