Chiann Bao is an independent arbitrator at ArbBoutique. Bao has arbitrated almost 150 cases worth billions of dollars and was recently appointed an international judge at the Bahrain International Commercial Court. She is a past Vice President of the ICC Court of Arbitration and former Secretary-General of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), where she led the institution through a period of rapid international growth between 2010 and 2016.

At the Singapore Convention Week, she spoke to Bar & Bench's Pallavi Saluja about the Singapore-Hong Kong rivalry for Asia's leading arbitration seat, the growing role of soft-law instruments such as the IBA Guidelines, India's potential as a credible arbitration hub, and more.

[Watch Interview]

Edited excerpts follow.

Pallavi Saluja (PS): You ran arbitration institutions for several years, moved to private practice and recently joined ArbBoutique as a Partner. What drew you to this path?

Chiann Bao (CB): I've been an independent arbitrator for almost 10 years now, with a number of years in private practice in Hong Kong and New York prior to that. Since 2010, during my time at HKIAC, I have always participated in institutional work in one way or another. That experience gave me an intimate view of how companies and economies rely on private dispute resolution. It was through that closeness to the process that I came to understand that the adjudicatory role was something I wanted for myself.

What drew me initially? Curiosity. At the time, very few people in this space shared my profile, so I could not look around and say – I want to be the person or that person. Once I got comfortable with that discomfort, I felt that unplanned opportunities off the beaten path were worth exploring. And once you step off the beaten path and say yes to an opportunity that carries some risk but real potential, you jump in and enjoy it. That institutional role was all about building something: introducing the Hong Kong arbitration community and institution to the world. I hadn't set out to do that job, but I loved it. I then returned to private practice and during that period, I began receiving appointments as an arbitrator. At ArbBoutique, I thrive off the excellent and supportive company. We're united by a shared vision. Being an independent arbitrator can be a siloed life, but a collective of people who share a vision for the future of the profession, the role of technology and the next generation of arbitrators, makes it much richer.

PS: You led HKIAC through its rise between 2010 and 2016. Speaking from Singapore, there's a lot of commentary about which city will "win" as the leading Asian seat. Where do you see Singapore pulling ahead and what does Hong Kong bring to the table?

CB: I'm always struck that people discuss this rivalry rarely noting that Asia holds half the world's population and 60% of its economy. Looking at this question in the broader context begs the question - why does there have to be just one seat? Look at any pair of cities that get compared - Delhi and Mumbai; Paris and London; New York and Washington DC. There's always this attraction towards pitting one against the other and creating rivalry, but when you look closely, they're not really comparable.

I think the same is true of Singapore and Hong Kong. I've had the good fortune of living deeply in both places, embedded in their local communities. Why does it have to be one without the other? I've always believed both thriving makes each one better.

Asian companies are stronger now than ever, and not just from the two large economies of India and China. Japan, Korea and Taiwan have always had strong companies, and there's now far more intra-Asia work as well. Both cities can benefit from the commercial engagement and relationships being built by strong regional players.

Hong Kong's natural gravitas of work comes from its place vis-à-vis China and, as one of the top financial hubs in the world, it resonates with industries like corporate and financial disputes, and growing economies such as crypto and attracts interest from the Middle East and Russia.

Singapore, meanwhile, has built an incredible platform for dispute resolution generally, backed by concerted government, a stable economy and strong infrastructure. It's wonderful to see both cities play such important roles, not just in Asia but globally.

PS: Having led major institutions and served on the IBA Arbitration Committee, you have a unique vantage point on how the field has evolved. How important has soft law become in international arbitration?

CB: I find soft law hugely important - it's the lowest common denominator, offering practitioners around the world a shared language. We have our national laws and the UNCITRAL Model Law, but instruments like the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest and the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence have become so integrated into everyday arbitration practice.

It's one of the few areas where, across the board, people know what the law looks and feels like even if it's interpreted with regional variation. That common language around procedure is a key part of soft law's success.

The IBA Conflicts of Interest Guidelines really led the way in showing what soft law can achieve. For the Indian government to say, "this is a universally accepted soft law instrument, and we're going to adopt it," was a bold stance that I think deserved more celebration.

I know there's now talk of further amendments and I'm curious to see how that unfolds, especially since the IBA Guidelines themselves have since been revised. A colleague of mine has written on the evolution of this legislation. I think it's worth highlighting the thought leadership the Indian government showed in legitimising a practice that's fundamental to arbitration's credibility. I can't think of another country that's done the same.

PS: You've arbitrated well over 100 cases worth billions of dollars. How has the profile of disputes changed?

CB: The bread-and-butter disputes like energy, resources, construction, commercial trade still make up a large share of institutional caseloads. But I'm personally seeing growth in private equity, corporate disputes and new technology areas like crypto, fintech, biotech and pharma. That growth has accelerated markedly in recent years.

PS: There's ongoing debate globally about diversity on arbitral tribunals - both in terms of gender and geography. From inside an institution, do you think the profession is genuinely changing, or is progress mostly surface-level?

CB: I think there's real change. Institutions have done a phenomenal job moving the dial, and we see new arbitrators entering the field constantly. On gender diversity, certainly. On geographic diversity, I haven't noticed as marked a shift, though progress there is harder to quantify.

The conversation on diversity has had its ups and downs over the years, but ultimately what clients want is someone who gives them a fair hearing. With more arbitrators from different backgrounds in the pool, there's genuinely more choice.

PS: Some jurisdictions and users complain that arbitration has become as slow and expensive as litigation. Is that criticism fair?

CB: It's fair to the extent that arbitration can become as expensive as litigation - there are plenty of bells and whistles in institutional rules and parties and counsel can be very strategic about drawing things out. But equally, there are just as many opportunities to make the process shorter and more economical.

It comes down to educating companies on what's possible and committing to a path that leads to a more time and cost-efficient outcome. Aligning arbitrators' and counsel's calendars matters too. Transparency around cost structures and time pressures is important, and clients need counsel who give realistic, well-defined proposals on likely time and cost. It requires proactive case management - catching issues before they escalate into something that drags the process out.

PS: As both an arbitrator and a mediator, how differently do you think when you switch hats? Do you see parties moving towards mediation?

CB: Mediation is an area a lot of people have real faith in and when it's done well, it's brilliant. Part of the challenge is that mediation doesn't have a natural home for tracking statistics or evaluating success stories - it tends to happen quietly, so its successes go quietly too. It's a hugely important part of our dispute resolution system and I wish it got more attention, though arbitration understandably commands the spotlight. 

As a mediator, you have to attune yourself to what's really driving the dispute, help the parties see that for themselves and help them recognise that a mediated resolution may serve them better than arbitration or litigation, especially if they want more control and less of the unpredictability, emotion, or heat of an adversarial process. A mediator can think more laterally towards a solution, whereas arbitration follows a more structured process. As an arbitrator, you have to be more careful with your communication than you would as a mediator.

Globally, the Singapore Convention on Mediation has been a real success in drawing attention to this form of dispute resolution, because it's a concrete product that gets people talking.

PS: You've recently been appointed to the Bahrain International Commercial Court, which is modelled on the SICC. What drew you to a judicial role after building your career as an arbitrator?

CB: I was drawn to the region. There's real potential for growth there and it's culturally fascinating to me. This opportunity felt like the perfect way to gain deeper insight into how the region engages. What I love about the court is that it draws judges from all over the world with different perspectives - two Indian judges, someone from Malaysia, someone from America, someone from Korea. It's a genuinely international outfit and I wanted to be part of such an entrepreneurial initiative - one that also has ties to Singapore.

PS: How do these courts navigate enforcement challenges? What does the future look like there?

CB: There's a good deal of self-enforcement in this space, which is itself a strong endorsement of these courts' legitimacy. These international courts also communicate regularly. There's a strong community of dialogue that helps ensure their judgments withstand enforcement challenges. That said, I couldn't speak to the current state of any formal efforts to build out enforcement regimes.

PS: Some commentators have likened the SICC to a modern-day Privy Council, especially given that the BICC allows appeals to the SICC. Is that comparison fair?

CB: I wouldn't characterise it quite that way. I see it as an opportunity for collaboration and mutual learning that helps build natural relationships between jurisdictions. It's quite innovative and I think it demonstrates international cooperation in a way I hope other forums explore too.

PS: Do you see courts like the SICC as competing with arbitral institutions for the same disputes, or solving a different problem entirely?

CB: I don't see them as competitive; I see them as complementary. Caseloads have grown across the board at institutions, largely because arbitration institutions have become highly effective at promoting arbitration as a forum of choice.

International commercial courts are now promoting themselves in the same way, but I don't think one is taking away from the other; both are growing. Arbitration remains the only viable forum for many types of cross-border and commercial disputes, while international commercial courts offer a different, complementary option.

PS: India has been trying to position itself as an international arbitration hub building institutions like MCIA and DIAC, amending the Arbitration Act and pushing to reduce judicial interference. How credible is that positioning, from where you sit internationally?

CB: I've watched real growth in India over the roughly 20 years I've followed it. When I was at HKIAC, there were real issues with the enforcement of arbitral awards from certain jurisdictions, including China, which affected Hong Kong as well. Through conversations with government and bar associations, I saw that change was possible. That was one concrete moment where I witnessed real progress in India. Fast-forward another 10 to 15 years and look at how many people are now coming to India to engage in international arbitration for weeks at a time.

More broadly, the international arbitration community has benefited enormously from excellent Indian practitioners, whether based in India or practising at international firms and in courts abroad. The Indian diaspora stands out as one of the foremost sources of excellence in the field. India itself has matured too; we're now in the second and third generations of practitioners who've built entire careers in international arbitration, whether they trained abroad and returned or stayed in India and handled major arbitral proceedings. It's objectively a jurisdiction that has grown exponentially.

PS: Your team at ArbBoutique includes Indian lawyers working alongside colleagues from around the world. Has your perspective on India's growth shifted through working with them?

CB: I wouldn't say it's changed, exactly. Working with two colleagues of Indian descent on our team and regularly seeing Indian counsel appear before me, I just love how normalised it's become. It doesn't feel like an exceptional situation anymore, it's simply part of what makes international arbitration international.

PS: If you had one piece of advice for a young Indian lawyer looking to build a career in international arbitration like yours, what would it be?

CB: Be open, be curious, be excellent and work harder than the rest.