Asia Arbitration in 2024: A Data-Led Review — And What the Last Three Years Reveal About 2026

As 2025 comes to a close, I’ve been reviewing the caseload statistics released by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), HKIAC and China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) from 2022 to 2024, together with Chambers and Partners Asia Pacific’s “Most In Demand Arbitrators” rankings.

‍Individually, thesedatasets are useful. But when you place them side by side, a clearer picture emerges — not only about what happened in 2024, but about how Asia’s arbitration ecosystem is evolving as we move toward 2026.

‍ ‍1. Hong Kong parties remain Asia’s most active — and most mobile — arbitration users.

‍Across SIAC, HKIAC and CIETAC, Hong Kong consistently appears as a top user. But SIAC’s Hong Kong party data highlights unusually sharp movement. There were 37 Hong Kong parties in 2022, rising dramatically to 1,436 in 2023, before falling back to 129 in 2024. A 38-fold surge followed by a return towards baseline indicates a disputes-driven spike rather than a long-term preference shift.

Hong Kong-related matters often involve offshore structures in jurisdictions such as the BVI and Cayman Islands, multi-party shareholder and fund disputes, clusters of related arbitrations, and cross-border joint venture and financing matters involving Mainland China, Singapore, Japan, Korea and the United States. Importantly, HKIAC’s Hong Kong caseload remained consistently strong throughout the same period.

‍What this suggests is that Hong Kong users did not migrate away from HKIAC. They arbitrated across venues depending on the disputes cycle. The constant is not the number. The constant is mobility and sophistication.

‍ ‍2. CIETAC’s scale shows how large — and international — the China-linked disputes ecosystem has become.

CIETAC remains Asia’s largest institution by volume, recording 6,013 new arbitrations in 2024, including 758 international cases involving one or more foreign parties.

‍The scale of that international caseload is significant in its own right. CIETAC’s 758 international cases exceed SIAC’s 566 international cases and HKIAC’s 352 total cases. In other words, CIETAC’s international practice alone operates at a scale comparable with — and in some respects larger than — the entire caseloads of other major Asian institutions, even before its domestic matters are counted.

CIETAC also reflects the commercial reality of Asia more accurately than many assume. Its leading foreign users include Hong Kong SAR (China), the United States, BVI, Cayman Islands, Germany, Japan, Singapore and South Korea — jurisdictions that closely mirror the principal arteries of Asia’s investment and capital flows.

CIETAC should therefore not simply be viewed as a domestic forum with occasional outbound cases. It is a gravitational centre of China-adjacent commercial disputes.

‍ ‍3. Language remains a structural barrier for non-Chinese-speaking practitioners.

Despite CIETAC’s international volume, language continues to frame who can meaningfully participate in this market. Out of CIETAC’s 6,013 new cases in 2024, only 106 adopted English or bilingual English-Chinese proceedings.

‍That means more than 98% of CIETAC cases were conducted entirely in Chinese. CIETAC’s growth therefore does not automatically translate into opportunity for non-Chinese-speaking arbitrators or counsel. The China-linked arbitration market may be immense, but a substantial part of it remains linguistically gated.

‍This is also why Hong Kong’s bilingual advantage continues to matter, and why SIAC remains attractive for China-related cases where English is preferred as the language of proceedings.

‍ ‍4. Singapore and Hong Kong remain the twin gateways to Asia’s international arbitration market.

Across SIAC, HKIAC and CIETAC from 2022 to 2024, many of the same jurisdictions consistently appear among leading users: Mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, the United States, India, South Korea, Japan, the BVI and Cayman Islands, and the United Kingdom.

That consistency points to deep regional integration rather than three entirely separate institutional markets. Singapore anchors disputes linked to India, the United States, the Middle East and major projects, while Hong Kong anchors disputes arising from China-connected transactions, offshore structures, private equity and shareholder dynamics.

Users move between both hubs. Asia’s international arbitration market is therefore not binary. It is interconnected.

‍ ‍5. The gap between who is “listed” and who is actually “in demand” remains enormous.

Institutional panel sizes illustrate just how broad the nominal arbitrator market has become. HKIAC lists 1,037 arbitrators, SIAC 847 and CIETAC 1,863. Across those three institutions alone, that amounts to 3,747 listed arbitrators.

Compare that with Chambers Asia Pacific’s “Most In Demand Arbitrators” rankings: 17 arbitrators for Hong Kong-seated and international arbitrations, 20 for Mainland China and 29 for Singapore. That is just 66 recognised positions across the three markets.

The contrast is striking. Thousands are listed. Hundreds may appear in matters. But only a comparatively small circle repeatedly enters counsel shortlists, institutional referrals and high-value appointment conversations.

Panel inclusion is access. Recall is influence.

Visibility, clarity of positioning and recognisable expertise increasingly determine who becomes part of the relatively small group regarded by the market as “safe hands”.

Looking toward 2026

Across the past three years, Asia’s arbitration ecosystem has shown itself to be mobile rather than institution-bound, heavily influenced by China without being China-exclusive, linguistically defined particularly in Mainland forums, anchored by Singapore and Hong Kong, and highly concentrated when it comes to the individuals who achieve sustained market recognition.

These dynamics have implications beyond institutional caseload statistics. For arbitrators and practitioners seeking to build their position in Asia, credentials and panel membership establish eligibility, but they do not necessarily establish market recall. Strategic positioning is therefore no longer simply about visibility for visibility’s sake. It is about being discoverable, understood and remembered within the specific markets, institutions, jurisdictions and referral networks where appointments actually originate.

If your profile is not designed for that reality, the data suggests that opportunity can remain remarkably concentrated elsewhere.

I help arbitrators design for that reality.