{"id":399137,"date":"2026-10-18T12:00:40","date_gmt":"2026-10-18T06:30:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=399137"},"modified":"2026-10-17T17:09:21","modified_gmt":"2026-10-17T11:39:21","slug":"aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/","title":{"rendered":"AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026: Experts examine award scrutiny, expedited procedures and third-party funding at Asia ADR Week 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

[In picture, left to right:<\/span> Kamilah Kasim, Hiroyuki Tezuka, Andrea Carlevaris, Steven Perian KC]<\/p>\n

At Asia ADR Week 2026, organised by the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) in Kuala Lumpur from 12 to 16 October 2026, a panel session examined what the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 mean in practice for users, and whether the changes will influence the choice of institution and seat.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

[In picture: Kamilah Kasim]<\/p>\n

Kamilah Kasim<\/span>, Partner, Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership (RDS) and a leading Malaysian lawyer in projects, energy and infrastructure, the moderator, started the discussion with how businesses choose an arbitration seat. She explained that businesses look for a process that they can trust, right expertise, timetable that is proportionate to the dispute, costs that can be managed and enforceability of the award.<\/p>\n

Kamilah explained that institutional rules matter because they determine how expectations are met and the true test to these rules are when they are used.<\/p>\n

The panel consisted of Andrea Carlevaris<\/span>, Partner and Co-head of International Arbitration at BonelliErede and Member, AIAC Board of Directors; Steven Perian<\/span>, King’s Counsel, 2 King’s Bench Walk and Partner, Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership (RDS) and Hiroyuki Tezuka<\/span>, Head of International Dispute Resolution at Nishimura & Asahi, Member of the AIAC Court of Arbitration and Chief Director of the Japan International Mediation Centre in Kyoto.<\/p>\n

Institutional governance and independence as foundations of arbitral credibility<\/p>\n

Andrea Carlevaris<\/span>, upon being asked what parties should look for while assessing the governance, independence and accountability of Arbitration Institutions, he noted that reputation is everything. He explained that reputation is built on three main pillars: (i) independence (ii) competence and (iii) quality of case managers.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

[In picture: Andrea Carlevaris]<\/p>\n

Andrea noted that it is crucial for public to know the clear distinction and distribution of roles among the various governing bodies of an institution, exhibiting a system of checks and balances among various bodies constituting an international arbitral institution. He further noted that institutions in which excessive roles are played by the same body, or by the same person are not trusted internationally.<\/p>\n

He suggested a scheme that should prevail at an international level is one with three main bodies i.e.,<\/p>\n

(i) board of directors — they are in charge of strategy and are responsible for providing resources to the centre to function effectively. They are comprised of businessmen as well and are not only restricted to lawyers and arbitration specialists.<\/p>\n

(ii) court of arbitration — this entirely consists of specialists, and for an institution that aims to become international, should also consist of international specialists.<\/p>\n

(iii) Secretariat\/Case managers — they act like the secretariat in a way, handling the everyday issues of the institution.<\/p>\n

Andrea noted that these need to be separate bodies, for reasons of independence. He also expressed that these centres should be supported locally, typically by a government for greater legitimacy.<\/p>\n

Emphasising the need for independence, Andrea noted that these bodies should necessarily remain separate and supported locally, typically by a government. He also mentioned that in cases of businesses supporting private arbitral institutions, the public should have the guarantee that the administration is not being interfered by any financing institution, public or private. Such independence is maintained by the court of arbitration with the secretariat for daily business for institution.<\/p>\n

Technical review of arbitral awards: Quality control without interference<\/p>\n

Kamilah followed up with Andrea asking how the new rules have highlighted this distinction between institutional governance and decisions concerning arbitrations. Andrea answered that technical review of draft awards has become a very important feature of the AIAC Rules 2026. The scrutiny, he emphasised, brings more quality and avoids corrections after the award has been notified to the parties. This also reduced the propensity of the awards being challenged in courts.<\/p>\n

Andrea did note that it is a big responsibility for an institution to promise that the draft decisions will be scrutinised before being notified. The registry of the secretariat and experts within the court of arbitration are required to conduct this exercise and not all institutions take this up. This distinction between institutions is what limits institutions as it involves risks.<\/p>\n

Andrea also addressed the issue of such scrutiny leading to delays in the award being notified. He expressed that, the delay in days, maybe weeks, are well spent as it enhances the chances of the award being recognized and would necessarily be of better quality. He also expressed that there are mechanisms to conduct this exercise swiftly, provided the institution understands its role precisely.<\/p>\n

