BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//Maxwell Chambers - ECPv6.2.8.1//NONSGML v1.0//EN CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH 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:Asia/Shanghai BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0800 TZOFFSETTO:+0800 TZNAME:CST DTSTART:20260101T000000 END:STANDARD TZID:Europe/Prague BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:CEST DTSTART:20260329T010000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:CET DTSTART:20261025T010000 END:STANDARD TZID:Asia/Kolkata BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0530 TZOFFSETTO:+0530 TZNAME:IST DTSTART:20260101T000000 END:STANDARD TZID:Europe/Paris BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:CEST DTSTART:20260329T010000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:CET DTSTART:20261025T010000 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: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:Europe/Moscow BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0300 TZOFFSETTO:+0300 TZNAME:MSK DTSTART:20260101T000000 END:STANDARD TZID:Asia/Krasnoyarsk BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0700 TZOFFSETTO:+0700 TZNAME:+07 DTSTART:20260101T000000 END:STANDARD TZID:Asia/Singapore BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0800 TZOFFSETTO:+0800 TZNAME:+08 DTSTART:20260101T000000 END:STANDARD TZID:America/Toronto BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0400 TZNAME:EDT DTSTART:20260308T070000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0400 TZOFFSETTO:-0500 TZNAME:EST DTSTART:20261101T060000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260423T080000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260423T170000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020323 CREATED:20260422T012912Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260422T012912Z UID:10000872-1776931200-1776963600@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:4th ICC Philippines 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/icc-philippines-arbitration-day.html?msdynmkt_trackingcontext=fab63b2f-76eb-4dfe-a9ae-7a5f435d0100#programme#new_tab LOCATION:Philippines\, Philippines CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Events-Featured-Image-2.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260423T083000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260424T173000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020323 CREATED:20260114T071444Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260114T071444Z UID:10000806-1776933000-1777051800@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:9th GLA Global Arbitration & Litigation 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://globallegalassociation.org/9th-event-bangkok-2026#new_tab LOCATION:Thailand\, Thailand CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Global-Legal-Association.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Prague:20260423T093000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Prague:20260423T173000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020323 CREATED:20251231T033249Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251231T033249Z UID:10000775-1776936600-1776965400@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:ICC Prague Arbitration Day 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://2go.iccwbo.org/icc-prague-arbitration-day.html#description#new_tab LOCATION:Prague\, Czech Republic CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ICC-.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20260424T080000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20260424T180000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020324 CREATED:20260219T011422Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T050353Z UID:10000831-1777017600-1777053600@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:SIAC Bengaluru 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.linkedin.com/posts/singapore-international-arbitration-centre_save-the-date-siac-bengaluru-conference-activity-7427245007545311232-A5J8?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAC1i-TEB2Ay66YdFwF395fkvUfSrcpnXm8c#new_tab LOCATION:India\, India CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SIAC-Feature-Image.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Paris:20260428T140000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Paris:20260428T180000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020324 CREATED:20260422T042751Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260422T042751Z UID:10000890-1777384800-1777399200@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:Gallery Closure: Artwork Installation 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/gallery-closure-artwork-installation/ LOCATION:Singapore CATEGORIES:Happenings by Maxwell Chambers END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260430T083000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260430T190000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020324 CREATED:20260213T025844Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260213T034539Z UID:10000829-1777537800-1777575600@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:2026 ICDR Dispute Resolution 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.aaaeducation.org/student/activity/3054603-2026-icdr-dispute-resolution-conference-apr-30th-2026?sid=3fb5b580-9ac1-48e8-9dfd-259f1bf924d0&sid_i=1#new_tab LOCATION:New York CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/AAA-ICDR.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20260502T083000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20260502T173000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020324 CREATED:20260406T031136Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260406T031136Z UID:10000868-1777710600-1777743000@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:2026 LCIA Tylney in Town Symposia in India (Mumbai) 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/save-the-date-2026-lcia-tylney-in-town-symposia-share-7444731042042785792-weoH/#new_tab LOCATION:Mumbai\, India\, India CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/London-Court-of-International-Arbitration.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Helsinki:20260505T083000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Helsinki:20260507T173000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020325 CREATED:20260114T071520Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260114T071520Z UID:10000804-1777969800-1778175000@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:Johannesburg 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://johannesburgarbitrationweek.co.za/jaw-2026-event-details/#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/Arbitration-Foundation-of-Southern-Africa-AFSA.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260505T143000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260505T183000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020325 CREATED:20260424T042532Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260424T042532Z UID:10000891-1777991400-1778005800@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:Shaping the Future of ADR in APAC | AIAC & Nine 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.aiac.world/events/965/Shaping-the-Future-of-ADR-in-APAC#new_tab LOCATION:Kuala Lumpur\, Malaysia\, Malaysia CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Events-Featured-Image-10.