2025 in Review: Southeast Asia

2025 marked a year of consolidation and innovation for arbitration in Southeast Asia. Across the region, legislative reform, revised institutional rules, and a growing body of significant awards and judgments reflected a continued commitment to modernising dispute resolution frameworks while responding to increasing complexity, urgency, and cross-border commercial realities.

Developments in Arbitral Rules and Legislative Frameworks

A defining feature of 2025 was the scale and breadth of institutional reform across Southeast Asia, with several leading arbitral institutions undertaking significant revisions to their rules.

The much-anticipated 7th edition of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) Rules came into effect on 1 January 2025 (“2025 SIAC Rules”). The 2025 SIAC Rules introduced numerous innovations such as the streamlined procedure and coordinated proceedings, aimed at addressing complex, multi-contract disputes with greater procedural coherence and efficiency. Another notable feature of the 2025 SIAC Rules is its strong emphasis on mediation and repeated reference to the SIAC-Singapore International Mediation Centre (“SIMC”) Arb-Med-Arb Protocol.

The most widely discussed innovation on the Blog, however, was the introduction of Protective Preliminary Orders (“PPOs”)—ex parte interim relief designed to preserve the status quo and prevent imminent harm before the opposing party is notified of emergency arbitrator proceedings. Contributors observed that the availability of ex parte interim relief strengthens arbitration’s position as a genuine “one-stop shop” for dispute resolution. At the same time, concerns were raised regarding the enforceability of PPOs, particularly in jurisdictions such as India, highlighting the tension between procedural innovation and transnational enforcement realities.

Elsewhere in the region, Malaysia and Indonesia also undertook notable institutional reforms. In October 2025, the Asian International Arbitration Centre (“AIAC”) launched the AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, introducing structural changes such as the AIAC Court of Arbitration. These changes aim to enhance transparency and international alignment, underscoring Malaysia’s aspiration to position AIAC as a competitive regional arbitral institution. The Indonesian National Board of Arbitration (“BANI”) likewise revised the BANI Rules, with changes focused on procedural clarity, institutional governance, and efficiency.

Alongside these reforms, the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (“CIAC”) in the Philippines marked its 40th anniversary, highlighting the continued relevance of sector-specific arbitral institutions for technically complex disputes.

Legislative reform also featured prominently in 2025. Malaysia’s 2024 amendments to its Arbitration Act 2005, as previously reported on, came into force on 1 January 2026. Vietnam implemented significant judicial and structural reform, which reshaped the regime governing judicial review of domestic arbitral awards and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, while the establishment of an international financial centre that is subject to a separate legal regime signalled a further liberalisation of arbitration as a tool for attracting international investment. Singapore also held a public consultation on proposed amendments to its International Arbitration Act 1994 ("IAA"), including on the contentious question of how to ascertain the governing law of the arbitration agreement. Meanwhile, contributors to the Blog commented on Timor-Leste’s accession to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which represented both a symbolic and practical commitment to international dispute resolution, sending an unequivocal message that Timor-Leste is a strong proponent of the rule of law and is committed to resolving disputes in line with best practice.

Collectively, these developments illustrate a region in motion—embracing reform, experimenting with procedural innovation, and steadily reinforcing arbitration as a cornerstone of Southeast Asia’s dispute resolution architecture.

Potential Complications in Arbitration Proceedings

The Blog covered a number of court decisions issued in 2025 that provided guidance on how courts will tackle certain complications arising in arbitration proceedings.

The Singapore Court of Appeal (“SGCA”), in Asiana Airlines, Inc v Gate Gourmet Korea Co, Ltd and others [2024] SGCA(I) 8, held that a court may grant an anti-suit injunction in respect of foreign proceedings involving a non-party to an arbitration agreement so long as there is a contractual basis to do so or by showing that the real purpose for suing the non-party is to bypass the arbitration agreement in a manner making the foreign proceedings vexatious and oppressive. One contributor noted that this decision provides welcome clarification, as Singapore courts will only issue anti-suit injunctions against non-parties to an arbitration agreement in limited circumstances.

In Indonesia, the Constitutional Court of Indonesia issued a decision adopting a stricter definition of an international arbitral award. Applying the pure territoriality principle, the Court said that an arbitral award is classified as “international” solely depending on where the award is rendered.

In Vietnam, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City clarified that the existence of an arbitration agreement alone does not render a dispute arbitrable if the subject matter falls outside the scope permitted by Vietnam’s Law on Commercial Arbitration. Only disputes arising from commercial activities, disputes involving at least one party engaged in commercial activities, or those otherwise expressly permitted by law to be resolved by arbitration, are considered arbitrable.

The SGCA also released several decisions that offer instructive guidance on infra petita challenges to awards. Such a challenge may only be brought where the applicant can show that the tribunal failed to consider an essential point that was properly placed before it. Parties who do not participate in the arbitral proceedings will not be allowed to raise an infra petita challenge.

