JCAA Global Arbitration Forum 2025: Reflections from Day One

The JCAA Global Arbitration Forum 2025 was held on November 27-28, 2025 during the Japan International Arbitration Week. It brought together arbitrators, counsel, in-house lawyers, academics, and institutional representatives from Japan and around the world. The two-day Forum was facilitated by Miriam Rose Ivan L. Pereira (Oh-Ebashi LPC & Partners), Tony Andriotis (DLA Piper), and Akiko Yamakawa (Vanguard Lawyers Tokyo).

The sessions on Day 1 examined how arbitration practice is evolving and how institutions, tribunals, and parties can contribute to more predictable, efficient, and fair procedures.

Opening Remarks

The Forum began with opening remarks from Shinsuke Kitagawa, President of the Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (“JCAA”). He explained that Japan continues to be recognized as a trusted seat for arbitration in the Asia-Pacific region. He referred to the JCAA’s long-term efforts to build an arbitration culture and emphasized the importance of responsiveness and quality of service in arbitration.

President Kitagawa also spoke about recent JCAA initiatives, including the formation of the JCAA Advisory Board and the creation of a new Users Committee. These steps underscore the JCAA’s focus on addressing the evolving needs and expectations of arbitration users.

Panel 1: From Complexity to Clarity—How Experienced Arbitrators Collaborate with Parties in Managing Complex Cases

The first panel, moderated by Chié Nakahara (Nishimura & Asahi), examined how tribunals and parties manage complex disputes and prevent cases from becoming unfocused or unnecessarily lengthy.

Ms. Nakahara began by asking Michael Lee (Twenty Essex) about the importance of early preparation by the tribunal. Mr. Lee responded that tribunals can assist parties by establishing the structure of the case at an early stage, rather than waiting for issues to accumulate. He noted that tribunals may need to revisit the parties’ procedural assumptions to enable more effective submissions and emphasized that direct involvement of the parties themselves, and not only their counsel, can promote earlier resolution, or even settlement. John Beechey (Arbitration Chambers) agreed, adding that tribunals should not hesitate to identify “proper” preliminary issues that may dispose of certain claims as part of the tribunal’s role to support efficient proceedings. He also shared his experience on when tribunal intervention may be appropriate to address an imbalance between the parties’ experience in arbitration. Helena Chen (Chen & Chang) shared an actual case involving a pathological arbitration clause, where the tribunal’s early, proactive handling of jurisdictional issues prevented the proceedings from becoming unnecessarily complex and facilitated a fair resolution of the dispute.

Kap You (Kevin) Kim (Peter & Kim) described a recent JCAA case where the tribunal, composed of both civil law and common law arbitrators, proposed to issue its preliminary views on key issues after the first round of submissions, incorporating relevant provisions of the JCAA Interactive Arbitration Rules into Procedural Order 1, which the parties accepted. By issuing its preliminary views, the tribunal was able to clarify the issue of the burden of proof and sharpen the focus of the proceedings by identifying the material issues from an early stage. This led to more efficient case management, including a shorter oral hearing.

The panel consistently shared the view that procedural discipline and cooperation between tribunals and parties are essential to fairness and efficiency of the proceedings. When counsel deviates from the key issues, experienced arbitrators should intervene constructively, but with care, to restore focus.

Panel 2: Dispute Resolution and Risk Management for Investments into Japan

The second panel, moderated by Louise Stoupe (Morrison Foerster), focused on inbound investment into Japan and the risks that arise when parties’ expectations diverge across different legal and commercial cultures.

Masaichi Ito (Taisei Corporation) explained that Japanese and foreign companies may take different approaches to dispute resolution and risk management, which may lead to contractual terms that prove unworkable in practice. He stressed how cultural practices and local regulations may influence contract drafting and dispute management. Peter Harris (Clifford Chance) cautioned that English-language contracts governed by Japanese law may contain inconsistencies because legal concepts do not always translate directly, and recommended involving Japanese counsel from the contract drafting stage. Niharika Dhall (JGC Corporate Solutions Co., Ltd.) highlighted that disputes often arise from differing expectations rather than contract language alone, and encouraged parties to address assumptions about dispute resolution upfront. Kohei Murakawa (Atsumi & Sakai) added that governing laws and legal traditions may also affect contract interpretation.

On dispute resolution practices, Mr. Harris observed that Japanese courts may approach damages and expert evidence differently from other jurisdictions, and that arbitration before the JCAA may offer a more familiar structure for foreign companies while remaining acceptable to Japanese parties. He also mentioned that language should be treated as a substantive issue, as linguistic misunderstandings can escalate disputes. Mr. Murakawa noted that while Japanese courts are generally reliable and diligent, arbitration offers distinct advantages, particularly arbitrator expertise and greater procedural speed, as reflected in the JCAA’s recent statistics on the duration of arbitral proceedings.

Dispute resolution planning begins well before any dispute arises. Careful drafting, aligned expectations, and early engagement with local experts may help prevent disputes from escalating.

