Every August, against the backdrop of Asia’s dispute resolution hub, Singapore Convention Week (SC Week) serves as a mirror held up to the world of dispute resolution, reflecting the evolution of ADR, its current landscape, and the future of the field. In 2025, the Convention brought together dispute resolution professionals, policymakers, and enthusiasts, and the event once again solidified itself as more than just a calendar fixture but also an integral part of the ongoing conversation about how we, as a global community, choose to resolve conflict.
This year, I had the opportunity to attend SC Week as a member of the Operations Team at the International Mediation Institute (IMI), a key stakeholder in the mediation community and a pioneer of the development and enforcement of global standards for mediators, advocates, and implementing organisations.
As a traveller, it was only my second visit to Singapore, the first time being as a wide-eyed 11-year-old tourist on a mere 4-day-long family trip. As a young professional, it was my first experience of a Convention of this scale, and I can confidently say that I carried with me the same wide-eyed wonder, this time as a young practitioner finding herself at the beating heart of global conversations on dispute resolution in a city that quietly invited you to notice the people behind the tall buildings and the stories behind the skylines.
The Origins
As a matter of history, Singapore Convention Week finds its origins in the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, signed in 2019 and entering into force in 2020. In just a few short years, the Convention has matured into a cornerstone of international dispute resolution, with nearly sixty signatories and close to twenty ratifications. By 2025, its legacy is no longer confined to the treaty itself but also lived through Singapore Convention Week, an annual event organised by the Singapore Ministry of Law. The name itself is a neat bit of wordplay; what began as a treaty ‘Convention’ has since doubled as a literal convention, where the global ADR community gathers each year to keep the story of the treaty text alive and narrate the future chapters of dispute resolution.
(I take a personal moment of pride here to share that my home country, Sri Lanka, also recently ratified the Convention.)
SC Week is nothing short of a whirlwind of sessions, ideas, and personalities. Events spill across the busy city – sometimes in parallel, sometimes one after another in rapid succession. In the same conference rooms, arbitration titans, pioneering mediators, government representatives, academics, and eager newcomers like myself come together; sometimes in animated debate, sometimes in shared laughter that echoes between the networking breaks, and often swept along in the rhythm of dashing from one event to the next.
As I moved through the week, with every panel, workshop, and networking evening, one theme took the front seat: humanity.
Systems exist for people, not apart from them.
No matter how technical the discussions, whether on AI in dispute resolution, cross-border enforcement, or treaty reform, the most powerful insights came from recognising the deeply human core of our work. Rather than provide a blow-by-blow account of every session I attended (and many more that I could not, the programme itself runs pages long, and can be found here), what follows is a reflection on the key developments and challenges in the field, emerging themes in the field of international dispute resolution, and the threads of humanity that were woven through SC Week 2025.
ADR in a Fractured World
In 2025, it is difficult to ignore the volatility of the world around us. Opening a news site or social media app each morning feels less like catching up and more like bracing for impact: a new conflict zone, another breakdown of alliances, sanctions that reshape trade routes and buckle supply chains overnight. Each headline reinforces the deepening sense that predictability is becoming rare, and fragmentation is becoming the norm.
Against this backdrop, businesses and governments are searching for anchors. Across sessions at Singapore Convention Week, one point of convergence emerged: ADR has become one of those anchors.
This theme was prominent in the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) session on ‘Arbitration’s Role in a Fragmented Global Order’. The panel discussed that, despite arbitration being in the hot seat recently, with growing criticisms over its ‘legalisation’, it is undeniable that the mechanism continues to offer clients a “neutral, efficient, and trusted forum”.
This is particularly true in the context of arbitral institutions and centres keeping pace with technological advancements. Singapore’s own institutional ecosystem demonstrates that innovation can create and promote stability. The panel highlighted Maxwell Chambers’ integrated dispute resolution model and pointed to developments like electronic case management and the modernised SIAC rules as examples of how efficiency can become a form of reassurance: “a measure of certainty in an uncertain world.”