As the scrutiny concerns the form of the order and does not entail any involvement in the substantive decision making. The distinction between not interfering with the award and ensuring the award has all the qualities without interfering with substantive decision making is the main issue with respect to scrutiny or review of draft awards.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

[In picture: Hiroyuki Tezuka]<\/p>\n

Hiroyuki Tezuka<\/span> offered a comparative perspective on institutional scrutiny. Referring to his experience with the ICC and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), he explained that different institutions allocate the review function differently between their arbitral courts and registries.<\/p>\n

He noted that the ICC’s introduction of more frequent online committee meetings following the COVID-19 pandemic had helped accelerate its review process. By contrast, a system relying substantially on the registrar and secretariat requires sufficient administrative capacity to prevent a growing caseload from causing delays.<\/p>\n

The panellists thus identified a fundamental institutional challenge: maintaining rigorous award review while ensuring that the process remains timely, adequately resourced and independent of the tribunal’s substantive adjudicatory function.<\/p>\n

Fast-track arbitration: Eligibility does not determine suitability<\/p>\n

The discussion next turned to the fast-track procedure under Rule 7 of the AIAC Rules 2026. Kamilah highlighted the revised financial thresholds of below USD 3 million for international arbitration and below USD 2 million for domestic arbitration, while noting that the monetary value of a dispute does not necessarily reflect its legal or technical complexity.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

[In picture: Steven Perian KC]<\/p>\n

Steven Perian KC<\/span> explained that the revised framework places greater emphasis on eligibility for the procedure rather than treating the monetary threshold as conclusive of its suitability. From counsel’s perspective, he identified four practical considerations.<\/p>\n

First, the issues should be capable of precise definition. Straightforward payment claims, narrow questions of contractual interpretation and contained disputes concerning quantum may be appropriate for an expedited process.<\/p>\n

Second, the evidentiary record should be manageable. Fast-track arbitration is better suited to disputes involving a limited number of documents, witnesses and experts. Where credibility assessments, extensive cross-examination or competing expert opinions are central to the dispute, the procedure may be less appropriate.<\/p>\n

Third, the procedural structure should remain relatively simple. Multi-party disputes, joinder applications and complicated procedural arrangements may undermine the advantages of an expedited timetable.<\/p>\n

Fourth, the parties must be operationally prepared to proceed within the prescribed timeframe. Counsel should assess the availability of the tribunal, evidence, experts and legal teams before seeking an accelerated process.<\/p>\n

Steven further identified three considerations that parties should weigh before requesting fast-track arbitration: procedural fairness, commercial necessity and the financial implications of expedition. These include whether the parties are comfortable proceeding before a sole arbitrator, whether an oral hearing is necessary and whether the dispute can fairly be resolved within a compressed evidentiary timetable.<\/p>\n

He further noted that the commercial rationale is equally important. An expedited resolution may be particularly valuable where a dispute affects cash flow, an ongoing project or a continuing commercial relationship.<\/p>\n

“The threshold opens the door. The procedural character of the dispute determines whether the parties should walk through it.”<\/span> – Steven Perian KC<\/p>\n

The effectiveness of fast-track arbitration therefore depends on the nature of the dispute and the parties’ readiness to proceed, rather than the monetary value alone.<\/p>\n

Summary determination: Resolving clear issues without prejudging the dispute<\/p>\n

The panellists also examined Rule 9 of the new 2026 Rules, which extends summary determination to defences and provides for a decision allowing a request within 45 days of filing.<\/p>\n

Steven Perian KC suggested that counsel should begin by asking two questions: whether the relevant issue can be decided fairly without resolving genuinely disputed facts, and whether deciding it at that stage would materially shorten or bring the arbitration to an end.<\/p>\n

He emphasised the significance of the word “manifestly” in assessing whether a claim, counterclaim or defence is suitable for summary determination. A strong application should identify a specific issue that cannot succeed as a matter of law or jurisdiction, preferably on agreed or undisputed facts.<\/p>\n

Conversely, summary determination should not become a mechanism for asking the tribunal to choose between witnesses, assess contested credibility or weigh competing expert opinions prematurely.<\/p>\n

Steven cautioned that the procedure must be applied with discipline. The objective is to eliminate issues that are plainly unsustainable, not to compress a genuinely contested dispute into an unfairly premature decision.<\/p>\n

The discussion underscored the importance of distinguishing between the efficient disposal of clear-cut issues and the denial of a reasonable opportunity to present a case. The value of summary determination ultimately depends on the tribunal’s ability to identify what can properly be decided at an early stage.<\/p>\n