Panel 3: Fast and Fair—Balancing Party Benefits and Pitfalls in Documents-Only Arbitration

Michael Mroczek (Nozomi Sogo) moderated the third session on the growing use of documents-only arbitration. Under the JCAA Expedited Procedures, oral hearings are not required unless the arbitral tribunal considers them necessary, a feature that can significantly shorten proceedings and reduce costs.

The panel discussed how tribunals can maintain fairness without automatically resorting to oral hearings. Lars Markert (Nishimura & Asahi) emphasized that early communication from the tribunal on the procedural framework for documents-only proceedings is critical to ensuring fairness, noting that where the parties disagree on the need for a hearing, the tribunal in most cases would order one. Dominic Sharman (Baker & McKenzie) observed that dispensing with a hearing is more difficult when one party’s case is document-strong but witness-weak, and the other’s is reverse. Earl Rivera Dolera (TKI) added that hearings remain important where documents do not fully explain the context or where due process so requires. Tomoki Yanagisawa (TMI Associates) stated that tribunals should proactively inform parties of the evidence or explanations they need to submit, as clear communication helps avoid misalignment on what the key issues are.

Panelists suggested several practical tools:

• Holding a midstream conference after the first round of submissions.

• Preparing a list of issues with the tribunal before the second round of submissions.

• Using written Q&A at some stage, such as the “Responsive Roadmap Framework” proposed by Rodolphe Ruffié-Farrugia (K&L Gates), to focus the parties’ submissions on relevant issues.

• If witness statements are submitted, consider commenting on them in lieu of cross-examination.

The discussion showed that an efficient and fair process for smaller disputes does not simply mean eliminating hearings, but rather making deliberate choices about when hearings are truly necessary and to what extent, taking into account available alternative procedural options.

Panel 4: Breaking Barriers, Building Futures—Women Driving Changes in Japan’s Dispute Resolution Community

Panel 4, moderated by Emi Rowse (Igusa) (Kudun & Partners), addressed diversity in arbitration, particularly the advancement of women in Japan’s dispute resolution field.

Ms. Rowse asked panelists how the landscape has evolved. Kaori Sugimoto (Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu) observed an increase in Japanese female counsel participating in international arbitration but noted that the number of female arbitrators remains limited. Karah Howard (Pinsent Masons) commented positively on the initiatives taken by arbitral institutions to appoint more female arbitrators.

Ms. Howard and Aiko Hosokawa (Oh-Ebashi LPC & Partners) highlighted the importance of flexible workplace structures that allow individuals, regardless of gender, to balance professional responsibilities with personal circumstances. Seri Takahashi (Mori Hamada & Matsumoto) shared examples of how international practices influenced her firm’s internal reforms to increase the visibility of female practitioners. She highlighted the need to promote women in management. Tony Andriotis (DLA Piper) noted that Asian jurisdictions, including Japan, are often more proactive than commonly assume,d adding that meaningful progress is being made and that continued efforts will benefit the arbitration community as a whole.

Panel 5: Oral Hearings—A Decisive Stage or Just a Ceremony

The final panel, moderated by Aoi Inoue (Anderson Mori & Tomotsune), also explored the role of oral hearings in arbitration.

Daniel Allen (Mori Hamada & Matsumoto) observed that hearings remain important because they allow tribunals to test parties’ arguments directly, which has become even more significant in an era where documents can be easily “faked” using AI. Yoko Maeda (City Yuwa Partners) noted that active communication with the tribunal during hearings can help clarify technical issues that may not be fully understood from documents alone, and added that witness testimony in cross-examination may be influenced by the witness’s cultural background. Mariel Dimsey (MD Arbitration & Advisory) pointed out that there is no single model for a hearing. Civil law–style hearings can be more efficient and still effective. She warned that over-prepared witness examination can give tribunals a negative impression. Leng Sun Chan (Duxton Hill Chambers) observed that while opening oral statements may assist tribunals in identifying key issues, hearings should be focused rather than repetitive. Tribunals may intervene when hearings no longer add value.

Professor Hi-Taek Shin (Twenty Essex) pointed out that Asian witnesses are often unfamiliar with adversarial cross-examination, which can unfairly undermine their credibility. He called for greater cultural and linguistic sensitivity from tribunals and counsel to ensure that witnesses are not disadvantaged by differences in legal tradition or language.

Hearings should be conducted in a manner that can meaningfully assist the tribunal in better understanding the case. To this end, arbitrators and counsel should give careful consideration to the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of witnesses.

Closing Remarks

The Forum concluded with remarks from Hiroyuki Tezuka (Nishimura & Asahi), Chair of the JCAA Advisory Board. He observed that the discussions throughout the Forum reflected the continuing evolution of arbitration practice and expressed hope that future JCAA Forums will attract participants from an even wider range of jurisdictions, further enhancing the JCAA’s profile within the global arbitration community.

Overall, the first day of the JCAA Global Arbitration Forum 2025 effectively offered a well-balanced and insightful discussion of key trends and practices around efficiency, expediency, advocacy, and diversity in international arbitration.