This trajectory is not unique to Singapore. In Hong Kong, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) has pioneered the use of its Case Connect platform, providing a secure portal for electronic filing, document management, and communication between parties and tribunals. Similarly, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has adopted a digital infrastructure, ensuring that arbitration can proceed seamlessly across borders and time zones. These innovations demonstrate how institutions worldwide are striving towards a common goal: countering a volatile legal order with efficiency and certainty.
This theme was present throughout the week, with similar discussions in sessions such as ‘Is There Any Port in a Storm?: Dispute Prevention and Resolution in a Geopolitical World’, ‘Trade and Geopolitics: Navigating the Waves of Uncertainty’, and ‘Mediating Amidst Global Fractures: Bridging a Multi-Polar World’.
These sessions demonstrated that arbitration provides structure during turbulent times. At the same time, it is equally the case that clients, practitioners, and governments are not only seeking stability, but also processes they can trust. In this space, mediation has stepped in to offer a resolution that is sustainable and preserves relationships.
Evolution of Mediation
Mediation is having its moment.
If arbitration serves as a stabilising pillar, mediation increasingly operates as the bridge that connects across divides – the connective tissue of international dispute resolution. No longer confined to domestic commercial matters, mediation is steadily gaining traction in investor–state conflicts, regional trade frictions, and multi-jurisdictional disputes. Its appeal lies in its agility: inherently flexible, human-centred, and adaptive to complexity. Mediation thrives on voluntary engagement, dialogue, and trust-building. In a world marked by unpredictability, it offers what law and technology alone cannot: the ability to weave solutions across cultural, legal, and geopolitical divides, bringing a human touch to the table.
In fact, mediation has begun to shape spaces long dominated by arbitration, such as Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). While international arbitration has traditionally been the preferred and default mechanism, institutions and scholars are now actively promoting mediation as both an alternative to arbitration and a complementary tool for resolving investor-State disputes. During SC Week, sessions such as the Centre for International Law’s ‘The Roadmap to a Successful Mediation in ISDS’ highlighted how mediation is moving beyond theory into structured, practical application.
A recurring point was the perceived asymmetry of incentives: investors often want to settle quickly to unlock capital and stabilise operations, while governments can afford to wait. For state officials, moving too fast carries the spectre of personal liability, corruption allegations, or the perception of having given preferential treatment to a foreign investor.
Yet, as many panellists noted, these are often obstacles of perception rather than principle. The hard data tells a subtler story: about 18% of ISDS cases end in settlement, which means one in five government teams have navigated these same risks and found ways through. When done well, mediation enables governments to maintain strategic relationships, avoid prolonged costs, and provide economic certainty for both parties. Unlike arbitration, which resolves the past, mediation can preserve the future. That is politically powerful: it gives governments something to sell to their constituents, not as defeat, but as recovery.
Procedural scaffolding from institutions such as UNCITRAL, ICSID, and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), in the form of guidelines, rules and papers, plays a key role in supporting the use of ISM. As the panel highlighted, the unique contours of ISDS require practitioners to re-imagine and perhaps even re-design the established principles and approaches of commercial mediation. For instance, one speaker suggested a co-mediation model in ISM, where one mediator is skilled in process and another has deep expertise in public international law or sectoral regulation. Another suggestion was that confidentiality, a popular criticism against using ISM, can be recalibrated rather than discarded.
The most compelling illustration of mediation’s potential came not from theory but precedent. The Timor Sea Conciliation between Timor-Leste and Australia, conducted under the auspices of the PCA, is widely cited as a turning point. What was expected to be an adversarial confrontation over maritime boundaries transformed into a facilitated negotiation that delivered a binding resolution.
Looking ahead, panellists emphasised capacity building as the next frontier. Many states still sign treaties without internal systems to manage them, and the success of mediation will depend on plugging that gap. Institutions can help by sharing anonymised data, offering model rules and text, and training governments to approach disputes not just as litigation, but as relationship management. Some suggested even making mediation a mandatory first step before arbitration, framing it as a procedural safeguard rather than a concession. Other proposals included multi-ministry task forces, empowered to map interests (and not just legal positions) across governments and protected from political fallout.
Undoubtedly, mediation in ISDS is undergoing what one speaker called a “renaissance.” It is still fragile, and while it may not be a panacea that replaces arbitration, it offers something arbitration cannot always guarantee: a path forward that preserves both the deal and the relationship.