Interim measures and enforcement: The importance of the applicable law<\/p>\n

Turning to interim relief, Kamilah invited Hiroyuki to discuss the considerations counsel should bear in mind when choosing between relief from an arbitral tribunal, an emergency arbitrator or a national court.<\/p>\n

Hiroyuki emphasised that the availability and enforceability of interim measures depend significantly on the applicable legal framework and the jurisdiction in which relief is sought. This becomes particularly important where relief is sought against a non-signatory, such as a parent company or an affiliated entity that is not directly bound by the arbitration agreement.<\/p>\n

While a tribunal may be empowered to grant interim relief under the applicable rules, its ability to issue effective orders against third parties may be limited. Counsel must therefore assess whether court intervention would be more appropriate and whether the resulting order can be enforced where the relevant assets or parties are located.<\/p>\n

Hiroyuki also discussed Japan’s arbitration law reforms, which introduced a mechanism enabling courts to impose penalties for non-compliance with certain tribunal-ordered interim measures. He noted that the Japanese framework permits enforcement of relevant interim measures through this mechanism, including measures issued by tribunals seated outside Japan.<\/p>\n

Andrea added that the powers conferred by institutional rules remain subject to the law applicable at the seat of arbitration. Referring to reforms in Italy, he explained that arbitrators had historically lacked the power to grant interim relief, but legislative changes introduced such powers subject to the parties’ agreement, including through incorporation of applicable arbitration rules.<\/p>\n

He cautioned, however, that granting exclusive authority to arbitral tribunals once constituted may not always serve the parties’ interests. Depending on the nature of the relief sought, the identity of its recipient and the applicable enforcement mechanisms, recourse to national courts may remain important.<\/p>\n

The discussion reinforced the need for counsel to consider interim relief at the drafting stage itself, including the applicable law, the powers of the tribunal, the availability of emergency procedures and the practical enforceability of any order.<\/p>\n

Joinder and consolidation: Procedural efficiency within jurisdictional limits<\/p>\n

Addressing disputes involving multiple contracts and parties, Kamilah highlighted the practical challenges that arise in complex commercial transactions, particularly in sectors where project agreements, financing arrangements, construction contracts and long-term service agreements may generate interconnected disputes.<\/p>\n

Andrea explained that provisions governing joinder and consolidation are principally procedural and administrative in nature. They facilitate the organisation of arbitral proceedings but do not, by themselves, establish the tribunal’s jurisdiction over an additional party.<\/p>\n

The question of whether a tribunal has jurisdiction over a joined party remains distinct from the institution’s decision to permit that party to participate in the proceedings. Consent and the existence of an appropriate arbitration agreement therefore remain central considerations.<\/p>\n

Andrea observed that joinder and consolidation mechanisms are increasingly important as commercial transactions become more complex. Nevertheless, he cautioned against overly elaborate contractual arrangements that attempt to anticipate every possible procedural complication.<\/p>\n

Institutional rules can offer a more flexible framework, drawing on the experience of institutions that have dealt with a wide range of multi-party disputes. Such provisions allow the institution and, where appropriate, the tribunal to address practical circumstances without being constrained by unnecessarily rigid contractual mechanisms.<\/p>\n

For parties drafting arbitration agreements, the discussion highlighted the importance of considering potential multi-party disputes, compatibility between arbitration clauses across related contracts and the distinction between procedural consolidation and the jurisdictional consent required to bind additional parties.<\/p>\n

Third-party funding: Transparency, conflicts and confidentiality<\/p>\n

The session’s discussion of third-party funding examined the developments reflected in Malaysia’s arbitration framework, including the statutory reforms, the Code of Practice for Third-Party Funding, 2026, and Rule 31 of the AIAC Rules 2026.<\/p>\n

Steven Perian KC described these developments as an important step in establishing a structured framework for third-party funding. He explained that the regime requires disclosure of the existence of a funding arrangement and the identity of the funder, together with continuing disclosure when relevant changes occur.<\/p>\n

He identified three principal considerations underpinning the disclosure framework.<\/p>\n

First, conflicts of interest.<\/span> A funder may have an existing relationship with an arbitrator or counsel. Disclosure of the funder’s identity enables meaningful conflict checks at an early stage, helping protect the independence of the tribunal and reducing the risk of late challenges.<\/p>\n

Second, costs.<\/span> Rule 31.4 permits the tribunal to consider the funding agreement and compliance or non-compliance with Rule 31 when making orders or awards concerning costs. Perian KC emphasised that the presence of a third-party funder should not, by itself, establish impecuniosity, undermine the merits of a claim or automatically justify an order for security for costs. Commercial parties may use funding to manage litigation risk and preserve cash flow rather than because they lack financial resources.<\/p>\n

