UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥

Part 2 of 3

Welcome to the second instalment of our three-part blog series in collaboration with the SIAC Secretariat, where we continue to discuss the procedural innovations in the SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025. If you missed the first part, you can catch up here, where we explored the motivations behind this ambitious overhaul and examined key procedural innovations such as the streamlined procedure, emergency arbitrator enhancements, and the introduction of protective preliminary orders.

In this instalment, we turn our attention to the people and principles driving these changes, exploring the evolving profile of the SIAC arbitrator, the institution’s unique selling points, and the SIAC-SIMC Arb-Med-Arb (AMA) Protocol, which is designed to encourage early and effective dispute resolution. Let us dive straight into the questions.

Profile of the SIAC Arbitrator 2025

4. In your opinion, what characteristics will define an effective SIAC arbitrator in the context of the 2025 Rules? How essential is adaptability in their approach, especially when handling diverse case complexities while promoting constructive collaboration?

SIAC is fortunate to draw on a diverse and highly experienced panel of over 600 arbitrators from more than 40 jurisdictions. Our arbitrators bring deep expertise across a wide range of industries, including energy, construction, banking and finance, technology, shipping and commodities, private equity, life sciences, and intellectual property.

We maintain rigorous and transparent standard of admissions to the panel of arbitrators and the list of rising arbitrators, which are available publicly. We appoint arbitrators carefully on a consideration of a number of factors which include the nationality of the parties, the subject matter of the dispute, the nature of any special expertise required, the procedural and substantive complexity of the case, the relative experience and seniority required for the case, and other soft factors that are inevitably applicable such as familiarity with the legal traditions, business cultures, or other special factors of the parties involved in the case.

We mandate and require that arbitrators are conflict-free, make disclosures of facts and circumstances that might give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality and independence, and are available to conduct the arbitration diligently and efficiently.

Apart from these, there are some unstated attributes that we expect from our arbitrators. We expect our arbitrators to be well prepared, to be responsive to parties, to write well, to listen and be composed in dealing with parties’ requests and applications, to be flexible and adaptable to the needs of different cases, to be compassionate to the diversity of international arbitration, to be decisive, and above all, to be focused on ensuring the enforceability of any award made in the arbitration. We also expect arbitrators to be candid if they cannot meet these attributes for a particular case.

These are all elements of adaptability and accountability which our arbitrators already possess and exhibit. This is particularly relevant where arbitrators are appointed to hear cases under the Streamline Procedure (Schedule 2) or Expedited Procedure (Schedule 3), both of which involve more structured and time-bound frameworks. Rules 53.1 and 53.2 of SIAC Rules 2025 now also introduce clearer timelines for the submission of draft awards by tribunals for scrutiny, requiring this to be done within 90 days of the last directed submission in the proceedings pertaining to the award. These new developments call for arbitrators to be even more adaptable and accountable in managing proceedings efficiently.

In addition, the ability to be adaptable in handling complex and diverse cases is particularly pertinent in the context of Coordination (Rule 17), a new feature introduced under the SIAC 2025 Rules. This mechanism allows for greater procedural synchronisation where common legal or factual issues arise across multiple cases involving the same tribunal. In such situations, they are expected to take a broader view of the overall landscape of the disputes, while maintaining careful attention to the details of each individual case. This level of adaptability, including the ability to shift between multiple proceedings, is essential to managing interconnected matters effectively, particularly where the outcome of one arbitration may have an impact on the direction or outcome of another.

SIAC’s unique selling points (USPs)

5. In light of the notable amendments to the SIAC Rules, what unique selling points should SIAC highlight to attract practitioners in this fiercely competitive market? How can these points reflect SIAC’s commitment to innovation in dispute resolution?

Prior to joining SIAC, I spent a considerable amount of time in private practice. From a practitioner’s perspective, having well-defined pathways for different types of disputes and a range of procedural tools in the toolkit for use across the various stages of the arbitral lifecycle is of particular importance. These options provide real avenues for users (and clients) to seek to achieve their end objectives of securing an end to the dispute and the reliefs they seek efficiently.

As someone advising clients and managing arbitrations on a day-to-day basis, I valued institutional rules and administration that ensured careful procedural control over the process particularly on time and costs. These provide certainty for users. The SIAC Rules 2025 were developed with exactly that in mind—introducing curated innovations and thoughtful enhancements that promote transparency, predictability, and clarity for users.

Some of the standout innovations in the SIAC Rules 2025 are the introduction of two distinct fast-track arbitral pathways (streamlined and expedited) and the PPO under our EA procedure. 

There are also a number of other procedural tools in the SIAC Rules 2025:

• Preliminary determinations of dispositive issues, which allows parties to apply to the tribunal for a final and binding determination of any issue at a preliminary stage, if it would save time and costs or expedite the resolution of the dispute. Tribunals must, in turn, render a decision on such applications within 90 days. This feature introduces a much-needed explicit cue to tribunals and parties to seek to address discrete issues early and render final and binding determinations which may pave the way for efficiency in dealing with other issues in the case.
• Early Dismissal of claims or defences, which allows parties to apply for early dismissal of claims or defences that are clearly (manifestly) without merit or outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Tribunals must, if they decide that the application for early dismissal ought to proceed, decide whether the claim or defence is to be dismissed within 45 days of the application. The process promotes efficiency by potentially reducing the scope of the dispute early on in the proceedings.
• Coordinated Proceedings, as referred to earlier, allows for coordination of procedural steps across cases, where there is a common question of law or fact involved in the cases and where the same tribunal is constituted in each of those matters. This allows parties and tribunals to enhance efficiency in a multi-contract, multi-party scenario.

