ALSA Academic Journal

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Laos

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Laos

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Laos


Phoudthida Soukaloun

Soudalath Limmany


ALSA National Chapter: Laos

  1. Introduction

Laos is in the midst of relatively rapid economic growth and development. The economic growth generates various problems in the term of economic sector and in another area therefore it is needed to look for significant methods to resolve the disputes effectively.

These are the key issues that this country has been facing; in particular, the disputes between parties in their business operations are considered to be a serious issue for their business. Laos, in common with most other countries, does have an alternative dispute resolution includes dispute resolution processes and proceeding that act as a means for disagreeing parties to combat each other to reach an agreement without disagreement on the justice system for both party.


Challenges and Prospects regarding Arbitration for Sports in Korea

Challenges and Prospects regarding Arbitration for Sports in Korea


Jiwoon Jung

Seunghyun Kye

Sanghyun Lee

Minjae Oh


ALSA National Chapter: Korea


Sovereignty Immunity on International Arbitral Awards in Asia:  Based on New York Convention and Domestic Law in Asia on Sovereign Immunity

Sovereignty Immunity on International Arbitral Awards in Asia:

 Based on New York Convention and Domestic Law in Asia on Sovereign Immunity


Kenshiro Yamashita

Tatsuya Emoto

Kazuki Watanabe

ALSA National Chapter: Japan



             As the world is slowly moving into an integrated economy, the number of disputes regarding international commercial transaction has been increasing. Solving these disputes within the domestic courts has many challenges, such as jurisdiction problems, implementation of laws and enforcement of foreign judgement, due to the fact that most countries have sovereignty aspect in order to uphold their national law. On the other hand, international commercial arbitration has features such as neutrality aspect or flexibility of legal procedure. Also, Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral awards (hereinafter referred to the New York Convention realizes that enforcement of international arbitration awards enough about disputes between private actors. However, can disputes between sovereignty and private actor be solved with international commercial arbitration the same way as it is between private actors? Although international commercial arbitration has the authority to make judgement, it is questionable whether that judgement can be enforced or not. The purpose of this article is to answer the question from the viewpoint of international and domestic law on sovereignty immunity around Asia.


Public Policy in the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Indonesia: A Truly Unruly Horse?

Public Policy in the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Indonesia:

A Truly Unruly Horse?


Vinka Damiandra Ayu Larasati

Aldwin Octiavianus Wijaya

ALSA National Chapter: Indonesia



Public policy is one of the most popular grounds invoked by parties to international arbitration to evade enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Up to these days, it remains a highly debated and controversial subject, as national courts often took lenient approach when applying such concept in international arbitration. In preventing courts’ lenient approach, the International Law Association (ILA) has formulated a restrictive “international standard” of public policy defence, so that parties may benefit from a universally accepted concept of public policy.[1] However, the diversity in national courts’ attitude when applying such concept has made this task virtually impossible.


Two is Company but Three is a Crowd

Two is Company but Three is a Crowd


Oliver Lam

 Josie Lee

ALSA National Chapter: Hong Kong

Third party funding refers to the act of providing financial assistance to a beneficiary, to  cover legal expenses, in exchange for a percentage of any positive awards obtained.[1] Traditionally, the concept of third party funding in common law jurisdictions has been fervently discussed in the context of litigation, wherein it encountered fierce opposition due to its potential to promote frivolous claims. Furthermore, due to its direct correlation with the notions of champerty and maintenance it was also considered to be parasitic and unethical as it reduced the administration of justice into little more than an investment vehicle. However, this position has since been revised as all common law jurisdictions have either abolished or relaxed their domestic regulations against third party funding. Subsequently, the idea of third party funding has become increasingly popular in the realm of international arbitration as stakeholders have begun to see great potential in its ability to invigorate commercial activity and to create a level playing field.


Making Progress: Brunei Darussalam as a Hub for Arbitration of Islamic Financial Disputes in Asia

Making Progress: Brunei Darussalam as a Hub for Arbitration of Islamic Financial Disputes in Asia


Arif Azhan bin Awang Besar

Adi Iskandar Safwan bin Zuliskandar

ALSA National Chapter: Brunei

  1. Introduction

A 2012 Huffington Post article reports that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for family law may cost USD 500-3,000 whereas the same case may cost USD 15,000-35,000 if brought to court.[1] Based on this estimation, at least for family law disputes in the United States, litigation may cost five to 70 times more than ADR. The generally higher costs of litigation are attributable to its rigid need for formal procedures and rules of evidence.[2] In addition, litigation also consumes much of a person’s time, possibly tarnishes their public reputation and sours their relations with others. From these facts alone, there is no denying that ADR comes with glaringly greater benefits than courts. Thus, it would be a wonder why litigation is still the default method of resolving disputes in Brunei, if not for the fact that ADR is still relatively unknown there and because its specifics are yet to be sorted, which will be discussed later. This article, however, will not focus on the benefits of ADR over litigation, which by now is already quite well-known and widely written about. This article will instead argue that, in consideration of the country’s history and customs, ADR should be utilised far more than it is now. The current situation with ADR in Brunei will also be examined, which will show considerable potential for further development of the mechanism, perhaps even to the point of the Sultanate becoming a niche arbitral hub in the region.


International Arbitration in Australia: Rationalizing the Creep of Judicialisation alongside Commercial Necessity

International Arbitration in Australia: Rationalizing the Creep of Judicialisation alongside Commercial Necessity


Adrian Vincent[1]


This paper discusses the growing concern of judicialisation alongside the varying criticisms attached to international commercial arbitration in Australia. The author will argue that despite the trajectory of increased legalism, costs and formality— this will not dispense with the strong position that international arbitration bears in international commerce and the prudence of addressing the intervening inefficiencies rather than resorting to traditional litigation.