Third, continuing disclosure.<\/span> Funding arrangements may change or terminate during proceedings. Rule 31.3, as discussed during the session, imposes an ongoing obligation to notify the relevant participants of such changes so that procedural decisions are not made on the basis of outdated information.<\/p>\n

A central concern was how to reconcile transparency with the confidentiality of commercially sensitive funding arrangements. Steven stressed that the initial disclosure obligation concerns the existence of the funding relationship and the identity of the funder, rather than automatic disclosure of the entire funding agreement.<\/p>\n

Further disclosure may become necessary where a specific issue arises concerning conflicts, security for costs, liability for adverse costs or the funder’s control over proceedings. Any such request should be supported by a material reason, with the tribunal considering appropriate redactions and confidentiality protections.<\/p>\n

The panellist also cautioned that communications prepared for a funder’s decision on whether to finance litigation may not automatically attract litigation privilege merely because litigation is contemplated.<\/p>\n

The broader principle emerging from the discussion was one of staged and proportionate disclosure: sufficient transparency to protect the integrity of the proceedings, while preserving confidentiality unless a particular contractual term is genuinely material to the fair conduct of the arbitration.<\/p>\n

Mediation alongside arbitration: Identifying the right moment<\/p>\n

The discussion also considered Rule 49 of the 2026 Rules, which accommodates mediation alongside arbitration, and the circumstances in which settlement discussions may be most productive.<\/p>\n

Hiroyuki observed that mediation arrangements should remain flexible in both timing and procedure. He noted that pre-arbitration mediation requirements may prove ineffective where one party participates reluctantly or without a genuine intention to negotiate, potentially resulting in additional costs and delay.<\/p>\n

In his view, commencing arbitration before exploring mediation may, in some cases, provide a more productive foundation for settlement. Once the parties have exchanged their initial submissions, they are better positioned to understand the opposing party’s case, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions and assess the prospects of a negotiated resolution.<\/p>\n

He suggested that the tribunal could raise the possibility of mediation during the proceedings, including at an appropriate procedural milestone after the initial submissions but before document production.<\/p>\n

Hiroyuki also discussed the possibility of sealed settlement offers as a means of encouraging good-faith negotiations without prematurely disclosing proposals to the tribunal. Where appropriate, a party’s conduct during settlement discussions could be taken into account in a subsequent assessment of costs.<\/p>\n

The discussion highlighted that mediation and arbitration need not operate as competing mechanisms. Their effective integration depends on identifying the appropriate stage for settlement discussions, maintaining procedural flexibility and discouraging the use of mediation merely as a tactic to delay the proceedings.<\/p>\n

AIAC Rules 2026: International alignment and practical advantages<\/p>\n

In the concluding discussion, Kamilah asked the panellists which features of the 2026 Rules would carry the greatest weight when recommending an arbitral institution to a business client.<\/p>\n

Andrea observed that the reforms had brought AIAC closer to international standards in several respects, making it more difficult to reject a proposal to arbitrate under the institution’s rules solely on the basis of the framework itself. He identified the technical review of draft awards as a particularly significant feature, noting the importance of a clearly defined and balanced review mechanism.<\/p>\n

Steven highlighted technical review, fast-track arbitration and summary determination as important strengths of the revised Rules. He particularly emphasised the relationship between procedural speed and award quality, observing that technical scrutiny should operate as a quality-control checkpoint rather than an appeal or rehearing.<\/p>\n

A well-designed review process, he explained, can help ensure that awards are technically sound and better positioned to withstand scrutiny across jurisdictions. It also reinforces institutional engagement through the final stages of the arbitral process.<\/p>\n

Hiroyuki, approaching the question from the perspective of Japanese parties, described the new Rules as modern, internationally oriented and sufficiently flexible to accommodate different dispute-resolution needs, including mediation alongside arbitration. He also identified cost considerations as a practical factor for parties comparing arbitral seats and institutions, particularly those evaluating the relative expense of arbitration in Singapore and Malaysia.<\/p>\n

Together, the panellists’ observations presented the revised framework as an attempt to combine contemporary institutional standards with practical flexibility, cost-consciousness and procedural efficiency.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/p>\n

The discussion at Asia ADR Week 2026 demonstrated that the effectiveness of arbitration reform cannot be measured by the introduction of new procedural mechanisms alone. The value of expedited proceedings, summary determination, technical review and third-party funding disclosure ultimately depends on how these mechanisms are implemented, the safeguards accompanying them and their ability to preserve fairness and arbitral independence.<\/p>\n

