Overview of Ad Hoc Arbitration
The origins of arbitration can be traced back to ancient Greece and Rome. Based on whether a permanent institution is established for guidance and management, arbitration can be divided into ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration. Ad hoc arbitration refers to a form of arbitration where both parties, according to an arbitration agreement, submit their dispute to an arbitration tribunal composed of arbitrators recommended by both parties. In ad hoc arbitration, parties can freely choose the procedures, rules, and arbitrators, and the arbitration tribunal can dissolve itself after making an award. Institutional arbitration refers to a form of arbitration where both parties submit their dispute to a selected independent third-party institution for arbitration according to the arbitration agreement.
The term "ad hoc arbitration" comes from Latin, meaning "for this purpose only," which accurately reflects its nature as opposed to institutional arbitration. It is also sometimes translated as "special arbitration" or "specific arbitration." Black's Law Dictionary defines "Ad Hoc Arbitration" as "arbitration without the management of arbitration procedures by an arbitration institution." Ad hoc arbitration is the original form of arbitration, and arbitration institutions are products of ad hoc arbitration's historical development. Before the establishment of the London Court of International Arbitration in 1892, the world's first arbitration institution, arbitration was ad hoc arbitration, and there was no need for the concept of ad hoc arbitration.
While accurate statistics on ad hoc arbitration are difficult to obtain, according to renowned arbitrator and arbitration law scholar Yang Liangyi, ad hoc arbitration should account for over 70% of all arbitrations. Based on the development of ad hoc arbitration in international society, it can be considered that ad hoc arbitration still dominates. Article 1(2) of the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards states that "arbitral awards include not only awards made by arbitrators appointed for each case but also those made by permanent arbitration institutions to which the parties have submitted." The phrase "also include" here indicates that institutional arbitration does not hold the dominant position.
Most countries with mature commercial arbitration systems do not treat "ad hoc arbitration" and "institutional arbitration" differently, granting the powers in arbitration procedures to the arbitration tribunal rather than the arbitration institution. The only distinction between ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration lies in their practical forms, namely whether the case is managed by an arbitration institution. The two share many common characteristics in essence and are not in opposition; rather, they can promote each other within certain scopes and degrees.
Arbitration has flourished in modern society, following an ancient and winding path of development that can be roughly divided into three stages:
- Embryonic Period: 21st Century BC - Early 13th Century
- Development Period: Early 13th Century - Mid-19th Century - Early 20th Century
- Mature Period: Early 20th Century to Present
Historical Origins (21st Century BC - Early 13th Century)
In the period when judicial systems were not yet mature, arbitration, as one of humanity's earliest civilized means of dispute resolution, was a natural expression of both state judicial power and civil dispute resolution, reflecting the development of human social civilization. During this period, arbitration actually combined the primitive form of judiciary and the primitive form of modern arbitration. Only after the state judicial system was perfected did clear boundaries emerge between arbitration and judiciary. During the embryonic period of arbitration, there were no complete and continuous documentary records about arbitration. Ad hoc arbitration is considered the "original form" of arbitration, predating institutional arbitration by thousands of years.
Around 2100 BC, Ur-Nammu, the Sumerian ruler and founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur, established a comprehensive legal code. This code stipulated that all disputes must first be submitted to public arbitration.
In the 5th century BC, "private arbitration" appeared in the Athenian Law. Athens' "private arbitration" was essentially no different from modern ad hoc arbitration, requiring parties to establish an arbitration agreement before submitting to "private arbitration". In 450 BC, the Seventh Table of the Twelve Tables of the Roman Republic stipulated that when land boundary disputes arose, three arbitrators would be appointed by officials to resolve them.
Furthermore, discussions of arbitration systems appeared multiple times in the Corpus Juris Civilis, the Justinian Code, and the Digest of Justinian. The records of arbitration in these legal documents can be identified as ad hoc arbitration, stating that parties could agree to select arbitrators to adjudicate disputes and should comply with the arbitral awards. The Digest of Justinian stipulated that both parties should pay deposits in advance as a guarantee for compliance with arbitral awards.
During the Viking Age (8th-11th centuries), to avoid judicial judgments, Western European people submitted disputes to arbitration, and ad hoc arbitration became a widely recognized method of dispute resolution in Western Europe.
