ICDPASO Commercial Arbitration Rules Interpretation SeriesArticle 50: Application of Information Technology

With the rapid development of information technologies such as the internet and artificial intelligence, the integration of technological tools into the legal services field is an evolving trend. On one hand, the advancement of information technology creates new opportunities to enhance procedural efficiency, reduce the costs of rights protection, and increase the transparency of case management. On the other hand, the proliferation of electronic evidence and online hearings also presents challenges to the rigor, legality, and compliance of arbitral proceedings conducted under traditional models.

I.Text of Article50 “Application of Information Technology”

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the Court of Arbitration or the Arbitral Tribunal may conduct all or part of the arbitral proceedings with the help of information technology, including but not limited to online case filing, online service of process and online case hearing.

II.Provision Positioning and Basic Approach

Article 50 represents the ICDPASO Rules' responsive provision addressing the digitalization needs of arbitral proceedings. This provision does not impose the use of information technology as a mandatory obligation, recognizing the significant disparities in internet accessibility and usage habits globally. Simultaneously, it does not treat technology as an exceptional measure, given that the application of information technology is a foreseeable trend amidst the development of the internet and artificial intelligence. Therefore, at the current stage, the rule prioritizes party autonomy while authorizing the Court of Arbitration and the arbitral tribunal to decide whether and how to employ information technology based on the specific circumstances of each case.

III. Analysis of Core Elements

(A) Party Autonomy as the Fundamental Premise

The opening phrase, "Unless otherwise agreed by the parties," establishes the supremacy of party autonomy. From a practical perspective, while information technology offers convenience, it may also pose challenges to the participation capabilities of some parties. This provision treats "explicit party objection" as a condition for excluding the application of technology, thereby preventing individual parties from using technological reasons to delay proceedings and also preventing the tribunal from forcibly conducting online procedures when parties face genuine difficulties.

The underlying logic of these rules aligns with ICDPASO Article 50 – the decision-making authority regarding technology rests with the arbitral tribunal, but the parties' procedural expectations must be respected. ICDPASO Article 50 elevates this respect by prioritizing party agreement, providing clearer protection for the parties' procedural rights.

(B)Division of Responsibilities between the Court of Arbitration and the Arbitral Tribunal

The provision jointly authorizes "the Court of Arbitration or the Arbitral Tribunal," addressing the practical needs at different stages of the arbitration.

The Court of Arbitration primarily functions before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, handling matters such as online case filing review and electronic service of arbitration documents.

The Arbitral Tribunal assumes full responsibility for case management after its constitution, including decisions on whether to adopt technologies such as online hearings, electronic exchange of evidence, and remote cross-examination.

It is important to note that decisions regarding technology made by the Court of Arbitration in the early stages of the proceedings are not binding on the arbitral tribunal. After its constitution, the tribunal may reassess and adjust the approach based on the progress of the case. This arrangement prevents preliminary decisions from over-committing subsequent proceedings.

(C)Open-Ended and Extendable Scope of Application

The provision explicitly states that "all or part of the arbitral proceedings" may be conducted with the help of information technology and lists the most common scenarios: "online case filing, online service of process and online case hearing."

The phrase "including but not limited to" reserves space for the application of emerging technologies in the future. For example, technologies such as blockchain evidence storage or AI-assisted issue identification may not yet be mature or widespread, but if conditions become favorable, the arbitral tribunal can decide on their use based on this provision. The provision does not specify "which technologies can or cannot be used" but rather entrusts this discretion to the tribunal. The tribunal can assess and decide on a case-by-case basis, considering factors such as the nature of the dispute, technological maturity, and the parties' capacity to participate.

IV. International Perspective: From Emergency Measure to Standard Procedure

The application of information technology in arbitral proceedings was initially often treated as a contingency alternative under specific circumstances. Currently, major arbitral institutions are progressively incorporating information technology into standard procedures through rule revisions or guideline issuance.

The ICC Arbitration Rules (2021) Article 26.1①provides that the arbitral tribunal, after consulting the parties, may decide to hold hearings in person or remotely via videoconference, telephone, or other appropriate means of communication based on the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The SIAC Rules (2025) Article 4, paragraphs (1) and (2) (Communications)② recognize communication through electronic systems (including the SIAC Gateway), covering online case filing and service; Article 39.2 (Hearings)③ explicitly authorizes the arbitral tribunal to decide to conduct hearings via videoconference or other means. HKIAC Rules (2024) Article 13.1 (Conduct of Proceedings)④ requires the arbitral tribunal, when adopting suitable procedures, to consider the efficient use of technology.

