BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Maxwell Chambers - ECPv6.2.8.1//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Maxwell Chambers
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.maxwellchambers.com
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Maxwell Chambers
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20260101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:Asia/Singapore
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
TZNAME:+08
DTSTART:20260101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20260308T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20261101T060000
END:STANDARD
TZID:Asia/Dubai
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0400
TZOFFSETTO:+0400
TZNAME:+04
DTSTART:20260101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:Asia/Shanghai
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20260101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:Europe/Helsinki
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0300
TZNAME:EEST
DTSTART:20260329T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0300
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:EET
DTSTART:20261025T010000
END:STANDARD
TZID:America/Chicago
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:CDT
DTSTART:20260308T080000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20261101T070000
END:STANDARD
TZID:Asia/Kolkata
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0530
TZOFFSETTO:+0530
TZNAME:IST
DTSTART:20260101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:America/Los_Angeles
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0800
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:PDT
DTSTART:20260308T100000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
TZNAME:PST
DTSTART:20261101T090000
END:STANDARD
TZID:Asia/Hong_Kong
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
TZNAME:HKT
DTSTART:20260101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:America/Sao_Paulo
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0300
TZOFFSETTO:-0300
TZNAME:-03
DTSTART:20260101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20260114T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20260114T193000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141039
CREATED:20251125T055529Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251125T060657Z
UID:10000749-1768410000-1768419000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:SIAC-Ciarb Debate 2026 (Hybrid Format)
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.linkedin.com/posts/siac-ciarb-debate-2026-14-january-2026-share-7397167503396753409-7pHy?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAA1K7MIBhgGfIwqxl8LvefP-rDcu6TNa0cQ
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Seminar,Singapore Events,Supported Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SIAC-Feature-Image-1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20260119
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20260120
DTSTAMP:20260909T141040
CREATED:20260119T024531Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260119T024531Z
UID:10000809-1768780800-1768867199@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:10 Questions With Maxwell Interview Series: Ashwita Ambast\, Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/2026/01/19/10questionswithmaxwell-interview-series-ashwita-ambast-permanent-court-of-arbitration-pca/#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Happenings by Maxwell Chambers
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Ashwita-Ambast-Edition-1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260122T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260123T170000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141040
CREATED:20260108T073832Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260108T073832Z
UID:10000796-1769068800-1769187600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:8th GLA Annual Arbitration & Litigation Summit Malaysia 2026
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.linkedin.com/posts/asian-international-arbitration-centre_8th-gla-2026-activity-7409512353433563137-uDBz?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAABSew7QBvhLqUvAxWHhh5_JCPTZ2Eq5qrbA#new_tab
LOCATION:Kuala Lumpur\, Malaysia\, Malaysia
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-06-at-6.13.54-PM.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260122T140000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260123T170000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141040
CREATED:20260102T064222Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260102T064222Z
UID:10000784-1769090400-1769187600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:14th ITA-IEL-ICC Joint Conference on International Energy Arbitration
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://2go.iccwbo.org/explore-our-products/14th-ita-iel-icc-joint-conference-on-international-energy-arbitration.html#new_tab
LOCATION:Houston\, TX\, United States
CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Events-Featured-Image.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260122T150000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260122T180000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141040
CREATED:20251226T035026Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251226T035026Z
UID:10000760-1769094000-1769104800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Review of Key Arbitration Developments and Decisions in 2025: Singapore and United Kingdom (Virtual Edition)
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://siac.org.sg/event/review-of-key-arbitration-developments-and-decisions-in-2025-singapore-and-united-kingdom-virtual-edition#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Singapore Events,Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/siac_logo_final_with_wordings-square-scaled.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260122T170000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260122T203000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141040
CREATED:20260108T073706Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260108T073706Z
UID:10000797-1769101200-1769113800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Annual Construction Law Update 2026
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://scl.org.sg/events-main/upcoming-events/icalrepeat.detail/2026/01/22/412/-/annual-construction-law-update-2026-22-january-2026-5-00pm-8-30pm-gmt-8.html#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Society-of-Construction-Law-Singapore.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Dubai:20260126T083000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Dubai:20260127T173000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141040
CREATED:20251006T100833Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251006T100938Z
UID:10000705-1769416200-1769535000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:14th ICC MENA Conference on International Arbitration
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://2go.iccwbo.org/icc-mena-conference-on-international-arbitration.html#description#new_tab
LOCATION:dubai
CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/icc-United-Arab-Emirates.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20260128
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20260130
DTSTAMP:20260909T141040
