Delivering the keynote address at the AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026, titled “The Future of Dispute Resolution: Six Memos for the Next Millennium”, Mr. Andrea Carlevaris, Member of the AIAC Board of Directors, examined six guiding principles for the future of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution (ADR), emphasising the need for efficiency, precision, transparency, adaptability and consistency in dispute resolution.
[In picture: Mr. Andrea Carlevaris]
Mr. Carlevaris explained that lasting transformation in dispute resolution requires more than procedural reforms or revised institutional rules. It requires a shared commitment to the principles that guide parties, counsel, arbitrators, arbitral institutions and public authorities. He discussed six principles, namely lightness, quickness, exactitude, visibility, multiplicity and consistency, that could guide the dispute resolution community in the years ahead.
Dispute resolution needs shared values to guide institutional transformation
Opening his address, Mr. Carlevaris drew inspiration from Italian author Italo Calvino’s unfinished work Six Memos for the Next Millennium. Calvino had been invited to deliver a series of lectures at Harvard University in 1985 but passed away in September that year before completing them. The lectures were subsequently published under the same title and explored qualities that Calvino considered essential to the future of literature. Although only five of the six planned lectures were completed, Mr. Carlevaris drew on their underlying ideas to explore principles that could also guide the future of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution.
He connected this approach with the broader roadmap for institutional reform, explaining that changes to arbitration rules and institutional practices must be supported by the values that give those reforms meaning. Rules and guidelines are important, but the principles underlying them determine whether they contribute to a deeper transformation of the field.
As he explained:
“Alternative dispute resolution’s enduring success requires constant adaptation and transformation, which in turn can only be the result of deep conviction about the core values that should inspire the action and the reforms of an institution and of a community, indeed.”
Mr. Carlevaris also stressed that the different participants in dispute resolution may have distinct roles and objectives, but their interests cannot be pursued independently of one another. Parties seek to win their cases, counsel seek to advance their clients’ positions, arbitrators decide disputes, and institutions administer proceedings. Yet, the effective functioning of the process depends on a common foundation.
He observed that shared values help create an environment in which every participant can pursue legitimate objectives without undermining the ability of others to perform their roles. These principles, he said, should therefore guide not only arbitral institutions but also parties, counsel, arbitrators and public authorities responsible for establishing and enforcing the rules.
Lightness means eliminating unnecessary procedural burdens
The first principle discussed by Mr. Carlevaris was lightness, a concept that might initially appear inconsistent with the seriousness and authority expected in arbitration. He clarified that lightness does not mean frivolousness or a lack of rigour. Instead, it means identifying what is necessary to achieve the intended objective and removing unnecessary complexity, repetition and procedural burdens.
Applying this principle to arbitral institutions, Mr. Carlevaris questioned whether every institutional activity provides sufficient value to justify the costs it imposes on the parties. Institutions have an important role in administering proceedings and assisting arbitrators, but their contribution must ultimately be assessed by reference to the value they provide to the users of the process. He explained that lightness has different implications for different participants. For parties and counsel, it requires effective advocacy that gives arbitrators the information necessary to decide the dispute without unnecessarily long written submissions or oral arguments. For institutions, it means facilitating proceedings without burdening them with avoidable administrative steps. For lawmakers, it calls for regulation that addresses essential requirements while respecting party autonomy and the fundamental principles of due process.
Mr. Carlevaris also reflected on the debate surrounding time and costs in arbitration. While acknowledging that costs remain important, he argued that the quality of the process and the awards it produces deserve equal attention. The objective is not simply to reduce the amount of time or money spent on proceedings. It is to make the process more manageable and focused by ensuring that decision-makers receive what they need to determine the dispute. In this context, he described procedural economy as a process of removing unnecessary burdens.
Quickness must not come at the expense of a correct and fair outcome
The second principle was quickness, which Mr. Carlevaris linked to one of arbitration’s fundamental promises: resolving disputes more quickly than ordinary court proceedings. He observed that this promise is not always fulfilled. Delays may arise when arbitrators take too long to deliver awards, parties insist on unnecessarily extended procedural timetables, or institutions take excessive time to commence proceedings, appoint arbitrators, determine challenges or collect the required funds. However, Mr. Carlevaris cautioned that speed alone is not a sufficient measure of success. A decision delivered quickly has little value if it is unfair or incorrect. As he stated:
“…quickness is not a value per se. If the result is unfair, inaccurate, or even flatly wrong, outcome of the case being quick is definitely not a value.”
He identified efficiency as a more meaningful objective because it allows proceedings to be completed within a reasonable timeframe without compromising the essential requirements of dispute resolution. Drawing on his experience as an emergency arbitrator, Mr. Carlevaris explained that emergency proceedings require decision-makers to examine submissions and evidence within a very short period. Although such proceedings differ from ordinary arbitration on the merits, the experience led him to consider whether a more focused approach could also improve the conduct of substantive disputes.
He suggested that even complex cases might be resolved within months rather than years if arbitrators and parties adopted a more disciplined approach to submissions, evidence and procedural timetables. Such an approach, he emphasised, requires cooperation from everyone involved. Arbitrators cannot achieve efficiency independently if parties are unwilling to condense their arguments or accept tighter procedural schedules.
Mr. Carlevaris also referred to the growing use of expedited and fast-track arbitration procedures. These mechanisms respond to situations in which ordinary procedural timelines may be disproportionate to the nature of the dispute. Although not every case is suitable for expedited proceedings, their availability demonstrates that arbitration can be conducted differently. The broader lesson was that the dispute resolution community should seek reasonable and efficient timelines without sacrificing the fairness or quality of the outcome.
Exactitude requires precise language, structured arguments and reasoned awards
The third principle, exactitude, concerned the precision required to organise, conduct and decide legal disputes.
Mr. Carlevaris drew on Calvino’s understanding of exactitude, which encompassed a clearly defined plan, the presentation of clear and memorable ideas, and language chosen with precision. He applied these elements to dispute resolution, explaining that a well-defined plan corresponds to a structured procedural framework. In practice, this may be reflected in well-organised written submissions, carefully reasoned arbitral awards and clearly drafted institutional rules.
The second element concerns how arguments and reasons are presented. Counsel and arbitrators must communicate their reasoning in a manner that is clear, incisive and persuasive, allowing the reader to understand not only the legal position but also the logic supporting it. The third element is precise language. Mr. Carlevaris stressed that legal terminology matters because words that appear similar may carry different meanings. The use of an incorrect term may weaken an argument or have consequences for an arbitral award.
He explained that the three elements work together rather than in isolation. A clear procedural plan, well-presented reasoning and precise language collectively contribute to the quality of dispute resolution. The principle of exactitude therefore extends beyond drafting. It requires precision at every stage, from the organisation of proceedings to the presentation of evidence and the reasoning supporting the final decision.
Visibility should strengthen transparency and accountability
The fourth principle was visibility. Mr. Carlevaris acknowledged that visibility is often associated with self-promotion, including the marketing of lawyers, arbitrators, arbitral institutions and legal jurisdictions competing to attract disputes. However, he encouraged the stakeholders to consider a deeper meaning of visibility: transparency in the administration of dispute resolution.
He cautioned against situations in which the interests of individual members of an institution, particularly their desire for self-promotion, take precedence over the interests of the institution itself. Such practices raise concerns about the proper priorities of institutions and their responsibilities towards users. Turning to transparency, Mr. Carlevaris observed that arbitral institutions had increasingly moved away from treating their decision-making processes as a black box. Parties and arbitrators should be able to understand how institutions administer proceedings and, where appropriate, the reasons behind important administrative decisions.
He referred to initiatives through which institutions communicate more clearly about decisions concerning challenges to arbitrators, replacement of arbitrators, consolidation of cases and the commencement of proceedings. He also highlighted the publication of arbitral awards as an important aspect of visibility. Making awards available can contribute to the development of arbitral jurisprudence and improve the predictability of the process. The principle does not require visibility for its own sake. Rather, it concerns making institutional processes more transparent and enabling users to understand how decisions are reached. Mr. Carlevaris’s discussion placed transparency within the broader objective of strengthening confidence in arbitral institutions and improving the predictability of dispute resolution.
Multiplicity requires openness to different perspectives and dispute resolution methods
The fifth principle was multiplicity, which Mr. Carlevaris associated with the complexity inherent in disputes. Even disputes that initially appear straightforward may involve multiple factual and legal issues, competing interpretations, different perspectives and several possible solutions. Resolving a dispute requires the decision-maker to arrive at a conclusion, but this should not lead to the underlying complexity being overlooked.
Mr. Carlevaris explained that arbitrators must remain open to the possible solutions of a case until they have completed their assessment. Counsel, similarly, should recognise that a dispute can be viewed from different perspectives and that arguments may exist in support of positions contrary to their own. He observed:
“…and I think being aware of this per se makes us better lawyers.”
For arbitral institutions, multiplicity means recognising that a single approach cannot be suitable for every dispute. Parties should be encouraged to consider the nature of their disagreement and the range of mechanisms available to resolve it. Mr. Carlevaris highlighted the possibility of combining different dispute resolution methods in relation to the same dispute. Arbitration, mediation and expert determination may be used in conjunction where appropriate, including to resolve an issue capable of disposing of the entire dispute or narrowing the issues that remain.
He also referred to the emphasis in the 2026 AIAC Arbitration Rules on the possibility of mediation before, during and even after the commencement of arbitration proceedings. The broader principle is that dispute resolution should remain adaptable. Instead of treating arbitration as the only possible response to every disagreement, parties and institutions should consider whether different processes, or a combination of them, may offer a more appropriate route.
Consistency remains essential to credibility and institutional legitimacy
Although Calvino’s work contained only five completed lectures, Mr. Carlevaris concluded by discussing the sixth principle that the author had intended to address: consistency.
He explained that Calvino had planned to devote his final lecture to consistency but passed away before completing it. While the intended lecture was never written, Mr. Carlevaris considered consistency particularly relevant to the future of dispute resolution. For counsel, consistency is essential to credibility. A lawyer may be required to defend a case that is stronger or weaker on its merits, but the ability to maintain a consistent position remains important to the presentation of that case.
For arbitrators, consistency must inform both the management of procedural issues and the reasoning contained in the award. An inconsistent approach may have consequences for the enforceability of the award. For arbitral institutions, consistency in administrative decisions and practices is equally significant. It supports the legitimacy of the institution’s role and helps establish confidence in the way it administers proceedings. Mr. Carlevaris concluded that consistency would remain important not only in the immediate future but also over the longer institutional horizon.
“The consistency of administrative decision and practises is key to the legitimacy of the role of an institution on which their future really depends.”
His concluding remarks brought the keynote back to its central theme: sustainable change requires principles that remain relevant even as the circumstances and demands of dispute resolution evolve.
Conclusion
Mr. Carlevaris highlighted the need to eliminate unnecessary procedural burdens, deliver timely decisions without compromising fairness, communicate with precision, strengthen transparency, remain open to different perspectives and dispute resolution methods, and maintain consistency in decision-making and institutional practices.
The address emphasised that institutional reform and procedural innovation must be supported by shared values. As arbitration and ADR continue to evolve, the challenge is not merely to make proceedings faster or less expensive, but to build a process that is efficient, fair, credible and capable of adapting to changing circumstances while retaining its fundamental principles.
SCC Times is the official media partner for AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026. Read more about AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026:
