My review of Arbitration in Japan: A Practitioner’s Guide, edited by John Ribeiro and Lars Markert, has been published in German in the German Arbitration Journal (Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren): SchiedsVZ 2026, 133–134 (issue 3; subscription required). As the book itself is written in English for an international readership, here is my English translation of the review.
Translated by the reviewer from the German original, first published in SchiedsVZ 2026, 133–134.
Arbitration in Japan: A Practitioner’s Guide, John Ribeiro/Lars Markert (eds.), Kluwer Law International. 2026. ISBN 9789403520254.
Anyone working as an arbitration lawyer in Asia rarely encounters Japan as a seat of arbitration, but all the more frequently as the home of parties who settle their cross-border disputes elsewhere. Yet a Japanese arbitration system certainly does exist: it is legally sound, shaped by German influences, but at the same time underpinned by a legal market which, at least domestically, is not particularly litigious. However, it exists, as it were, in the shadow of those arbitration centres that currently dominate the Asia-Pacific region: Singapore, Hong Kong and, more recently and with growing determination, Kuala Lumpur and Seoul. Not to mention China, which in many respects belongs in a category of its own.
There is also no shortage of relevant overviews that present Japan as a place of arbitration from a non-Japanese perspective.[1] Whilst these are commendable, they are, by their very nature, necessarily concise. Until now, there has been no comprehensive reference work that covers the full scope of the Japanese arbitration system for a non-Japanese-speaking specialist audience. This anthology, edited by Lars Markert and John Ribeiro – two arbitration lawyers who have been practising in Japan for many years – aims to fill this gap. It does so successfully.
Insiders
This English-language book is divided into four parts. The first part comprises Chapters 1 to 4, which deal with Japan as a seat of international arbitration. The second part consists of a brief commentary on the Japanese Arbitration Act. The third part comprises fourteen chapters on selected topics, ranging from applicable law, the production of documents and hybrid proceedings, to sports, construction, IP and investment arbitration, as well as third-party funding and training in arbitration law. The fourth part consists of a separate English translation of the Japanese Arbitration Act, which deliberately departs from the Ministry of Justice’s semi-official translation – which is considered difficult for international practitioners to access – and instead aligns with the terminology of the UNCITRAL Model Law and current international arbitration practice.
All the contributions are by lawyers and legal scholars based in Japan, of both Japanese and non-Japanese origin. The work thus combines an insider’s perspective with an outsider’s view – a combination that works to its advantage. It was produced over a period of more than three years, conceived before the recent reform of the Japanese Arbitration Act, and implemented with renewed urgency as that reform took shape. It is up to date: the amendments to the Japanese Arbitration Act, which came into force on 1 April 2024, are taken into account throughout, and the newly established specialised arbitration chambers at the District Courts of Tokyo and Osaka are also mentioned.
Homework
Reading the book provides a nuanced picture of arbitration in Japan. On the one hand, Japan has done its homework. The Arbitration Act has been reformed on several occasions and now complies with the current standards of the UNCITRAL Model Law. The courts are regarded as arbitration-friendly. The Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (JCAA) has repeatedly modernised its arbitration rules and offers two distinct sets of rules, including the Interactive Arbitration Rules, which ‘innovatively’ adopt a procedural approach more closely aligned with civil law (though these were introduced after the Prague Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration and, in that respect, cannot claim to be innovative, at least not in the strict sense). Foreign lawyers have been permitted to represent parties in internationally oriented arbitration proceedings since 1996, and this has been gradually facilitated since then. Tokyo and Osaka, in particular, offer modern arbitration infrastructure at prices that are competitive with those of other Asian arbitration centres.
Reality Check
On the other hand, the number of cases handled by the JCAA has remained at a low level for years, well below what one might expect given Japan’s economic significance. The chapter authors note this, and several of them attempt to put it into context: Japanese companies are certainly involved in international arbitration proceedings, just not in Japan. The momentum for reform in recent years should not be measured by case numbers, but rather by the growing familiarity of Japanese practitioners with international arbitration practice and by their increasing institutional self-confidence.
This is a fair, albeit somewhat optimistic, account in places. An outside perspective suggests that the competition for attractive arbitration centres cannot be won by catch-up reforms alone. Singapore, for example, has maintained and expanded its leading position as an arbitration centre not least through continuous innovation. Ambitious competitors such as Seoul and Kuala Lumpur (Islamic finance arbitration) are also investing heavily in their arbitration infrastructure, without having achieved comparable international visibility to date. Against this backdrop, it is not immediately clear from reading the book why Japan in particular – which currently ranks, at best, in the middle of the pack among international arbitration centres and has so far not provided any particularly visible impetus for innovation beyond harmonisation with international standards – should gain significantly in importance solely through reforms and support measures. This does not detract from the value of the work. However, it is a question that arises time and again whilst reading the book.
Bridge
The real merit of this work lies elsewhere than in answering the question of whether Japan will become a popular place of arbitration or not. It lies in its function as a linguistic and intellectual bridge. Japanese arbitration law is, not least because of the language barrier, largely inaccessible to non-Japanese practitioners. What does exist there – a modern arbitration act, decades of arbitration practice, judicial case law – has, until now, been hidden behind a linguistic veil. This work lifts that veil.
The book is particularly valuable where it sheds light on the unexpected. For instance, one chapter devotes considerable space to the question of how to view the disclosure of documents in arbitration proceedings influenced by Japanese law – a practice which, in Japanese civil procedure (as in continental European legal systems), is only known to a limited extent, but is firmly established in international arbitration. The chapter’s answer is that it depends on the extent to which the proceedings are influenced by Japanese practice and how familiar the parties are with international standards. In its simplicity (which, of course, warrants further exploration in the individual case), this is an extremely practical observation. Equally practical is the in-depth discussion of legal professional privilege: in Japan, unlike in common law jurisdictions, it applies only to a very limited extent, which is of direct relevance to practitioners and arbitrators from the English, Singaporean or any other common law legal system. In this context, mention is also made of the practice, typical in Japan, of establishing independent investigation committees (third-party committees), which are appointed in the event of compliance incidents within a company and whose reports are to some extent public in nature: the author rightly describes the question of whether these reports could be regarded as privileged in arbitration proceedings as open and unresolved. For practitioners preparing for arbitration proceedings with a Japanese flavour, such insights are of considerable value.
The same applies to the chapter on the difference between domestic and international arbitration proceedings in Japan – a distinction which the Japanese Arbitration Act itself does not make, but which does in fact exist. According to the authors’ anecdotal observations, domestic proceedings have traditionally been heavily modelled on Japanese civil procedure – a system with which a German civil procedure specialist may well be familiar in some respects: pleadings submitted in stages rather than a comprehensive exchange of pleadings, and a less structured management of the proceedings. Anyone coming from the field of international commercial arbitration who finds themselves involved in a Japanese-style proceeding for the first time would be well advised to familiarise themselves with this system.
Three Chapters
Three chapters deserve special mention, as they exemplify the strengths – and, on occasion, the weaknesses – of the work.
For me, the chapter on hybrid procedures (Arb-Med-Arb and related arrangements) is one of the most insightful. The authors explain that the historical value placed on social harmony – a legacy of the Tokugawa era and deeply rooted in Japanese legal culture – has an impact on civil proceedings and, by extension, on arbitration: a Japanese arbitrator is always, in potential, a mediator as well. This is an accurate observation and useful information for a non-Japanese practitioner taking part in such proceedings. The authors’ assertion that this approach is well-suited to counteracting one of the greatest shortcomings of modern international arbitration – namely its costs – deserves wholehearted endorsement.