The panellists’ contributions highlighted the importance of treating institutional rules as part of a wider dispute-resolution framework involving the law of the seat, the parties’ arbitration agreements, the tribunal’s powers and the practical requirements of enforcement.<\/p>\n

For businesses and counsel, the revised AIAC Rules offer an opportunity to reassess how arbitration clauses are drafted, how procedural choices are made and how dispute-resolution strategies can be tailored to the commercial realities of a dispute. For arbitral institutions, the challenge remains to translate procedural innovation into outcomes that are efficient, reliable and worthy of users’ confidence.<\/p>\n

As the discussion made clear, the success of an arbitral framework ultimately rests on its ability to deliver what commercial parties seek from arbitration: an independent process, proportionate costs and timelines, high-quality awards and an effective route to resolution.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Leading arbitration practitioners discuss the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 at Asia ADR Week 2026, examining award scrutiny, fast-track arbitration, summary determination, interim measures, third-party funding and mediation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":399138,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[109505,97664,107243],"tags":[116837,116948,90608,30032,29576,116994],"class_list":["post-399137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-asia-adr-week","category-events-collaborations","category-international","tag-aiac-arbitration-rules-2026","tag-asia-adr-week-2026","tag-asian-international-arbitration-centre","tag-international-arbitration","tag-international-commercial-arbitration","tag-malaysian-arbitration-law"],"yoast_head":"\nAsia ADR Week 2026: AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Experts at Asia ADR Week 2026 unpack the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 on award review, expedited cases and funder disclosure.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026: Experts examine award scrutiny, expedited procedures and third-party funding at Asia ADR Week 2026\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Experts at Asia ADR Week 2026 unpack the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 on award review, expedited cases and funder disclosure.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-10-18T06:30:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/AIAC-Arbitration-Rules-2026.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026: Experts examine award scrutiny, expedited procedures and third-party funding at Asia ADR Week 2026\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/18\\\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/18\\\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026: Experts examine award scrutiny, expedited procedures and third-party funding at Asia ADR Week 2026\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-18T06:30:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/18\\\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3190,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/18\\\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/AIAC-Arbitration-Rules-2026.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026\",\"Asia ADR Week 2026\",\"Asian International Arbitration Centre\",\"International arbitration\",\"international commercial arbitration\",\"Malaysian Arbitration Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Asia ADR Week\",\"Events & Collaborations\",\"International\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/18\\\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/18\\\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/18\\\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\\\/\",\"name\":\"Asia ADR Week 2026: AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/18\\\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/18\\\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/AIAC-Arbitration-Rules-2026.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-18T06:30:40+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Experts at Asia ADR Week 2026 unpack the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 on award review, expedited cases and funder disclosure.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/18\\\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/18\\\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/18\\\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/AIAC-Arbitration-Rules-2026.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/AIAC-Arbitration-Rules-2026.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/18\\\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026: Experts examine award scrutiny, expedited procedures and third-party funding at Asia ADR Week 2026\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Asia ADR Week 2026: AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 | SCC Times","description":"Experts at Asia ADR Week 2026 unpack the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 on award review, expedited cases and funder disclosure.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026: Experts examine award scrutiny, expedited procedures and third-party funding at Asia ADR Week 2026","og_description":"Experts at Asia ADR Week 2026 unpack the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 on award review, expedited cases and funder disclosure.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-10-18T06:30:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/AIAC-Arbitration-Rules-2026.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026: Experts examine award scrutiny, expedited procedures and third-party funding at Asia ADR Week 2026","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026: Experts examine award scrutiny, expedited procedures and third-party funding at Asia ADR Week 2026","datePublished":"2026-10-18T06:30:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/"},"wordCount":3190,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/AIAC-Arbitration-Rules-2026.webp","keywords":["AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026","Asia ADR Week 2026","Asian International Arbitration Centre","International arbitration","international commercial arbitration","Malaysian Arbitration Law"],"articleSection":["Asia ADR Week","Events & Collaborations","International"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/","name":"Asia ADR Week 2026: AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/AIAC-Arbitration-Rules-2026.webp","datePublished":"2026-10-18T06:30:40+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Experts at Asia ADR Week 2026 unpack the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 on award review, expedited cases and funder disclosure.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/AIAC-Arbitration-Rules-2026.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/AIAC-Arbitration-Rules-2026.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026: Experts examine award scrutiny, expedited procedures and third-party funding at Asia ADR Week 2026"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/AIAC-Arbitration-Rules-2026.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/399137","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=399137"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/399137\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":399141,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/399137\/revisions\/399141"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/399138"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=399137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=399137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=399137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}