At the same time, a popular thread running through multiple sessions this year was the value of harnessing the synergy of arbitration and mediation in hybrid models. At the ArbitralWomen session ‘Navigating the First 100 Days of an Arbitration: Strategies for Success’, panellists, who included seasoned arbitrators, senior partners, and counsel from SIAC, concurred that combining the two processes can unlock opportunities otherwise lost in adversarial posturing. Used strategically, mediation can break procedural deadlocks, de-escalate tensions, and create space for creative settlements even while arbitration proceeds.
SIAC’s Arb-Med-Arb Protocol (AMA Protocol), for instance, has been increasingly adopted in high-value cross-border disputes. Under this model, parties have the option to commence arbitration and then suspend proceedings to attempt mediation under the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC). If a settlement is reached, it is recorded as a consent award enforceable under the New York Convention. If not, arbitration will resume seamlessly before the same tribunal. This dual-track design has the potential to reduce procedural downtime, promote early settlement, and protect commercial and diplomatic relationships.
Looking ahead, there is potential in the vision of mediation not as an alternative but as a complementary force that can position the parties’ interests at the heart of the dispute resolution process and offer the needed flexibility and trust, which, in tandem with arbitration’s structure and enforceability, can significantly increase the chances of success in resolving high-stakes disputes.
Because the stakes, though often legal, are also often equally human.
Technology in ADR
By the end of the week, it became clear that no conversation in Singapore Convention Week 2025 could escape an inevitable segue into a discussion about technology, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI). What was equally clear is that the question was no longer if technology would shape dispute resolution, but how and to what extent it should do so. Sessions such as ‘Leveraging AI and Machine Learning in International Arbitration: Tips for Practitioners’, ‘From AI to Drones: Leveraging Next-Gen Tech to Build the Winning Case’, and ‘Real Cases, Real Impact: AI in Disputes & What It Means for Women in Practice’ showcased both the possibilities and the tensions surrounding technology’s adoption in ADR.
Opinions reflected two parallel realities. On one hand, technology is already reshaping how ADR is administered. AI and digital tools promise speed, accuracy, and precision in complex cases. In mediation, it can sift through evidence, map timelines, and highlight likely areas of compromise, freeing mediators to focus on the human aspects of negotiation, such as trust-building and understanding of interests.
During SC Week, SIMC unveiled its updated Mediation AI Assistant (MAIA) 2.0, which now proposes possible interests, flags potential hurdles, and suggests settlement options. This represents a subtle but significant leap: from simply automating administrative tasks to assisting strategic thinking and decision-making. Similarly, SIAC launched its Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration (RIA) Protocol during this year’s SIAC Symposium. The algorithm combines AI-enabled case management with specialist arbitrator panels, signalling how technology can be used to make even highly complex, time-sensitive disputes more navigable.
Other institutions are also reimagining how disputes are managed. ICSID has introduced a secure online case portal and electronic filing system, which is now the default for its investor–state proceedings. Meanwhile, PCA has deployed a digital case management platform that supports virtual hearings and encrypted document exchanges across jurisdictions. On the commercial side, platforms like ODR.eu and Modria have demonstrated how entire streams of low-value cross-border disputes can be resolved online. eBay and PayPal, for instance, famously utilised Modria to process millions of consumer disputes each year without requiring human intervention. Meanwhile, contract automation tools such as ClauseBase and HyperDraft are making it possible to build “smart” dispute resolution clauses that automatically trigger agreed procedures or direct parties to designated platforms. These innovations are quietly reshaping not just the tools of ADR, but its underlying architecture, shifting it from paper-heavy, human-intensive processes toward agile, tech-enabled ecosystems.
But the more difficult questions raised at SC Week lay beneath the surface. While AI can make processes faster and more consistent, it risks distancing ADR from its human-centred foundations. In mediation, for example, AI tools may help map parties’ interests, but they cannot build trust or read emotional cues: elements that are often decisive in reaching an agreement. There is also the issue of accountability – if an AI tool’s suggestion influences a settlement, who bears responsibility if it later proves flawed or biased? What further muddies and complicates the conversation are concerns around data security and confidentiality, especially in high-stakes cross-border disputes.
Despite where you stand on AI, the reality is that technology is now inseparable from the evolution of almost everything, and ADR is no exception. Yet, for this transformation to build trust rather than undermine it, innovation must be paired with a careful commitment to transparency, ethics, and, most importantly, human judgment grounded in empathy and connection.
The Heart of ADR
Admittedly, the inspiration for the direction of this article did not strike until much later in the week, during the Young ICCA debate, held at White & Case, Singapore. The motion: ‘This house believes that nationality is a material criterion to judge arbitrator independence and impartiality’.
The first speaker, arguing in favour, opened with a line that caught in the air and stayed there: “Nationality is material because we are human. To deny nationality is to deny humanity.”
As mediators, we are taught the art and importance of reflection. All week, I realised that I had been immersed in discussions about frameworks, protocols and models. But, beneath the technical forms of dispute resolution, I began to wonder: what else makes us human? What other abstract concepts and intangible forces, such as nationality, can we not risk denying to protect our humanity? And how do these concepts bleed into the field of ADR? This final section focuses on three of these concepts that, in my opinion, are crucial for preserving the human aspects of our field: ethics, culture and community.
Ethics
Ethics can seem like the quietest voice in the room, and yet, it is undoubtedly vital.
At the session co-organised by the Law Society of Singapore and the Singapore International Mediation Institute (SIMI), ‘Walking the Line: Ethics, Advocacy and Integrity in Mediation Practice’, the panellists explored the tightrope that mediators and advocates walk: when persuasion risks tipping into pressure, when neutrality is stretched by the drive to settle, and how to reconcile party autonomy with fairness. The panel discussed how ethical practice is often framed through jurisdiction-specific codes, yet grounded in universal ideals: honesty, integrity, and respect for party self-determination.
A particularly valuable intervention came from Dorcas Quek Anderson (MI Certified Mediator and member of IMI’s Ethics Committee), who highlighted the IMI Draft Code of Conduct, currently under public consultation. Her remarks served as a reminder that institutional codes are more than compliance tools – they create a shared language for accountability and professional integrity in mediation practice.
Ethical decision-making becomes even more precarious with the use of digital tools (if SC Week couldn’t dodge the AI conversation, neither could I). Such tools can greatly enhance procedural efficiency and analytical depth, yet they also carry risks: cultural and gender biases can be unintentionally encoded, accountability can become blurred, and reliance on algorithmic suggestions could subtly influence mediator judgment.
In this context, ethics becomes not merely a guiding principle but a form of guardrail against both human and technological error. The role of institutional codes of ethics cannot be understated: by codifying best practices and setting standards for accountability, they can create a common language for ethical conduct in dispute resolution.
(Read IMI’s Code of Professional Conduct here.)
Culture
If ethics defines the compass, culture shapes the map of mediation. Our different cultural backgrounds quietly influence how we perceive fairness, interpret disputes, and conceive resolution itself. Cultural fluency is not optional, but rather essential for effective dispute resolution.
SC Week did not ignore this nuance. Several region-specific sessions underscored how mediation and arbitration are experienced differently across jurisdictions: ‘Why Seoul Matters in International Arbitration’, ‘Toward Promotion of International Mediation in ASEAN and Japan’, and ‘Building Bridges in ADR: MENA Meets Singapore’.
Sage Mediation, an IMI implementing organisation, brought together a diverse panel of speakers for its session on ‘Developments in Commercial Mediation in South East Asia’ (though not part of the official SC Week Agenda). As a Sri Lankan, this particular session was particularly resonant because, like in many South-East Asian jurisdictions such as Malaysia and Indonesia, Sri Lanka’s history and culture are deeply embedded with the practice of community-based peaceful conflict resolution and long-held norms of harmony and consensus-building.
Studying the successes and challenges of the South East Asian region in integrating ADR into their justice systems is important, as they can form the inspiration and roadmap for countries like Sri Lanka, which are still in the early stages of developing the policy framework and infrastructure to support the use of ADR to resolve disputes. This saves time, as we need not reinvent the wheel.
Cultural sensitivity and regional fluency are particularly important in the context of intergenerational dialogue and the space that the youth and young professionals occupy in ADR. As not just inheritors of ADR culture, but its future stewards, the youth can play a pivotal role in adapting mediation to contemporary commercial and institutional contexts while preserving communal norms, ethical integrity, and social trust. Because for ADR to truly thrive, it must be passed from hands that practice it to hands that are still learning, ensuring its values continue to grow, evolve, and endure.
Community
But what does it really take to preserve the ethical values of our field, to honour its cultural nuances, and to nurture the next generation of ADR professionals? While rules, frameworks, and protocols give it shape, what gives it life and moves it forward is mentorship, peer support, and collaboration.
No two events captured this better than the networking sessions that bookended this year’s Singapore Convention Week.
The week opened with ‘Breaking with the Convention’, SC Week’s own grand networking event held in the backdrop of the neo-gothic arches of CHJIMES. It delivered a lively blend of cultures, backgrounds, and perspectives, where conversations spilled as freely as SC Week’s signature cocktail (aptly named ‘Liquidated Damages’ – trust the ADR crowd to slip a legal pun onto the menu).
The week closed with a more intimate gathering at ‘Creating Connections: A Networking Evening for the Mediation Community’ co-hosted by IMI and the Society of Mediation Professionals, with support from the Singapore Mediation Centre. This time, the conversations turned inward, towards the community’s own story. Mediators and advocates stood alongside the very pioneers who first imagined IMI into existence, as well as leaders from implementing organisations and IMI’s partner institutions who now carry its work forward.
It is not difficult to realise that the relationships we form based on the common passions and ideas we share are the quiet infrastructure of any field, but especially one like ADR. These moments of human connection – unguarded, generous, and hopeful – felt like the true legacy of the week. A reminder that building a career in this field is not only about sharpening individual skills, but also about showing up for one another, across boundaries and differences.
Scenes from IMI’s Networking Event ‘Creating Connections: A Networking Evening for the Mediation Community’ co-organised with the Society of Mediation Professionals and hosted by the Singapore Mediation Center.
Final Reflections
One simple yet transformative memory from SC Week that stays with me is from a pre-networking session before a panel discussion. Having worked at IMI as part of its Operations Team for over two years now, I have exchanged countless emails, messages, and conference calls with many members of the community. I hadn’t quite imagined or expected (though in hindsight, I should have) that I would likely meet these same people face-to-face at a Convention of this scale.
As I was finding a seat for the panel discussion, I chose a spot next to someone I believed I hadn’t met before. We exchanged the usual introductions and business cards – they were a practising mediator and advocate. In a few seconds, it dawned on me why the name was so familiar: I had been managing this mediator’s IMI profile since it was first submitted for certification.
It only reinforced the same idea I have attempted to convey in every section of this article: what stands behind Gmail tabs, and the disputes typed out on printer paper, are real human beings – with real stories, histories, and motivations that define their work beyond their professional titles. In a world that often feels increasingly individualistic and fragmented, it is worth remembering that the people behind the law, policy, and procedures are what truly sustain the system.
As a final closing note, I would be remiss if I didn’t take a moment to appreciate the city that plays host to the Convention every year, and has quietly become part of the story.
Singapore is a place of paradoxes: hawker stalls nestled beneath soaring skyscrapers, centuries of heritage meeting cutting-edge innovation, meticulous order that coexists with the warmth of the Singaporean people. The city has long stood at the crossroads of cultures and commerce, one that bridges East and West, tradition and progress, pragmatism and vision. To experience SC Week is to feel two overlapping pulses: the city’s own – energetic, fast-paced, and ambitious – and ADR’s – resilient, evolving, and deeply attuned to the human currents that underpin rules, procedures, and policies.
Systems exist for people, yes. But people are also the spaces between systems.
And if SC Week is anything to go by, the future chapters of dispute resolution will be shaped not just by strong structures and foundations, but by the people who remember to make them humane.
Save the date
Singapore Convention Week returns next year – A renewed opportunity to learn, share, and shape the future of dispute resolution. Mark your calendars!
