International arbitration in Asia has seen a dramatic surge in popularity in recent times. It has grown up alongside an increase in cross-border investment within and from outside Asia. There are three key reasons for this parallel growth. First, arbitration in a neutral venue removes the perception or the risk of one party having a ‘home advantage’ in their domestic court; second, an award made in almost any country in Asia is enforceable in other Asian countries and most other countries in the world by reason of the New York Arbitration Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958; and third, commercial parties value the confidentiality of the arbitral process to keep their disputes—and their commercial secrets—out of the public arena. And so confidence in the international arbitration process has played no small part in facilitating substantial investment into the region.

One of the most important decisions to take when drafting an arbitration agreement is the choice of the ‘seat’, or juridical root, of the arbitration. This determines which national court will be able to intervene in the arbitral process and when such intervention may take place. Mature arbitration jurisdictions tend to limit the supervisory powers of the court to those that promote the arbitral process and protect its integrity. This approach forms the core of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration drafted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Many countries have updated their arbitration laws to adopt this model legislation which, as a result, has been instrumental in harmonising international arbitration laws and practice.