LettersHow dispute resolution rules can evolve to meet business needs

Readers discuss three necessary adaptations for legal services, compare their experiences in the Hong Kong and Boston airports, and reminisce about America’s founding ideals

3-MIN READ3-MIN

Listen

A Star Ferry sails past the Hong Kong skyline in Victoria Harbour. Hong Kong plans to set up an international commercial court specialising in adjudicating major cross-border disputes. Photo: AFP

Published: 11:30am, 8 Jul 2026

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at [email protected] or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words.

The 2026 ICC China Arbitration Day which I attended last week in Chengdu, held just weeks after new International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration rules entered into force on June 1, highlighted a structural shift in global dispute resolution.

As businesses navigate an increasingly volatile macroeconomic landscape, the traditional model of international legal services must adapt or risk losing its utility to clients. These are challenges Hong Kong must grapple with as it moves ahead with its plan to set up an international commercial court within the coming year.

To remain a resilient framework for international commerce, arbitration must be anchored in three core transformations.

First, we must have the courage to dismantle outdated anachronisms. The abolition of the decades-old Terms of Reference under the new ICC rules is a masterclass in regulatory streamlining. Historically required under older continental traditions, the requirement had devolved into a formulaic hurdle that added costs and delays without proportional value. Replacing it with agile, multi-speed architectures, including highly expedited three-month procedures and robust early-determination rules, directly addresses the commercial demand for speed and predictability.

Second, the legal community must establish a definitive red line regarding artificial intelligence. While AI is a powerful tool for efficiency, the core act of adjudication must remain strictly non-delegable. Procedural fairness is not synonymous with substantive justice; commercial parties do not seek algorithmic coin tosses, but rather the nuanced context and equity of human judgment.