CREATED:20251001T070932Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251001T071430Z
UID:10000700-1769558400-1769731199@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:27th Annual IBA Arbitration Day Conference
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.ibanet.org/conference-details/CONF2693#new_tab
LOCATION:United Arab Emirates\, United Arab Emirates
CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/IBA.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260128T153000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260128T164500
DTSTAMP:20260909T141040
CREATED:20260108T073611Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260108T073611Z
UID:10000795-1769614200-1769618700@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Collaboration and Clarity: The new SCL(S) Protocol for Expert Joint Statements in Arbitration
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://scl.org.sg/events-main/upcoming-events/icalrepeat.detail/2026/01/28/415/-/hybrid-format-collaboration-and-clarity-the-new-scl-s-protocol-for-expert-joint-statements-in-arbitration-28-january-2026-3-30pm-4-45pm-gmt-8.html#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Seminar,Singapore Events,Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Society-of-Construction-Law-Singapore.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20260129
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20260130
DTSTAMP:20260909T141040
CREATED:20260129T035134Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260129T035551Z
UID:10000817-1769644800-1769731199@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Maxwell En-Route: Chiann Bao with Daniel Kalderimis KC [Season 4\, Episode 1]
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/maxwell-enroute/#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Happenings by Maxwell Chambers
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Season-4-Daniel-Kalderimis.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20260201
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20260206
DTSTAMP:20260909T141040
CREATED:20260102T065713Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260102T065713Z
UID:10000786-1769904000-1770335999@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Riyadh International Disputes Week (RIDW26)
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://ridw.org/#new_tab
LOCATION:Riyadh\, Saudi Arabia
CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Events-Featured-Image-1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Helsinki:20260205T083000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Helsinki:20260211T200000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260130T081617Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260130T081617Z
UID:10000821-1770280200-1770840000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:[3rd edition] ICC South Africa Arbitration and ADR Days
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://2go.iccwbo.org/3rd-icc-south-africa-arbitration-and-adr-days.html#new_tab
LOCATION:South Africa\, South Africa
CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Events-Featured-Image-19-1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20260211T083000
DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20260213T173000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260205T014641Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260213T034827Z
UID:10000825-1770798600-1771003800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:17th ICC Costa Rica  International Arbitration Congress
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://2go.iccwbo.org/international-arbitration-congress-of-costa-rica.html#new_tab
LOCATION:Costa Rica
CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ICC_ICC-Costa-Rica.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260211T173000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260211T193000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20251226T041158Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251226T041158Z
UID:10000761-1770831000-1770838200@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:SIArb Annual Seminar 2026 - Developments in Singapore Arbitration
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://siarb.org.sg/product/siarbs-annual-flagship-seminar-developments-in-singapore-arbitration/#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/SIArb-1.png
ORGANIZER;CN="Singapore Institute of Arbitrators":MAILTO:secretariat@siarb.org.sg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20260221T093000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20260221T170000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260205T051318Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260211T071218Z
UID:10000826-1771666200-1771693200@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:AAA-ICDR India Conference 2026
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.aaaeducation.org/student/page/3093750-icdr-india-conference-feb-21st-2026#new_tab
LOCATION:India\, India
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/AAA-ICDR-Asia-Case-Management-Centre-1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260223T083000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260224T173000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260129T082038Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260129T082038Z
UID:10000815-1771835400-1771954200@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Budapest Arbitration Days
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://budarb.com/#new_tab
LOCATION:Miami\, FL\, United States
CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/magyar-kereskedelmi-es-iparkamara.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260224T170000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260224T210000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260205T051834Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260205T051834Z
UID:10000827-1771952400-1771966800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Arbitration Masterclass: Arbitration & Insolvency: Navigating Protocols\, Practice and Policy
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://siac.org.sg/event/arbitration-masterclass-arbitration-insolvency-navigating-protocols-practice-and-policy#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Conference,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Events-Featured-Image-2.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20260225
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20260301
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20251209T060524Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251209T060524Z
UID:10000754-1771977600-1772323199@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:IPBA Annual Meeting and Conference 2026
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://ipba2026.cw3.events/#new_tab
LOCATION:New Delhi\, India\, India
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Events-Featured-Image-2.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20260226
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20260227
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260226T050316Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T050316Z
UID:10000837-1772064000-1772150399@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Maxwell En-Route: Koh Swee Yen SC with Duncan Watson KC [Season 4\, Episode 2]