Last but not least, at the tail end of the arbitral lifecycle, we recognise that parties and practitioners place great importance on the timely issuance of arbitral awards. To this end, as mentioned earlier, Rule 53 of the SIAC Rules 2025 introduces a clearer deadline: tribunals must now submit draft awards for SIAC’s scrutiny within 90 days of the last directed submission pertaining to the award. This replaces the more discretionary ‘close of proceedings’ concept under the 2016 Rules—which left it to the tribunal’s discretion to determine when proceedings were closed—providing counsel with a firm reference point to advise their clients on when to expect a final outcome.

Encouraging early settlements, and the rise of the modern arbitrator

6. The conversation surrounding the arbitrator’s role as a ‘settlement facilitator’ has gained traction, marking a significant shift from the traditional view of the arbitrator’s function as purely adjudicative. In 2023, the ICC published a report[1] outlining the various techniques for facilitating settlement in arbitral proceedings. SIAC has had in place the SIAC-SIMC Arb-Med-Arb Protocol. Also, numerous soft law instruments advocate for the arbitrator’s role as a ‘settlement facilitator’ between the parties. Now, with a robust emphasis on early settlements in the new rules, my questions are two-fold:

a) Are we witnessing a shift in the arbitrator’s role towards a more conciliatory approach?

b) Are we now seeking arbitrators who combine the strategic mindset of project managers with the ability to facilitate amicable resolutions, guiding negotiations while ensuring they remain focused on the proceedings?

I would not go so far as to say that the arbitrator’s role is being redefined. What we are seeing, however, and what the various prompts for mediation in the SIAC Rules 2025 reflect, is a growing recognition that arbitration can be used as a vehicle for prompting parties to consider settlement: filing an arbitration can be a protective move to preserve the right to commence proceedings, especially where there are limitation periods applicable, for example. Once proceedings are afoot, parties may then enter into a structured mediation process or settlement discussions. While arbitrators remain focused on resolving the dispute, they are also encouraged to stay proceedings to allow opportunities for early resolution, if and when the circumstances allow and it is what the parties desire.

Dispute resolution today is not always a science, it is often an art. While the ecosystem may commonly be tiered—litigation, arbitration, mediation—each mechanism serves a different purpose, and users approach them with specific objectives in mind, whether that is enforceability, subject-matter expertise, or finality. But at the end of the day, the ultimate goal is the same: resolution and finality. And if parties are open to settlement, we believe institutions should support that path.

In that spirit, SIAC, as an arbitral institution, has taken meaningful steps to empower parties who wish to explore amicable settlement avenues, dating back to 2014. One such initiative is our collaboration with the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) to introduce the SIAC-SIMC Arb-Med-Arb (AMA) Protocol—a unique hybrid framework that integrates both arbitration and mediation.

In summary, under the AMA Protocol:

• Arbitration is first commenced at SIAC.
• Proceedings are then stayed to allow parties to attempt mediation at SIMC.
• If parties reach a settlement, the mediated terms can be recorded as a mediated settlement agreement enforceable under the Singapore Convention, or be recorded as a consent award enforceable under the New York Convention.
• If no settlement is reached, parties may resume the arbitration.

This structure gives parties the best of both worlds: an opportunity to resolve matters amicably through mediation, while preserving procedural continuity and benefitting from enforceability. We also believe that this structured process gives parties a good chance at achieving success through mediation, once parties have pulled the trigger as it were, and have carried out a preliminary assessment of their positions and their likely cost exposure in an arbitration.

Many of our arbitrators are practitioners, they are commercially minded and very alive to the expectations of users of the process. They are experienced, discerning, and responsive to the evolving needs of parties. While their core role remains adjudicative, the SIAC Rules 2025 provide more structured opportunities for arbitrators to engage with parties on potential settlement, where appropriate. Notable enhancements include:

• Rules 6.4 and 7.3: Parties are also encouraged to consider ADR options and comment on the adaptation of such processes at early stages of arbitral proceedings—such as during the filing of the Notice of Arbitration and Response to the Notice of Arbitration.
• Rule 32.4: Tribunals may, as soon as practicable after constitution, consult with parties on the potential for settlement of all or part of the dispute using amicable methods such as mediation.
• Rule 50.2: Unless otherwise agreed, tribunals have the power to direct a suspension of proceedings to allow for mediation, including under the AMA Protocol.

These enhancements reflect our belief that early settlement and adjudication are not mutually exclusive goals—and SIAC is committed to offering support to both parties and tribunals to pursue amicable resolution if appropriate.

Part 3 – the grand finale – arriving soon!

This second part of our interview has revealed how the SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025 are not only reshaping the procedural landscape, but also enhancing support for parties and tribunals in their pursuit of amicable resolutions when appropriate. We have also examined how SIAC’s carefully curated procedural innovations, from early dismissal mechanisms to coordinated proceedings, provide users with a flexible and efficient path to dispute resolution. With the AMA Protocol, SIAC is actively promoting settlement discussions while safeguarding the integrity of the arbitration process.

In the final blog of the series, we will broaden our focus to address how SIAC is championing diversity and inclusion, responding to global geopolitical shifts, and embracing AI and technology - all while ensuring that user feedback continues to steer its evolution.

For more information on SIAC and its services, please visit  and subscribe to their mailing list at: 

For more information on Lexis+® UK Arbitration Practical Guidance, please visit 

[1]