The chapter on investor-state dispute settlement highlights an interesting paradox: with over fifty investment protection agreements in place, Japan is one of the countries most keen on concluding such agreements worldwide. However, recourse to the arbitration mechanisms provided for in these agreements has so far been minimal. Japan has appeared as the respondent in only one ISDS arbitration proceeding. This can be interpreted in various ways: as an indication of a legal market that is generally law-abiding or dispute-averse, but also as a sign that Japan’s bilateral economic relations rarely give rise to the points of friction that lead to ISDS claims elsewhere. The chapter analyses this thoroughly, without drawing hasty conclusions.
The situation is somewhat different with regard to the chapter on maritime arbitration. The fact that the Tokyo Maritime Arbitration Commission (TOMAC), founded in 1926, has the longest history of any Japanese arbitration institution, and that its proceedings are designed as a more cost-effective and faster alternative to the London Maritime Arbitrators Association, is presented in an informative and convincing manner. Less convincing, however, is the authors’ concluding assessment that TOMAC has the potential to assume a leading role in maritime arbitration in Asia. It remains unclear why an institution with a hundred-year history, which has not yet succeeded in doing so, should achieve such a position in the future. Consequently, this assessment comes across as less analytical and more like an appeal.
Wish List
A few critical comments. In anthologies, the risk of repetition is inherent in the very structure of the work. When many authors write about a limited area of law, overlaps are almost inevitable. Consequently, there are passages in individual chapters here that have already been covered elsewhere. Fortunately, this is kept to a minimum and does not detract from the overall impression.
It should also be noted, however, that certain chapters place undue emphasis on legal history. The chapter on representation in arbitration proceedings, for example, provides an informative but very detailed account of the genesis of the Act on the Admission of Foreign Lawyers, from the diplomatic pressure exerted by the USA and the European Communities in the early 1990s right up to the most recent reforms. For the foreign practitioner who wishes to know whether and under what conditions they may appear in Tokyo or Osaka, this is of limited use. The same applies to parts of the chapter on expedited arbitration proceedings. In a future edition, it would be worth considering a more concise account of the historical background in favour of a more in-depth analysis of the legal position as it stands at that time.
Commentary
The brief commentary on the Arbitration Act – the second part of the work – deserves a mention of its own. The editors and authors have, in the words of a German civil procedure scholar, modelled it more on the Zöller than on the Münchener Kommentar: concise, focused on the essentials and supplemented by references to the purpose and legislative history of the respective provision, as well as to relevant case law, where available. For a fundamental work of this kind, this is the right editorial decision. Anyone engaging with the Japanese Arbitration Act for the first time or seeking guidance on a specific issue – such as the payment of a penalty in the event of non-compliance with an interim order issued by an arbitral tribunal[2] – will find this commentary an indispensable resource.
Verdict
Reading Arbitration in Japan has broadened my understanding – having previously known Japan mainly from the perspective of its ‘neighbouring’ arbitration centres – and has surprised me on several occasions. This is surely one of the aims of such a work, and it has been achieved. The editors deserve credit for their pioneering work, which, as they openly admit in the introductory chapter, took several years of their spare time and countless evenings to complete. The same applies to the authors, whose contributions have produced a work that fills a genuine gap in the literature.
Whether Japan will emerge as a major centre for arbitration remains to be seen. The structural obstacles are real, the competition is fierce, and the optimism of some authors does not seem entirely justified – at least from the perspective of a ‘neighbouring’ arbitration hub. But that is ultimately a different question from whether this book is worth reading. There is no doubt about that. This work is highly recommended to arbitration practitioners who deal with Japan or Japanese parties, or who may come to do so, as well as to legal scholars specialising in this field.
[1] For German-speaking specialists, examples include the country chapter by Mueller in: Salger/Trittmann, Internationale Schiedsverfahren, 2019, § 24, paras. 1258–1325, as well as Markert, SchiedsVZ 2026, 11; SchiedsVZ 2019, 242; ZJapanR 2017, 111; SchiedsVZ 2016, 15.
[2] See also Markert, SchiedsVZ 2026, 11 (16).
Translated by the reviewer from the German original, first published in SchiedsVZ 2026, 133–134.
Leave a Reply