Islamabad (GNP): IPRI’s president noted that as Pakistan trades more and attracts investment through projects such as CPEC, most of its commercial disputes are still heard abroad in London, Singapore, or Dubai, making the country a consumer rather than a provider of arbitration services, at real cost in money, time, and confidence.
He observed that each international arbitration typically costs parties no less than two to three million pounds or dollars, and pointed to Pakistan’s recent emergence as an international mediator, including hosting US and Iran talks in Islamabad, as evidence of credibility that could be extended to commercial dispute resolution.
The Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI) held a seminar on “Can Pakistan Become a Seat of International Dispute Resolution?”, bringing together senior jurists, advocates, and arbitration specialists to examine whether Pakistan can establish itself as a venue for international arbitration and mediation. The panel concluded that Pakistan has a genuine opportunity to become an international arbitration hub, but only through sustained legal, institutional, and capacity building reform over the coming decade.
Several speakers stressed that the foundations partly exist. Pakistan is a party to the New York Convention, meaning awards made domestically can be enforced across the world, and its courts have developed a clear pro enforcement bias toward foreign arbitral awards. The panel noted the striking growth in relevant case law: whereas the arbitration framework, still resting on the 1940 Act, produced only 56 reported judgments two years ago, arbitration judgments are now emerging at a rate of around 120, with roughly 60 delivered in the last two years alone.
It was also noted that Pakistan is one of only seven countries in the world with a mandatory mediation regime, and that mediation has already saved substantial public money, including over one trillion rupees in settlements with independent power producers and a recent $6.6 billion refinery upgrade deal.
A note of caution came through comparative data. Panelists pointed out that arbitration centers established in Kenya (2013), Rwanda (2008), and Egypt (1978) have seen their caseloads remain almost entirely domestic; in Egypt, even after decades, only around 10% of arbitrator appointments were non Egyptian. A 2025 survey of African practitioners found that around 60% still chose London as their preferred seat and 18% chose Singapore, with none selecting an African seat; in the same survey, over 56% cited a strong enforcement record and 54% cited neutrality and impartiality as what makes a seat attractive. The lesson drawn was that credibility must be earned over time.
Also read: US Remains Top Export Destination for Pakistan: Andy Halus
Discussion also highlighted Pakistan’s rapidly expanding pool of arbitrators, from six to eight just two years ago to nearing 100 fellows of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators today, against Singapore’s roughly 150, the UAE’s 39, and India’s 42. Three laws are now in the pipeline: legislation to implement the Singapore Convention, a new arbitration bill based on the UNCITRAL model law, and commercial court legislation. The consensus verdict was that Pakistan can indeed become a seat, helped by clear cost advantages and current geopolitical goodwill, but that realizing it will take coordinated effort over roughly a decade.
Sohail Majeed is a Special Correspondent at The Diplomatic Insight. He has twelve plus years of experience in journalism & reporting. He covers International Affairs, Diplomacy, UN, Sports, Climate Change, Economy, Technology, and Health.