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/maxwell-enroute/#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Happenings by Maxwell Chambers
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/season-4-duncan-watson-kc.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260226T190000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260226T210000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260206T073418Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T050358Z
UID:10000828-1772132400-1772139600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:SG VYAP: Climate Change and International Law
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sunitaadvani_save-the-date-sg-vyap-panel-discussion-activity-7425137085977616384-8bqG?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAC1i-TEB2Ay66YdFwF395fkvUfSrcpnXm8c#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/SG-VYAP-logo.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20260227T090000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20260228T180000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260102T035536Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260102T035536Z
UID:10000774-1772182800-1772301600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:8th ICC India Conference on International Arbitration
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://2go.iccwbo.org/8th-icc-india-conference-on-international-arbitration.html#new_tab
LOCATION:New Delhi\, India\, India
CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ICC_DRS_ICC_India.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260304T120000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260304T130000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260303T084358Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260303T084418Z
UID:10000841-1772625600-1772629200@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Building Your Career: Mentorship\, Sponsorship & Network Development
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://americanarb.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_oCp73QBnT_2ikmhKtGbR-A#/registration#new_tab
LOCATION:Virtual
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/ICDR-International-Centre-for-dispute-resolution-AAA.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260304T123000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260304T133000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260130T073344Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260223T012313Z
UID:10000820-1772627400-1772631000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:The Power of Colour - Showing up with Confidence and Presence
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/event/the-power-of-colour-showing-up-with-confidence-and-presence/
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Happenings by Maxwell Chambers
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Colour-Workshop-4-March-LinkedIn-Single-Image-Ad-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20260305
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20260306
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260305T015914Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260305T015914Z
UID:10000843-1772668800-1772755199@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:10 Questions With Maxwell Interview Series: Min Kyung Kim\, Des Voeux Chambers
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/2026/03/05/10questionswithmaxwell-interview-series-min-kyung-kim-des-voeux-chambers/#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Happenings by Maxwell Chambers
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Min-Kyung-Kim-Pg-1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260305T080000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260306T180000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260130T082643Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260130T082643Z
UID:10000822-1772697600-1772820000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:5th PCA Singapore Vis Pre-Moot
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.vismoot.org/eventer/9061/#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/PCA.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260309T090000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260312T180000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260102T021341Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260102T021341Z
UID:10000777-1773046800-1773338400@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:California International Arbitration Week 2026
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://calarb.org/ciaw/#new_tab
LOCATION:California\, United States
CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/California-Arbitration-Logo.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260310T183000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260310T193000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260109T032223Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260109T032223Z
UID:10000798-1773167400-1773171000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:SIAC Annual Appreciation Event 2026
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://siac.org.sg/event/siac-annual-appreciation-event-2026#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SIAC-Feature-Image.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Hong_Kong:20260311T183000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Hong_Kong:20260311T210000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260303T064457Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260303T064457Z
UID:10000840-1773253800-1773262800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:The role of Experts in Arbitration\, Mediation\, and Adjudication
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.scl.hk/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=136#new_tab
LOCATION:Hong Kong\, Hong Kong
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Events-Featured-Image.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Sao_Paulo:20260312T083000
DTEND;TZID=America/Sao_Paulo:20260312T200000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260102T035226Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260102T035226Z
UID:10000768-1773304200-1773345600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:14th ICC Brazilian Arbitration Day
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://2go.iccwbo.org/14th-icc-brazilian-arbitration-day.html#new_tab
LOCATION:São Paulo\, Brazil\, Brazil
CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ICC-DRS_ICC-Brasil.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260320T190000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260320T220000
DTSTAMP:20260909T141041
CREATED:20260316T090717Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260316T090841Z
UID:10000847-1774033200-1774044000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:SIAC Cocktail Reception – 23rd Vis East Moot
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://siac.org.sg/event/siac-cocktail-reception-23rd-vis-east-moot#new_tab
LOCATION:Hong Kong\, Hong Kong
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Networking
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SIAC-Feature-Image.png
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR