International Commercial Arbitration in Asia:A Comparison of Arbitral Institutional Development in Japan, Korea, and Singapore

The bright-line distinctions between civil law and common law countries have become blurred as laws and legal concepts flow freer across borders than in the past. However, as international business transactions have encompassed more countries in Asia (notably China), such countries are expected to participate more than previous periods, including, arguably, the field of international commercial arbitration. With international and domestic pressures to improve business climates, countries in Asia have already adopted proactive attitudes and practices in cultivating attractive business climates for foreign investment and/or trade. An important part of that process is to have an efficient dispute resolution mechanism like well-functioning commercial arbitration centers to resolve disputes quickly, confidentially, and impartially for domestic-domestic parties, but more importantly, domestic-multinational and multinational-multinational parties. What factors contribute significantly to the creation of a credible and legitimate, leading arbitral institution in Asia?In this article, I argue that the credibility and legitimacy of an arbitration center hinge on the quality of the arbitrators, which in turn determine the quality of the arbitration to a large extent. With the increasing importance of Asian economies in the global arena, the quality of the arbitrators is key to the successful growth of arbitral institutions: skilled arbitrators from diverse backgrounds are central to providing the neutrality, independence, and impartiality international commercial arbitration requires today, especially in Asia. Countries like Japan, Korea, and Singapore have to continue to reinvent themselves as competent professionals and as a region by continuing to build the credibility and legitimacy of their arbitration centers-as well as the field of international commercial arbitration/justice-by working on more transparency in the institutions as well as predictability of the rules.