Finally, courts in Singapore and Malaysia addressed whether judicial review is available in respect of decisions made by arbitral institutions and its registrars. The Singapore High Court ruled that it cannot intervene in the decisions of the SIAC Registrar, consistent with the policy of minimal curial intervention and in the absence of any express statutory basis under Singapore’s IAA. The Malaysian Federal Court similarly held that the AIAC is immune from judicial review in respect of decisions made in its capacity as the domestic and statutory adjudication authority under Malaysia’s Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act.

Topical Developments

2025 also witnessed a series of notable topical developments, which have potentially far-reaching implications.

First, the uneasy interface between arbitration and insolvency received significant judicial and academic attention. In Singapore, contributors weighed in on the seminal SGCA decision in Sapura Fabrication Sdn Bhd and others v GAS [2025] SGCA 13, which held that courts retain the discretion to consider whether to grant carve-out applications permitting arbitration proceedings to continue despite ongoing insolvency proceedings. The SGCA notably highlighted the potential for the new SIAC Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration Protocol (“Protocol”) to play an important role in the court’s decision on whether to grant carve-outs in favour of arbitration. However, contributors have raised concerns regarding the arbitrability of debt restructuring and insolvency disputes and the enforceability of awards arising from utilising the Protocol.

In Malaysia, the Federal Court held in V Medical Services M Sdn Bhd v Swissray Asia Healthcare Co Ltd [2025] 2 MLJ 744 that where a disputed debt arises under a contract containing an arbitration clause, the court should apply the higher “bona fide dispute on substantial grounds” threshold in deciding whether to stay a winding-up petition in favour of arbitration. This aligns Malaysian law with the prevailing English position set out in Sian Participation Corp (in liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16, and brings welcome clarity and coherence to Malaysian jurisprudence.

Second, Southeast Asian States saw significant involvement in investor-State disputes. In a controversial dispute that has spawned an array of ICSID arbitration claims and parallel civil and criminal litigation proceedings, the Paris Court of Appeal annulled a final award ordering Malaysia to pay US$15 billion to the alleged heirs of the Sultan of Sulu. This was one of the largest awards ever rendered against a State. The court found that the underlying arbitration clause was inapplicable as the arbitration agreement referred disputes to an individual holding a position that no longer exists. Elsewhere, an ICSID-administered tribunal largely dismissed treaty claims brought by Macau-registered Sanum Investments and its Aruba-based parent Lao Holdings against Laos worth over US$638 million, which arose from a protracted dispute regarding a failed casino venture in Laos.

The region also witnessed several firsts. Myanmar faced its inaugural ICSID claim, brought by Australian mining company Bright Mountain Pty Ltd under the ASEAN–ANZ Free Trade Agreement (“FTA”) regarding mining concessions that were disrupted by the 2021 military coup in Myanmar. This was the first ICSID case to be registered under the FTA. In Malaysia, the Malaysian Court of Appeal upheld the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID arbitral award in the unreported case of Republic of Zimbabwe v Elisabeth Regina Maria Gabriele Von Pezold and others. This was the Malaysian appellate court’s first-ever recognition of an ICSID award.

Finally, sports arbitration entered the regional spotlight following the stunning revelation in September 2025 that the Football Association of Malaysia (“FAM”) and seven foreign-born Malaysian football players were found by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to have forged or falsified the birth certificates of the players’ grandparents, in order to secure their eligibility to play for the Malaysian national team. In November 2025, the FIFA Appeal Committee dismissed the FAM’s appeal against the decision below. Malaysia has since launched a further appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, while FIFA has launched a broader investigation into FAM’s internal governance. The episode underscores the importance of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in sports governance and compliance, and the increasingly transnational consequences of regulatory breaches.

Events

The Blog covered numerous events in the region in 2025. We covered SIAC’s flagship event, the SIAC Symposium. The program for the SIAC Symposium centred on  safeguarding arbitration’s legitimacy in a divided world and navigating realities for arbitration users in the global sphere. We also provided coverage of the Asia ADR Week 2025, hosted by the AIAC in October, during which the Brunei Darussalam Arbitration Centre signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the AIAC to strengthen regional collaboration and the use of ADR across both jurisdictions.

Other notable events in the region include the Thai Arbitration Institute Symposium 2025, which focused on how Thailand could advance as a regional hub for arbitration, and the inaugural ASEAN Law Forum 2025, hosted by Malaysia under its ASEAN Chairmanship, which served as an avenue for legal cooperation across ASEAN.

Looking Forward

The Blog is grateful for all the insightful posts contributed over the past year. Against the backdrop of key regional developments in 2025, 2026 is poised to be another dynamic year for the continued growth in international arbitration in Southeast Asia. As always, we look forward to curating more thoughtful analysis from our contributors to keep our readers informed of further key developments as they unfold in 2026.