In the 12th century, Mediterranean coastal trade flourished unprecedentedly, and the European continent developed merchant customary law specifically regulating commercial legal relationships, which included arbitration provisions. In England, as litigation procedures could not meet merchants' needs for quick dispute resolution, ad hoc arbitration became a common social phenomenon, with English merchant courts providing "quick arbitration" dispute resolution services. In the Middle Ages, economically and commercially developed countries like Italy and Sweden made ad hoc arbitration the primary method for resolving civil and commercial disputes. In daily life, when people encountered disputes or disagreements, they would usually seek help from trusted third parties, generally turning to respected elders in their clan or family for arbitration. From a historical perspective, having neutral third parties arbitrate disputes is one of humanity's most civilized methods of dispute resolution, naturally arising in response to needs.
Modern Development (Early 13th Century - Mid-19th Century - Early 20th Century)
From the signing of the Magna Carta (1215) to the First Industrial Revolution, with the development of commercial society and the rise of capital power, arbitration was widely used to resolve commercial disputes through chamber arbitration to settle regional or industry disputes.
During this period, chambers of commerce were essentially extensions of local trade monopoly rights. The crown granted local autonomy, including the right to approve commercial entities to conduct business activities in the region, known as trade monopoly rights. Self-governing cities or regions established "chambers of commerce" as trading entities according to royal authorization, through which trading rights within the jurisdiction were granted to merchants.
It is generally believed that the widespread use of arbitration by chambers of commerce was related to their trade monopoly rights during this period. On one hand, chambers had the authority to grant merchants franchise rights; on the other hand, chambers needed to strengthen their control over the industry to maintain their commercial monopoly position. Chamber statutes typically stipulated that chambers had priority jurisdiction over specific industry disputes. When industry parties encountered disputes, they needed to submit their disputes and claims to the chamber president (or arbitrators selected according to the statutes), who would make reasonable decisions based on the disputed facts. This dispute resolution method already possessed some characteristics of modern arbitration (including jurisdiction, appointment of arbitrators, and application of corresponding arbitration rules). Its scope included not only commercial disputes within the industry but also debt disputes between members, contract disputes, illegal intrusion, inheritance of membership, etc.
From the merchants' perspective, to obtain long-term sustainable commercial benefits, merchants often voluntarily complied with the chamber's order design and dispute resolution system arrangements, gaining advantages in efficiently resolving commercial disputes by surrendering the freedom to choose other dispute resolution methods. To some extent, this dispute resolution method exhibited characteristics of ad hoc arbitration.
Later, the British spread this dispute resolution method to the United States, planting the seeds of arbitration there. In 1768, the New York Chamber of Commerce established a special arbitration court to handle commercial disputes, which to some extent promoted the spread and development of arbitration in the United States. The New Haven Chamber of Commerce and Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce established similar arbitration institutions in 1794 and 1801, respectively, following New York's example.
By the early 19th century, with the growth of national (including transnational) industry associations and the rise of industries such as construction, publishing, and clothing, the application of arbitration began to break through geographical and industry limitations. The scope of arbitration further expanded, and more industry associations began to try using arbitration to resolve internal disputes. Meanwhile, industry arbitration rules, arbitration groups, and standard arbitration agreements also emerged during this period.
The Liverpool Cotton Association, established in 1841, first drafted a standard contract containing arbitration clauses in 1863, requiring potential disputes to be resolved through arbitration under the association's auspices. This practice by the Liverpool Cotton Association was soon emulated by industry organizations such as the London Stock Exchange, London Grain Trade Association and Coffee Trade Association, Hamburg Grain Trade Association, and Bremen Cotton Exchange. In 1871, the New Orleans Cotton Exchange began using arbitration to resolve industry disputes. The following year, the New York Stock Exchange also began using arbitration to resolve industry disputes.
By the early 20th century, major industry associations began establishing their own arbitration rules and forming industry arbitration tribunals. For example, the U.S. Food Retail Association formed an expert panel to serve as arbitrators for resolving industry disputes, avoiding deterioration of cooperative relationships due to improper dispute resolution. Similarly, the British Sugar Association established industry arbitration rules, requiring members to resolve disputes according to these rules.
Modern Mature Period (Early 20th Century to Present)
The late 19th and early 20th centuries marked a historical turning point in the development of arbitration, during which modern arbitration law took shape in countries such as the UK, US, and France. During this period, legislation gradually improved, with the enactment of the 1934 English Arbitration Act, the US Federal Arbitration Act, and the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, marking a basic consensus among countries on arbitration legislation. The emergence of modern arbitration institutions such as the Arbitration Society of America (ASA) and the American Arbitration Association (AAA), along with large-scale arbitration promotion and educational activities, helped arbitration break free from local and industry forces to become an independent enterprise.