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260508T083000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260508T100000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020325 CREATED:20260507T073935Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260507T073935Z UID:10000901-1778229000-1778234400@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:SIArb Breakfast Club Launch 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/siarb-breakfast-club-launch/#new_tab LOCATION:Singapore CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Singapore Events ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Events-Featured-Image-9.png ORGANIZER;CN="Singapore Institute of Arbitrators":MAILTO:secretariat@siarb.org.sg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20260509T083000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20260509T173000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020325 CREATED:20260406T031101Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260406T031101Z UID:10000862-1778315400-1778347800@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:2026 LCIA Tylney in Town Symposia in India (New Delhi) 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/save-the-date-2026-lcia-tylney-in-town-symposia-share-7444731042042785792-weoH/#new_tab LOCATION:New Delhi\, India\, India CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/London-Court-of-International-Arbitration.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20260515T083000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20260515T173000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020326 CREATED:20260102T071632Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260102T071632Z UID:10000787-1778833800-1778866200@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:Cyprus 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://cad.com.cy/#new_tab LOCATION:Limassol\, Cyprus CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Events-Featured-Image-2.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260520T140000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260520T180000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020326 CREATED:20260430T091203Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260430T091203Z UID:10000892-1779285600-1779300000@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:SIAC Manila 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.linkedin.com/posts/siac-manila-conference-2026-20-may-2026-share-7452551524502671361-jmfs/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAABSew7QBvhLqUvAxWHhh5_JCPTZ2Eq5qrbA#new_tab LOCATION:manila\, Philippines CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Singapore-International-Arbitration-Centre-1.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260520T173000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260520T203000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020326 CREATED:20260424T035627Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260507T073810Z UID:10000889-1779298200-1779309000@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:SIArb Annual Debate 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://siarb.org.sg/product/siarb-annual-debate-2026/#new_tab LOCATION:Singapore CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Singapore Events ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Events-Featured-Image-9.png ORGANIZER;CN="Singapore Institute of Arbitrators":MAILTO:secretariat@siarb.org.sg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260521T120000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260521T140000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020326 CREATED:20260507T074324Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260507T074324Z UID:10000902-1779364800-1779372000@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:SIArb Fellow Roundtable Masterclass Series – Lunch Session 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/siarb-fellow-roundtable-masterclass-series-lunch-session/#new_tab LOCATION:Singapore CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Singapore Events ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Events-Featured-Image-9.png ORGANIZER;CN="Singapore Institute of Arbitrators":MAILTO:secretariat@siarb.org.sg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Krasnoyarsk:20260525T083000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Krasnoyarsk:20260529T173000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020326 CREATED:20260513T030314Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260513T030353Z UID:10000907-1779697800-1780075800@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:Vietnam ADR 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://www.viac.vn/en/news-events/vietnam-adr-week-2026-vaw-2026-arbitration-adr-embracing-new-heights-n2419.html#new_tab LOCATION:Vietnam\, Viet Nam CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Singapore-International-Arbitration-Centre-1.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260527T080000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260527T170000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020327 CREATED:20260513T025444Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260513T025444Z UID:10000899-1779868800-1779901200@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:SIAC Annual China Conferences 2026 – Shanghai 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-china-conferences-2026-shanghai#new_tab LOCATION:Beijing\, China\, Beijing\, China CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Singapore-International-Arbitration-Centre.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260527T080000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260529T180000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020327 CREATED:20260120T013303Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260120T013303Z UID:10000812-1779868800-1780077600@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:ICC PANARB 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://2go.iccwbo.org/icc-panarb-conference.html#new_tab LOCATION:Panama\, Panama CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Events-Featured-Image-17.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20260528 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20260529 DTSTAMP:20260910T020327 CREATED:20260528T080926Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260528T080926Z UID:10000918-1779926400-1780012799@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:10 Questions With Maxwell Interview Series: Mohammed Reza\, Withers KhattarWong 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/2026/05/28/10questionswithmaxwell-interview-series-mohammed-reza-withers-khattarwong/#new_tab LOCATION:Singapore CATEGORIES:Happenings by Maxwell Chambers ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Mohammed-Reza-Pg-1-1.