Lucy Reed was recently appointed president of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). Reed says she isn’t planning big changes; instead, she wants to refine SIAC’s winning formula.
ALB: Can you tell me about your career and what brought you to arbitration?
Reed: I graduated from law school in the United States in 1977. I’ve had a long career doing several different things, but all of them have focused, directly or indirectly, on international dispute resolution. What brought me to international arbitration was the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. As part of the resolution of the hostage and financial crises, Iran and the U.S. set up an unprecedented tribunal in The Hague to resolve disputes between U.S. investors in Iran and the government of Iran and vice-versa. In my first firm as a young lawyer, we had 40 cases at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal. Later I joined the State Department and became the U.S. Agent at the Tribunal. I worked on scores of cases, and that was my immersion in international arbitration.
ALB: What are your plans for your new role at SIAC?
Reed: I was really pleased to accept the appointment because I’ve been a vice-president of the SIAC Court for several years. SIAC’s structure is interesting, different from other arbitration institutions. There is a Board on the business side, which Davinder Singh SC chairs, and which I was recently asked to join. The Court deals with the law, the rules, the cases, the arbitrators - it’s more the legal thought leadership centre. The Court has one president and two vice-presidents, and about 25 other people. Under the way the SIAC Rules work, the president and the vice-presidents do most of the heavy lifting — appointing arbitrators, dealing with challenges to arbitrators, case management. It was natural that when Gary Born decided to step down as president, I would take on the role because of my experience and familiarity with the people on the ground, with the Singapore government and the arbitration community.
I think SIAC does an absolutely terrific job. Singapore is now tied with London as the most preferred seat for international arbitration in the world, and the leading place for arbitration in the Asia-Pacific. That position should be protected.
What I want to do now is step back, work with my colleagues, and ask, “Why do we do this this way? Shall we tweak things? Should we shift resources?” So, I anticipate and am excited about making some changes, but certainly not big ones because SIAC is already a great success.
ALB: What advantages does Singapore have, and what challenges could it face in maintaining its reputation?
Reed: In Singapore international dispute resolution is an industry. It is second only to The Hague as a place where international dispute resolution is so important, and people go to get the benefits of international law processes. The legislation is excellent, the courts are excellent, judges know arbitration – there is a strong rule of law. Singapore also pioneered the idea of an integrated arbitration centre, Maxwell Chambers. Besides arbitration, you have the Singapore International Mediation Centre, the Singapore International Commercial Court, and the whole infrastructure of airports, hotels, and so on. Davinder Singh likes to call it an “ecosystem” international dispute resolution. It is not matched anywhere in the world. But of course, it’s also a competitive field. There are other very successful centres: The ICC in Paris, the London Court of International Arbitration, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, the American Arbitration Association. Those institutions have copied certain things from Singapore and vice-versa.
The challenge is for SIAC to coordinate with them and provide top service for users internationally. It’s not enough to say we’re the best in Singapore, or the best in the Asia-Pacific or Southeast Asia, because a really international institution should not limit itself to regional assessments of diversity and equality.
ALB: How has the pandemic impacted the arbitration process?
Reed: On the one hand, the pandemic virtual meetings, facilitated by SIAC and Maxwell Chambers and others, have made it easier to get the participants together. Putting time zones aside, you could say COVID has erased borders in the developed world.
On the other hand, there are Internet and IT access challenges in much of the developing world. And two-dimensional witness examination is difficult. Going forward I predict we will be discriminating. For more complex matters the hearings will be in person. If it’s a minor matter, say a one-hour hearing or three-person meeting that doesn’t justify the environmental, financial or jet lag cost, we’re going to continue to use this virtual platform. And there will be hybrids, in which participants will gather in person and remotely in a first-class tech environment.
To contact the editorial team, please email ALBEditor@thomsonreuters.com.