Both the English Arbitration Act of 1889 and the New York State Arbitration Act of 1920 recognized that arbitration agreements made for future disputes were binding on the parties and confirmed that such agreements were protected by law. The legislation of various U.S. states and the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 were basically modeled after the New York State Arbitration Act of 1920. When the English Arbitration Act was revised in 1934, it added legal norms that provided judicial protection for arbitration, such as the appointment of arbitration institutions, removal of arbitrators who delayed arbitration proceedings, interim relief measures such as preservation, and conversion of awards into judgments. The modern arbitration legal norms that affirm, support, and protect arbitration were formally established.
It was also during this period that modern arbitration institutions began to emerge. Unlike industry associations that focused on building industry dispute resolution order, arbitration institutions paid more attention to the development of arbitration itself, including actively promoting arbitrator training, strengthening arbitration promotion, focusing on cultivating the arbitration market, promoting the improvement of the arbitration knowledge system, and optimizing the management and operation of arbitration institutions themselves.
Three years after the promulgation of the English Arbitration Act in 1889, in 1892, the London Court of Arbitration (LCIA) was established. This institution provides services such as appointing arbitrators and managing arbitration procedures for parties, maintains a roster of arbitrators classified by professional field, and mainly serves cases that do not apply to specialized industry association arbitration mechanisms. In 1915, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) was established.
Two years after the promulgation of the New York State Arbitration Act in 1920, in 1922, the first specialized arbitration institution in the United States, the Arbitration Society of America (ASA), was established, promoting the rapid development of arbitration throughout the United States. In 1926, ASA merged with the Arbitration Foundation established by the New York Chamber of Commerce to form the American Arbitration Association (AAA) as we know it today.
The emergence of modern arbitration institutions marked that arbitration was no longer limited by geography or industry, and formally became a universally accepted dispute resolution mechanism.
Legislative Improvements
Key legislation from the late 19th and early 20th centuries:
- English Arbitration Act of 1889
- New York State Arbitration Act of 1920
- US Federal Arbitration Act of 1925
- Revised English Arbitration Act of 1934
- UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985
Institution Establishment
Establishment of modern arbitration institutions:
- 1892: London Court of Arbitration (LCIA) established
- 1915: Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) established
- 1922: Arbitration Society of America (ASA) established
- 1926: American Arbitration Association (AAA) established
System Development
Core developments in modern arbitration system:
- Wide recognition of legal effect of arbitration agreements
- Continuous improvement of judicial protection mechanisms
- Establishment of professional training system for arbitrators
- Breaking free from geographical and industry restrictions
- Arbitration becoming an independent dispute resolution enterprise
Contemporary Development
United Kingdom
The Arbitration Act 1996 of the United Kingdom adopts a unitary legislative approach. It does not separately regulate institutional and ad hoc arbitration, nor does it expressly state that the Act applies to both. Instead, the Act implicitly applies to both institutional and ad hoc arbitration governed by English law, treating both as forms of "private arbitration." Under English law, arbitral institutions are private organisations, and public authorities do not intervene in their operation. For example, the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the world's oldest permanent commercial arbitration institution, is incorporated as a company limited by guarantee under the UK Companies Act.
The Arbitration Act 1996 contains detailed provisions on the appointment of arbitrators, the umpire system, replacement of arbitrators, and the duties and liabilities of arbitrators. Most of these provisions follow the fundamental principle of party autonomy and are therefore largely default rules that parties may exclude by agreement.
The main arbitration organisations in the UK include the following.
(1) London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)
As the best-known arbitration institution in the UK, the LCIA also administers ad hoc cases. According to its rules, "Where a clause merely provides for arbitration in London without referring to the LCIA, it does not constitute an agreement for LCIA institutional arbitration; on the contrary, such a clause may constitute ad hoc arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996. However, if the parties wish to apply the LCIA Rules or request the LCIA to administer ad hoc proceedings, the LCIA is pleased to do so."
This means that an ad hoc arbitration does not become institutional simply because the parties agree that the LCIA administer certain aspects of the procedure. The LCIA has issued a dedicated fee schedule for ad hoc administration, usually based on hourly rates. It also provides an appointment service, acting as an appointing authority when requested by the parties or other bodies.
(2) Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb)
Established in 1915 and headquartered in London, CIArb was granted a Royal Charter in 1979 by Queen Elizabeth II. As a non-profit international organisation, CIArb promotes ADR, including arbitration, mediation and dispute boards, and provides training, accreditation and standards for practitioners worldwide. Its rules are widely used in sectors such as finance, shipping, IP and construction.
CIArb's rules are based on the Arbitration Act 1996 and emphasise procedural autonomy and flexibility, allowing parties to adapt the rules by agreement. CIArb cooperates closely with the LMAA and the ICC, and more than 65% of its cases are ad hoc commercial disputes. CIArb's panel and training system are regarded as the gold standard, and its members are often appointed as experts in BIT and WTO disputes.
(3) Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR)
CEDR also offers partial administrative services for ad hoc arbitration, including: (i) lists of arbitrators for party selection; (ii) appointment of arbitrators by consent; (iii) management of document exchange; (iv) organisation of hearings and venue booking; (v) escrow of funds; (vi) administrative and practical support; and (vii) information on appropriate dispute-resolution options.
(4) London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA)
The LMAA is not an arbitral institution but an association of maritime arbitrators, so arbitrations under the LMAA Terms are ad hoc. The LMAA does not administer cases but focuses on drafting rules and promoting maritime arbitration. Its members are mostly retired judges, barristers, and maritime professionals such as shipbrokers, owners, charterers, consultants and P&I club managers. LMAA arbitration affords parties a high degree of autonomy to resolve disputes such as charterparty, carriage of goods, general average and ship sale contracts through ad hoc proceedings.
Institutionally, the LMAA plays three roles: (i) setting qualification standards for full-time arbitrators based on maritime expertise; (ii) nurturing new arbitrators by mentoring them or appointing them in small cases; and (iii) formulating various sets of rules to meet different dispute-resolution needs.
Beyond the maritime sector, many UK trade bodies such as the London Jute Association, FOSFA and GAFTA have their own specialised arbitration mechanisms that typically handle only member-to-member disputes.
Given the widespread acceptance of ad hoc arbitration in the UK, numerous sector-specific ad hoc rules have emerged, including aviation consumer rules drafted by CEDR, the Glass and Glazing Arbitration Scheme, small-value construction dispute rules by the RICS, and model arbitration clauses by the JCT. While these rules are widely used domestically, few have achieved the global prominence of the LMAA.
United States
In U.S. judicial practice, the concept of ad hoc arbitration does exist, but the United States has not enacted specific legislation for ad hoc arbitration, nor does its arbitration law distinguish between ad hoc and other forms of arbitration. Ad hoc arbitration has not yet become an independent legal concept in U.S. arbitration law and can only be categorized as a phenomenon within contractual arbitration. This is primarily because, under the U.S. arbitration legal framework, arbitration activities are considered contractual in nature. Whether parties choose institutional arbitration or not, and regardless of the arbitration rules they apply, it does not affect the legal nature and validity of the arbitration process itself or its outcomes (awards). The U.S. legal system does not differentiate in its supervision and regulation of these two types of arbitration activities, making specific legislation for ad hoc arbitration unnecessary.
Under U.S. arbitration law, there are no qualification requirements for arbitrators. An arbitrator's authority derives from the parties' appointment, without the need for empowerment by an arbitration institution. Arbitrators are not required to be affiliated with any arbitration institution to conduct arbitration activities. U.S. arbitration law treats arbitrators in institutional arbitration and those selected by parties in ad hoc arbitration equally, granting them the same rights and ensuring both processes receive equal legal protection.
Major arbitration organizations in the United States include: the American Arbitration Association (AAA), the Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Center for the Americas (CAMCA), the Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission (IACAC), the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR), The Society of Maritime Arbitrators (SMA), Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS), the National Arbitration Forum (ADR FORUM or NAF), and the Maritime Arbitration Association (MMA).
