2025 in Review: Trends and Developments in East and Central Asia

The past year brought a significant maturation of the arbitration landscape in East and Central Asia, characterized by pivotal legislative enactments and the fortification of regional hubs. Most notably, the People’s Republic of China promulgated its new Arbitration Law; a detailed analysis of these landmark changes is available in our China Review, while advancements in Tokyo are delineated in our Japan Review.

This post examines legislative and jurisprudential developments across the rest of East and Central Asia, highlighting their impact on the region’s increasingly intricate legal architecture. Most notably, the Republic of Korea achieved a milestone through the comprehensive overhaul of the KCAB International Rules and the establishment of the International Arbitration Court, elevating the sophistication of its dispute resolution ecosystem. Furthermore, Hong Kong announced plans to consider updating its Arbitration Ordinance to preserve its competitive stature.

Central Asia

Notable changes in Central Asia’s arbitration landscape were first marked with institutional expansion across Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

The Baku Arbitration Centre (“BAC”) was inaugurated on October 24, 2025, during Azerbaijan Arbitration Days 2025, positioning Azerbaijan as a neutral dispute resolution hub along the Middle Corridor. This blog post details BAC’s UNCITRAL-inspired arbitration rules and multilingual support. It outlines BAC’s anticipated role in energy, infrastructure, and trade disputes and discusses future challenges such as award enforcement and diversity.

Meanwhile, the Tashkent International Arbitration Centre tripled its caseload as of January 2025 compared to January 2024. The Astana International Financial Centre played a role in digitalization and legal modernization across Central Asia, which was highlighted in regional events such as Eurasia Arbitration Week 2025.

On August 12, 2025, Kyrgyzstan adopted a new Law on Investments (No. 198) that introduced a multi-tier dispute settlement mechanism. As explained in this blog post, under the new framework, foreign investors must first pursue negotiations, mediation, and proceedings before Kyrgyz courts before resorting to international arbitration. The reform aims to restrict the previously broad direct access to investor–state dispute settlement that foreign investors enjoyed. The post concludes that without a comprehensive renegotiation or overhaul of Kyrgyzstan's bilateral investment treaties, the new law alone is unlikely to achieve its intended objective of effectively limiting investors’ direct recourse to international arbitration.

Another significant development in the region lies in the application of the New York Convention. In July 2025, the Arbitration Court of Turkmenistan, a specialized domestic court handling arbitration-related cases, considered its first-ever application under the New York Convention for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award and decided to assess but ultimately deny enforcement because the dispute did not qualify as commercial under Turkmenistan's legislation.

Overall, the Central Asia region is transitioning from respondent-dominated jurisdictions to an emerging arbitration hub, hosting major international conferences. Regional dispute resolution now attracts global investor confidence through modern institutions and pro-arbitration frameworks.

Hong Kong

Jurisprudence from Hong Kong continues to feature in critical developments. In 2025, the Blog analyzed a recent Court of Appeal decision which ruled that an arbitral tribunal lacks jurisdiction if no genuine dispute exists. A "dispute" requires one party to actively assert a position that the other rejects; mere silence or a "legitimate interest" in a declaration of non-liability is insufficient. The court set aside the award, citing a lack of jurisdiction and a "clear abuse of process".

The Blog also covered an analysis on the Court of First Instance decision of CCC v AAC [2025] HKCFI 2987 which concerned the use of digital notification methods in an arbitration. The court upheld an award where the Notice of Arbitration was served via an SMS link. By agreeing to the Hong Kong Arbitration Society (HKAS) Online Arbitration Rules, the party was deemed to have accepted this method. While the court affirmed that service via an SMS link is legally valid—even when proceedings move at “lightning speed” and occur ex parte—it underscored that speed must not come at the expense of fairness. Specifically, the court cautioned that tribunals have a responsibility to verify actual receipt of notices to safeguard the procedural integrity of the award.

The Blog was also pleased to publish posts adapted from the essays which came runners up of the HK45 Essay Competition. These posts explored two fundamental issues within arbitration: due process paranoia and arbitral immunity.

The Blog’s coverage of Hong Kong Arbitration Week highlighted the impact of geopolitical tensions and trade sanctions on global disputes. During the ADR in Asia Conference, the flagship event of the week, Madam Justice Mimmie Chan reaffirmed in her keynote speech Hong Kong’s robust, arbitration-friendly jurisprudence, while a panel session addressed the evolving role of institutions in balancing efficiency with party autonomy. Additionally, an asset tracing panel concluded that despite technological progress, successful recovery still hinges on strategic coordination across jurisdictions to overcome legal hurdles.

Finally, coinciding with HKIAC’s 40th anniversary, the Hong Kong government announced plans to study the need to amend the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609), in force since 2011. This review is expected to ensure the local framework aligns with the latest global developments in arbitral practice.

Korea

Last year, the Blog explored how international arbitral tribunals seated in Korea determine the res judicata effect of prior arbitral awards—specifically, whether to apply Korean procedural law or transnational rules tailored for international arbitration. Our contributor noted that the International Law Association (“ILA”) Recommendations extend res judicata not only to the dispositive part of the award but also to all necessary reasoning and even to claims or issues that could have been raised previously if their omission would result in procedural unfairness. While the conclusive effect under Korean law is narrower than under the ILA’s Recommendations, the preclusive effect is recognized as quite broad, preventing parties from relitigating issues or arguments previously available to them.

The Blog also analyzed how the global transition to renewable energy has created challenges for reaching accurate valuations in power sector arbitrations featuring Korean energy companies. The sector’s complexity arises from the large scale and cost of assets, technological uncertainties, and evolving regulatory frameworks. Korea, as one of the world’s largest electricity markets, is increasingly involved in both domestic and international power sector disputes, where the market price of electricity is a critical factor in quantifying claims for loss and damage.

The Blog provided coverage of the 14th Asia-Pacific ADR Conference, a key event of the Seoul ADR Festival 2025, which marked the launch of the revised KCAB International Arbitration Rules, effective from January 2026. The opening session introduced the new rules and expanded institutional framework of KCAB International. The conference also featured a panel discussion on how leading arbitral institutions are refining their rules to balance procedural efficiency with party autonomy. Another panel shifted focus to the users’ perspective and discussed what constitutes “excellence” in arbitration.

Also at the Seoul ADR Festival, the Blog covered the 2025 Asia Civil Law Summit, in which leading practitioners and scholars from both civil and common law backgrounds convened to discuss the influence of civil law traditions on international arbitration and assess Seoul’s emergence as a prominent arbitral seat.

Other Jurisdictions

Other jurisdictions in the region continue to demonstrate a steady interest in international arbitration and its impact on cross-border commerce. In October 2025, both Taiwan Arbitration Week and Mongolian Arbitration Week provided platforms for regional legal discourse. The former also marked the 70th anniversary of the Chinese Arbitration Association, Taipei. Notably, the sessions in Taiwan included a two-day International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation, held in English, which explored international dispute resolution in the context of changing international politics and economics, as well as the 40th anniversary of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Similarly, Mongolia continues to focus on institutional development, positioning itself as a multidisciplinary hub for investment and emerging market disputes.

Concluding Remarks

As the arbitral landscape across East and Central Asia matures, 2025 has demonstrated a clear commitment to balancing international modernization with nuanced local considerations. The year’s landmark legislative enactments and institutional restructurings reflect a broader regional effort to refine legal architectures to meet evolving global standards.

While these reforms prioritize efficiency and procedural integrity, their ultimate success will depend on how effectively they are implemented and the degree to which they preserve party autonomy and due process. Looking ahead, these systemic shifts are poised to redefine party preferences and solidify the region’s standing as a global arbitration hub. Our Blog remains dedicated to tracking these trajectories, providing essential insights into the increasingly intricate dispute resolution ecosystem of the region.