ICDPASO Article 50 was formulated during the mature phase of this evolutionary cycle. This provision does not use temporary or exceptional phrasing such as "under special circumstances" or "if necessary," but rather positions itself directly as a standard authorization clause. This indicates that, within ICDPASO arbitration proceedings, the role of information technology is no longer that of an "emergency substitute," but rather a standard option coexisting with in-person procedures.

V. Practical Advantages of this Article

First, Efficiency Gains and Cost Reduction are Tangible Benefits.Online case filing and electronic service significantly shorten document transmission time; online hearings eliminate the complexities and expenses of international travel. For cases with smaller amounts in dispute and relatively clear facts, the cost savings from technology are particularly pronounced.

Second, Procedural Continuity is Better Ensured.In international arbitration, it is common for parties, arbitrators, and witnesses to reside in different countries. Information technology allows participants to avoid scheduling hearings based on geographic convenience and prevents adjournments due to temporary unavailability of individual members. This benefits the predictability and stability of the procedure.

Third, Clear Rule Basis Helps Reduce Procedural Disputes.Article 50 provides direct rule-based authorization for tribunals to implement online procedures, preventing unnecessary procedural disputes between parties over issues such as "whether online hearings comply with due process" or "whether electronic service is effective."

However, it is also important to note: the provision provides the authority for tribunals to adopt information technology, but this does not automatically render online procedures legitimate. In each case, the tribunal must still consider: whether the parties' technological conditions for participating in online proceedings are equivalent, whether evidence presentation might be restricted, and whether the cross-examination process might be weakened due to technical factors. These factors directly affect the fairness of the award and its future enforceability.

Conclusion

Article 50 of the ICDPASO Commercial Arbitration Rules accomplishes an institutional affirmation through a concise provision: information technology is no longer an exceptional option in arbitration proceedings, but rather a standard path coexisting with in-person procedures. Rooted in party autonomy, this provision grants layered authorization to the Court of Arbitration (pre-constitution) and the arbitral tribunal (post-constitution), and reserves space for future technological applications through the open-ended phrase "including but not limited to," solidifying the role of information technology from an "emergency substitute" to a standard option alongside in-person proceedings.

①ICC Arbitration Rules (2021), Article26.1:A hearing shall be held if any of the parties so requests or, failing such a request, if the arbitral tribunal on its own motion decides to hear the parties. When a hearing is to be held, the arbitral tribunal, giving reasonable notice, shall summon the parties to appear before it on the day and at the place fixed by it. The arbitral tribunal may decide, after consulting the parties, and on the basis of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, that any hearing will be conducted by physical attendance or remotely by videoconference, telephone or other appropriate means of communication.

②SIAC Administered Arbitration Rules (2025) art.4.1 Unless otherwise required under these Rules, the parties shall deliver all written communications to all parties, the Tribunal, and the SIAC Secretariat in accordance with Rule 4.3 or Rule 4.4. Such written communications may be delivered by any means of communication that provides or allows for a record of transmission, including by hand, registered mail or courier service, email, or any other means which provides a record of the attempt to deliver it.

See SIAC Administered Arbitration Rules (2025) art.4.2 Upon notifcation of the commencement of the arbitration and at any stage of the arbitration thereafter, after considering the views of the parties and the Tribunal, the Registrar may direct the parties to upload all written communications to SIAC Gateway.

③See SIAC Administered Arbitration Rules (2025) art.39.2 The Tribunal shall, after considering the views of the parties, set the date, time, and format of any hearing and shall give the parties reasonable notice. The hearing may be conducted in-person, at a location determined by the Tribunal as appropriate after consulting with the parties, in hybrid form, or by videoconference, teleconference, or any other form of electronic communication.

④HKIAC Rules (2024), Article 13.1:subject to these Rules, the arbitral tribunal shall adopt suitable procedures for the conduct of the arbitration in order to avoid unnecessary delay or expense, having regard to the complexity of the issues, the amount in dispute, the effective use of technology, information security, and environmental impact, and provided that such procedures ensure equal treatment of the parties and afford the parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case.