Given the high degree of marketization and development of arbitration institutions in the United States, ad hoc arbitration in the U.S. primarily takes the form of hybrid procedure arbitration and semi-administered arbitration. U.S. arbitration institutions not only provide services for fully administered arbitration proceedings but also offer services for ad hoc arbitration. Parties can decide which specific services they require from the institution and delegate certain aspects of the arbitration process to be managed by the institution. For example, the AAA refers to this as "a La Carte Services." These services include the following:
(1) Case Financial Administration Services
(2) eDiscovery Special Master Select
(3) Arbitrator Select: List Only or List and Appointment Services
(4) Arbitrator Challenges on Non-Administered Arbitrations
(5) Judicial Settlement Conference
(6) Optional Appellate Arbitration
(7) Hearing Room Rentals
France
French arbitration law does not list ad hoc arbitration as an independent legal concept, nor does it formally distinguish between ad hoc and institutional arbitration in terms of their legal significance and effects. Similarly, French arbitration law does not regulate the establishment and management of arbitration institutions, as these institutions are merely civil entities providing services in arbitration activities, whose establishment and management are governed by company law or association law, falling outside the scope of arbitration law. Regarding arbitrator qualifications, the law only requires arbitrators to be natural persons with full legal capacity (legal persons cannot serve as arbitrators, they can only administer arbitration proceedings). Under this legal framework, arbitral awards have res judicata effect but do not have the enforceability of court judgments. Parties must apply to the court for an "exequatur" before enforcement can be carried out.
France has a large number of arbitration institutions, over one hundred in total, among which the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Court of Arbitration and the Arbitration Court of the Paris Chamber of Commerce and Industry, both based in Paris, are the most influential and internationally renowned arbitration institutions.
The ICC International Court of Arbitration has specifically formulated the "Rules for the Appointment of Arbitrators" to provide arbitrator appointment services for both institutional and ad hoc arbitrations. Additionally, the industry-specific arbitration rules and reports issued by the ICC offer significant guidance for ad hoc arbitration. For example, the ICC's report on "Techniques for Controlling Time and Costs in Arbitration" provides strong practical guidance for parties managing arbitration procedures in ad hoc arbitrations.
To protect the efficient and flexible dispute resolution method of ad hoc arbitration, French arbitration legislation has created highly favorable conditions for parties seeking judicial remedies. Therefore, parties choosing France as the seat of ad hoc arbitration can ensure that their arbitration activities are fully protected by the judicial system.
France's "juge d'appui" (supporting judge) system provides significant convenience for ad hoc arbitration practice. The juge d'appui is distinctly different from judges who handle other types of arbitration-related matters, such as those exercising judicial supervision over arbitration or those responsible for enforcing arbitral awards. The juge d'appui is dedicated to facilitating the smooth progress of arbitration proceedings, particularly assisting in the successful constitution of the arbitral tribunal. In ad hoc arbitration, the arbitral tribunal assumes all case management tasks that would otherwise be shared by arbitration institutions.
Canada
Canada has not enacted specific legislation for ad hoc arbitration, and its federal arbitration law does not distinguish between institutional and ad hoc arbitration, institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration, institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration have the same legal nature and effects. Regarding arbitrator qualifications, apart from requirements of impartiality and independence, Canadian arbitration law imposes no special restrictions on arbitrators. Canadian arbitration law grants equal procedural rights to institutional arbitrators and ad hoc arbitrators and provides immunity protection for arbitrators.
Canada is one of the few Western countries where ad hoc arbitration is the dominant form of arbitration. Most domestic arbitrations in Canada are conducted through ad hoc procedures. This is partly because Canada lacks a dominant national arbitration institution like the AAA in the United States; it is also related to Canada's preference for ad hoc arbitration and its historical cultural preference for arbitration practice.
In Canada, effective arbitration practice largely depends on parties and their lawyers initiating procedures and resolving disputes constructively, rather than relying on institutions to help guide and drive the completion of such procedures. Parties and their lawyers tend to rely on institutions to provide supplementary procedural services, such as arbitrator selection and appointment, handling arbitrator disclosure and challenges, or managing the financial aspects of the arbitral tribunal, while maintaining control over the substantive aspects of the arbitration. Therefore, looking at the current development status of Canadian arbitration, its arbitration practice and development trends are more inclined to be based on ad hoc arbitration, presenting more semi-administered arbitration and hybrid procedure arbitration (hybridized arbitration).
Semi-administered or hybrid procedure arbitration is the main form of Canadian ad hoc arbitration, where arbitration institutions provide partial procedural and administrative management services to parties conducting ad hoc arbitration. The main local arbitration institutions in Canada include ADR Chambers (ADR Chambers), Canadian Arbitration Institute (ADRIC), ICDR Canada, British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre (BCICAC), and Canadian Commercial Arbitration Center (CCAC). These institutions are mostly non-profit organizations, though some are private non-profit organizations (such as ADR Chambers), demonstrating their strong civilian nature.
For example, even if parties do not agree to apply the ADR Chambers Arbitration Rules, ADR Chambers can still provide services through a "Registrar" to help parties select arbitrators, determine arbitration agreements and appointment clauses, arrange pre-arbitration meetings, and provide chargeable arbitration venues.
ICDR Canada also launched "Arbitrator Appointment Services" under its "2015 Arbitration and Mediation Rules." Under these rules, even if parties do not entrust the institution with full case management, ICDR Canada can provide assistance, dispute resolution resources, and optional services to help parties resolve disputes. In ad hoc arbitration, court-appointed arbitration, or arbitration proceedings applying UNCITRAL Rules, parties can entrust ICDR Canada's arbitrator appointment institution to appoint one or three arbitrators, for which the institution charges a fee. At the same time, it can provide services such as arbitrator selection teleconferences, notifications and service of process, arbitrator disclosure procedures, evaluation of arbitrator availability, determination of arbitrator fee rates, and assistance with payment of arbitrator fees according to the needs of the parties.
BCICAC mainly provides purely auxiliary services, such as meeting room rentals, along with corresponding free and fee-based services. Fee-based services include teleconference and audio-visual services, photocopying and fax services, secretarial support services, court reporter or language support services, catering services, and document storage services.
In Canada, various industries are led by self-regulatory organizations or authoritative institutions in conducting arbitration activities within their respective industries. For example, the Vancouver Maritime Arbitrators Association (VMAA), established in 1986, aims to establish and maintain educational standards, qualification standards, and professional conduct standards for maritime arbitrators, and to formulate arbitration procedure rules to regulate maritime arbitration behavior. In the construction industry, the Canadian Construction Documents Committee (The Canadian Construction Documents Committee, CCDC), as a national joint committee, is responsible for formulating, preparing, and reviewing standard Canadian construction contracts, forms, and guidelines. Accordingly, this organization has also formulated arbitration rules for the construction industry, which are widely used by industry entities.
Singapore
Singapore does not distinguish between ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration in law, and there is no difference in legal nature and effect between the two. Article 23 of the Singapore Arbitration Act explicitly stipulates that arbitration parties may freely agree on arbitration procedures, and if the parties have not agreed, the arbitral tribunal may conduct arbitration in the manner it deems appropriate. Parties may appoint persons outside the arbitrator roster to serve as arbitrators. The source of the arbitrator's authority is the appointment by the parties, and there is no need for the arbitration institution to confer authority; arbitrators do not need to rely on arbitration institutions to conduct arbitration activities. In addition, the Singapore Arbitration Act has no restrictions on arbitrator qualifications, and parties may even appoint foreigners as arbitrators. It can be seen that the Singapore Arbitration Act has left ample room for the conduct of ad hoc arbitration.
The main arbitration institutions in Singapore include the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA), and Singapore ICC. Singapore ICC is the case management office established by the International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Court in Singapore.
(1) Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)
SIAC was established in 1990 as a company limited by guarantee under the Singapore Companies Act. In 1991, SIAC began operations with funding from the Singapore Economic Development Board and the Singapore Trade Development Board. Initially, it mainly handled disputes in construction engineering, shipping, banking, and insurance. In recent years, SIAC has been committed to enhancing its international reputation and is now a leading Asian international arbitration institution.
In ad hoc arbitration cases, parties may request SIAC to appoint arbitrators, with the appointment fees paid by the party requesting the appointment of arbitrators.
(3) Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA)
SCMA was initially established in 2004 and managed by SIAC. In 2009, SCMA separated from SIAC and was reorganized as a company limited by guarantee. At the end of 2012, following the joint efforts of Singapore's maritime legal community, the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), the world's largest shipping organization, held a meeting in Copenhagen and officially approved the adoption of the Singapore Arbitration Clause, making Singapore one of the three major international maritime arbitration centers alongside the London Maritime Arbitrators Association and the New York Maritime Arbitrators Association.
The SCMA Arbitration Rules provide a framework for parties to conduct arbitration, but the institution does not manage cases, instead minimizing its involvement in the arbitration process to fully respect party autonomy. Services are only provided when parties need them or when arbitration proceedings are at an impasse, to facilitate the progress of arbitration. Although the SCMA Arbitration Rules were designed to meet the needs of the maritime sector, they can also be applied to ship owners/charterers, marine insurance and loss, international trade and commodities, and oil and gas industries. Since SCMA separated from SIAC in 2009, it has adopted the London Maritime Arbitrators Association model, no longer managing arbitration cases or charging management fees for cases, only providing arbitrator lists for parties to choose from, but parties also have the right to choose arbitrators outside the arbitrator list.
Hong Kong, China
The Arbitration Ordinance (Chapter 609) of Hong Kong explicitly supports ad hoc arbitration, with its legislative basis derived from the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, granting extensive procedural autonomy to arbitral tribunals. Hong Kong places no strict restrictions on the applicability of ad hoc arbitration; regardless of whether a dispute has foreign elements, the parties may freely agree to ad hoc arbitration clauses. This openness has made Hong Kong a popular venue for international commercial disputes.
Notably, the Supplemental Arrangement Concerning Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (effective 2021) further clarifies that ad hoc arbitral awards are mutually recognized and enforceable in both the Mainland and Hong Kong, providing convenience for cross-border dispute resolution.
The main arbitration institutions in Hong Kong include:
(1) Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC)
HKIAC is a leading global arbitration institution and the only statutory appointing authority for ad hoc arbitration in Hong Kong. Its service features include:
A. Ad hoc arbitration support: HKIAC provides Ad hoc Arbitration Rules and supporting services (such as arbitrator appointments and case management), and has an emergency arbitrator procedure that can take interim measures before the arbitral tribunal is constituted;
B. International and multilingual services: HKIAC Secretariat supports 10 languages, with arbitrator panels covering over 30 jurisdictions worldwide, and 93.4% of cases handled in 2022 were international disputes;
C. Innovative mechanisms: Including online case management platform (HKIAC Case Management Portal) and arbitral tribunal secretary services, significantly reducing procedural costs;
(2) China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission Hong Kong Arbitration Centre (CIETAC Hong Kong)
As a branch of CIETAC, this center supports ad hoc arbitration under the CIETAC Arbitration Rules, particularly advantageous in disputes involving the Mainland and Hong Kong. Its rules allow parties to seek interim relief through an emergency arbitrator before the arbitral tribunal is constituted.
(3) International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration (ICC) Hong Kong Office
While the ICC focuses on institutional arbitration, Article 29 of its Arbitration Rules explicitly allows for ad hoc arbitration, and related awards can be enforced through Hong Kong courts. The ICC Hong Kong Office provides procedural assistance to local and international parties, particularly excelling in cross-border financial disputes.
(4) Hong Kong Maritime Arbitration Group (HKMAG)
The main goal of HKMAG is to provide efficient and professional arbitration and mediation services for maritime and related commercial disputes. HKMAG is committed to promoting Hong Kong as a maritime dispute resolution center in the Asia-Pacific region and helps parties quickly and economically resolve maritime disputes through alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods such as arbitration and mediation. As a specialized institution focusing on maritime dispute resolution, HKMAG has become one of the most important maritime arbitration platforms in the Asia-Pacific region and even globally, thanks to its flexible arbitration procedures, professional arbitrator teams, and international perspective. The services it provides include:
A. Maritime arbitration services: Handling disputes involving charter parties, bills of lading, ship sales, shipbuilding, ship management, etc.; Providing flexible arbitration procedures, including both ad hoc and institutional arbitration;
B. Mediation services: Providing mediation procedure management to help parties resolve maritime disputes through non-adversarial means;
C. Arbitrator recommendation and management: Establishing and maintaining a professional team of senior maritime experts and arbitrators to provide high-quality arbitration services for cases and assist parties in selecting suitable arbitrators;
D. Training and promotion: Organizing training courses related to maritime arbitration and mediation to cultivate professional talent and promoting Hong Kong as a maritime arbitration center through seminars and international conferences;
E. International cooperation: Cooperating with other international arbitration institutions and shipping organizations to promote the development of maritime arbitration and participating in the formulation of international maritime arbitration rules and standards.
F. Multilingual support: Providing services in Chinese, English, and other languages to meet the needs of international parties.
(5) Hong Kong Mediation and Arbitration Centre (HKMAC)
Focusing on small and medium-sized enterprise disputes, providing flexible and cost-effective ad hoc arbitration solutions.