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260529T080000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260530T210000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020327 CREATED:20260316T093300Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260316T093300Z UID:10000849-1780041600-1780174800@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:[Save the Date] Global VYAP 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.linkedin.com/posts/global-vyap-network_save-the-date-global-vyap-conference-2026-activity-7439188106576076800-ULQn?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAC1i-TEB2Ay66YdFwF395fkvUfSrcpnXm8c#new_tab LOCATION:London\, United Kingdom CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific,Singapore Events ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Events-Featured-Image-19.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260529T083000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260529T173000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020327 CREATED:20260513T031016Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260522T023317Z UID:10000906-1780043400-1780075800@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:SIAC Annual China Conferences 2026 – Shenzhen\, China 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-china-conferences-2026-shenzhen#new_tab CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Singapore-International-Arbitration-Centre-1.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20260601 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20260606 DTSTAMP:20260910T020327 CREATED:20260102T073007Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260102T073007Z UID:10000788-1780272000-1780703999@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:London International Disputes Week (LIDW26) 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://lidw.co.uk/#new_tab LOCATION:London\, United Kingdom CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Events-Featured-Image-3.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Paris:20260604T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Paris:20260605T180000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020327 CREATED:20260102T034648Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260102T034648Z UID:10000778-1780563600-1780682400@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:10th ICC Africa 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-africa-conference-on-international-arbitration.html#new_tab LOCATION:Lagos\, Nigeria\, Nigeria CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ICC_DRS_ICC_Nigeria.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20260607T090000 DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20260610T180000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020327 CREATED:20251231T025148Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251231T025247Z UID:10000769-1780822800-1781114400@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:CanArbWeek 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:http://www.CanArbWeek.org#new_tab LOCATION:Toronto\, Canada CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Events-Featured-Image-10.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Paris:20260611T083000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Paris:20260611T173000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020327 CREATED:20260422T012630Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260422T012630Z UID:10000866-1781166600-1781199000@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:Italian 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://italianarbitrationday.com#new_tab LOCATION:Italy\, Italy CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Italian-Arbitration-Week.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Helsinki:20260614T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Helsinki:20260615T170000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020327 CREATED:20251230T034810Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251230T034810Z UID:10000763-1781427600-1781542800@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:15th Baltic Arbitration Days in Riga and Jurmala 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.balticarbitration.legal/#new_tab LOCATION:Latvia\, Latvia CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/15th-Baltic-Arbitration-Days.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260617T150000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260617T180000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020328 CREATED:20260604T032551Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260604T032626Z UID:10000921-1781708400-1781719200@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:Arbitration in Times of Conflict: Force Majeure\, Sanctions and Disruption (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/arbitration-in-times-of-conflict-force-majeure-sanctions-and-disruption-virtual-edition#new_tab LOCATION:Singapore CATEGORIES:Singapore Events ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/SIAC-Logo-550x250-1.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Paris:20260618T173000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Paris:20260618T210000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020328 CREATED:20260422T012707Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260422T012707Z UID:10000863-1781803800-1781816400@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:Ciarb Roebuck Lecture 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.maxwellchambers.com/event/https-www-ciarb-org-events-roebuck-lecture-2026/ LOCATION:London\, United Kingdom CATEGORIES:Outside of Asia-Pacific ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/ciarb.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260619T000000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20260619T235900 DTSTAMP:20260910T020328 CREATED:20260619T083104Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260619T083306Z UID:10000937-1781827200-1781913540@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:[Maxwell Challenge] Interview Series: Mugeni Siwale Mulenga\, Former Judge of the Constitutional Court 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/2026/06/19/theprivatecaucus-conversations-in-confidence-interview-series-mugeni/#new_tab LOCATION:Singapore CATEGORIES:Happenings by Maxwell Chambers ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Mugeni-page-1.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Krasnoyarsk:20260619T163000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Krasnoyarsk:20260619T183000 DTSTAMP:20260910T020328 CREATED:20260612T061800Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260612T061800Z UID:10000934-1781886600-1781893800@www.maxwellchambers.com SUMMARY:THAC- Reinventing ADR in the Digital Age 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/reinventing-adr-in-the-digital-age-join-share-7470108214164934656-BVEl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAA1krKAB0MPn_5eLHORhapXBFzvBmAWiug8#new_tab LOCATION:Thailand\, Thailand CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Events-Featured-Image-17.png END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR