Seoul ADR Festival 2025: Unveiling Excellence in Arbitration

The 14th Asia-Pacific ADR Conference opened on 29 October 2025 as part of the Seoul ADR Festival 2025. The Conference was co-hosted by UNCITRAL, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Korea, Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (“KCAB”) International, and ICC Dispute Resolution Services.

The opening session marked the launch of the revised KCAB International Arbitration Rules, which will take effect on 1 January 2026. Professor Seung Wha Chang, Chairman of KCAB International, delivered congratulatory remarks and introduced the Rules Revision Committee, the new KCAB International Arbitration Court, and the International Advisory Court.

This was followed by two panel discussions. The first session, titled “Efficiency vs Autonomy: Navigating Recent Amendments to Institutional Arbitration Rules”, was moderated by Professor Chang and featured James Castello (Deputy Chair of the LCIA Board of Directors), Joanne Lau (Secretary-General of HKIAC), Vivekananda Neelakantan (Registrar of SIAC), and Pui-Ki Emmanuelle Ta (Secretary-General of KCAB International). The discussion explored how leading arbitral institution are refining their rules to strike a better balance between procedural efficiency and party autonomy, both of which remain core values of arbitration. As Professor Chang noted, most of the panelists represented institutions that have recently revised their arbitration rules.

Institutional Discretion vs. Party Autonomy

The first question posed to the panelists addressed how recent amendments to arbitration rules seek to reconcile procedural efficiency with party autonomy. Mr. Castello observed that although LCIA continues to uphold party autonomy in arbitrator appointments, there has been a noticeable increase in users opting for institutional appointments, which indicates their trust in LCIA’s neutrality and efficiency.

Ms. Lau noted that while HKIAC maintains a “light touch” approach to case administration, there is a growing expectation from users for more active institutional involvement. Under the new 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules, HKIAC must now consider “any factors that may affect the efficiency or integrity of the arbitrator” (Article 9.3) when confirming the appointment of arbitrators, which expands the institution’s role beyond conflict-of-interest checks.

Mr. Neelakantan emphasized the importance of codification, noting that the SIAC Rules 2025 formally introduced a preliminary determination mechanism, giving tribunals clear authority to decide certain issues at an early stage. Ms. Ta explained that KCAB International’s revised rules also seek to streamline proceedings by shortening procedural timelines, such as requiring draft awards within 60 days of the last hearing or submission and final awards within 15 days after scrutiny (Article 39.2). They also introduced a fast-track system through which smaller claims could be resolved within a significantly shorter timeframe.

Award Scrutiny and Timing

The panel next discussed scrutiny of awards and timeframes for award issuance. All institutions agreed on the importance of ensuring both enforceability and timely delivery of arbitral awards.

Mr. Neelakantan explained that SIAC introduced a more structured scrutiny process, with the 2025 Rules now requiring tribunals to submit draft awards within 90 days of the last written submission, providing a clearer timeline. Ms. Lau noted that HKIAC exercises only “light touch” scrutiny that is confined to correcting manifest errors, which makes arbitrator selection especially crucial. Mr. Castello remarked that LCIA maintains a flexible but efficient scrutiny system carried out by experienced staff. Ms. Ta noted that KCAB aims to achieve efficiency through structured internal timelines and a Secretary-General-led award review process.

Expedited and Fast-Track Proceedings

The third question focused on how institutions ensure that expedited procedures remain efficient while preserving fairness and party autonomy. Ms. Lau explained that HKIAC takes a careful approach to expedited proceedings, ensuring in advance that any proposed arbitrator is available to deliver an award within the six-month timeframe. Ms. Ta mentioned that the revised KCAB rules will operate both a six-month expedited process and a three-month fast-track procedure. Mr. Neelakantan observed that since 2010, SIAC’s expedited procedure has evolved, with the recent introduction of a further simplified streamlined procedure for low-value disputes. Mr. Castello said LCIA has not seen strong user demand for a standalone expedited regime but continues to monitor user needs.

AI and Digital Transformation

Lastly, the panel explored how institutions are incorporating AI and digital tools in case administration. Mr. Castello explained that LCIA was among the first to adopt electronic filings. According to Ms. Lau, HKIAC has been operating an online case management platform for several years and recently introduced a digital hub to connect arbitrators with technology providers to further streamline online procedural management. Mr. Neelakantan noted that SIAC also launched a digital case management system, and Ms. Ta commented that KCAB plans to introduce e-filing and explore AI tools to support case administration under its 2026 Rules. The panelists agreed that the development of additional AI-specific guidelines would be deferred until international standards emerge, and that in the meantime, existing guidelines or case-specific tribunal orders will need to govern the current use of AI.

The next session reframed “excellence” from the users’ vantage point. Co-moderated by Jinhee Kim (Partner at Jipyong LLC) and Professor Dr Lars Markert (Partner at Nishimura & Asahi), the panel featured Janghwan Chung (Principal Legal Counsel at Samsung C&T Corporation), Liz (Kyo-Hwa) Chung (Senior Legal Director at Netflix Services Korea), Tae Hun Lee (Managing Director and CFO at LITIG Equity Partners), Chris Mainwaring-Taylor (Partner at Bae Kim & Lee LLC), and Song-Yi Son (Division General Counsel at ABB Marine & Ports). From prospectives of corporate users, practitioners and funders, the panelists spoke candidly about what users value, what frustrates them, and how arbitration can better serve commercial needs.

Predictability, Transparency, and Timeliness

Several panelists highlighted predictability as the decisive metric for user confidence. Mr. Chung observed that unpredictability is often magnified in single-arbitrator cases, where limited appeal routes leave users exposed to “unpleasant surprises”. Ms. Chung echoed this sentiment, adding that losing seemingly strong cases without clear reasoning erodes trust in arbitration, especially when long delays between hearings and awards raise doubts about tribunal engagement.

Panelists urged institutions to strengthen oversight of tribunal efficiency and to introduce structured feedback mechanisms that demystify arbitrators’ track records. Ms. Son noted that many users now question whether arbitration remains the ‘right fit’ for their businesses, supporting the idea of post-case feedback to address the “black box” problem and enable informed choices in future cases.

Efficiency: From Due Process Paranoia to Dispute Resolution Clauses

Turning to process management, Dr. Markert warned against “due process paranoia,” where tribunals over-accommodate procedural objections to avoid potential challenges. Mr. Mainwaring-Taylor added that some counsel weaponize due process at every turn, frustrating both efficiency and fairness. The panel agreed that tribunals and parties should exercise greater self-restraint to facilitate effective case management.

On dispute resolution clauses, the panel was skeptical of multi-tiered clauses requiring mandatory pre-arbitration steps. Mr. Mainwaring-Taylor questioned whether such additional procedural layers truly enhance efficiency, noting that they often result in higher cost and greater delays. From the in-house side, Mr. Chung and Ms. Son pointed out that business teams frequently strike out mandatory mediation or expert determination clauses, as these tend to trigger procedural skirmishes over conditions precedent, rather than resolving substantive issues.

Expedited Procedures and Early Determination

Continuing on the theme of efficiency, Mr. Mainwaring-Taylor observed that although many institutional rules already provide for expedited timelines, parties and tribunals routinely override them. He suggested that counsel should be aware of the options they could pursue, such as fewer written rounds, tighter schedules, limited document production, and concise, focused awards.

Meanwhile, Mr. Chung cautioned that speed is not always what users want. In complex construction disputes, predictability and expertise often matter more than saving a few months. Expedited procedures tend to default to sole-arbitrator tribunals, which may undermine quality when it matters most. Mr. Chung shared that he would rather invest in a three-member, industry-savvy tribunal than risk a rushed award, noting that clients are not averse to incurring costs per se, but only to “unnecessary” expenditure.

Cost Accessibility Through Third-Party Funding

Turning to cost accessibility, Mr. Lee highlighted third-party funding ("TPF") as an important mechanism for improving access to arbitration, particularly for SMEs deterred by high arbitration costs. He emphasized that the importance of clarity and predictability in the use of TPF, noting that it is essential for funders, tribunals, and parties in order for TPF to operate effectively. Leading institutions such as HKIAC, ICC, and SIAC already require disclosure of funding arrangements, and KCAB is moving in the same direction. Mr. Lee anticipated that greater transparency would reduce conflict-of-interest risks and help establish TPF as a standard feature of arbitration, ultimately broadening its user base.

Technology and Hearing Design: AI and Hybrid Hearings

Looking ahead, the panelists welcomed AI tools for purposes such as trend analysis, arbitrator mapping, and procedural checklists, viewing them as practical means of enhancing both quality and cost-efficiency of arbitration. Ms. Son added that virtual and hybrid hearings continue to offer value even after the pandemic by mitigating travel and scheduling burdens for multinational teams. At the same time, hybrid hearings address the challenge of time-zone fatigue and the difficulty of reading body language in fully virtual settings. With key participants attending in person and others joining remotely, hybrid hearings can achieve a practical balance between efficiency and engagement.

Closing Reflections

The 2025 ADR conference underscored that “Unveiling Excellence in Arbitration” hinges on aligning arbitral procedures with user expectations. The first session highlighted how leading institutions are refining their rules to strike a careful balance between efficiency and party autonomy, by, for example, tightening timelines and strengthening scrutiny. The second session emphasized that users ultimately evaluate excellence in arbitration through factors such as predictability, transparency, disciplined process management, and thoughtful use of technology. Taken together, the discussions suggest that as institutions continue modernizing their procedural frameworks, the next benchmark of “excellence” in arbitration will increasingly be defined by how effectively arbitration responds to the practical needs of its users while maintaining the essence of arbitration.

More coverage from Seoul ADR Festival is available here.