Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) matters to Indian businesses more than any other foreign institution, for one simple reason: Indian parties are among its heaviest users. For decades, when an Indian company signed a significant cross-border contract, the arbitration clause frequently pointed to Singapore rather than to India. ## History and status SIAC was founded in 1991 and is a not-for-profit company based in Singapore. It sits at the centre of a deliberately built state-backed dispute-resolution ecosystem that also includes the Singapore International Mediation Centre and continuous rule modernisation. ## Scale and rules SIAC administered 625 cases in 2024, with disputes worth approximately USD 11.86 billion. It operates under the SIAC Rules 2025, the seventh edition, which include the expedited procedures, emergency arbitrator provisions, consolidation and early-determination powers that now define leading institutional practice. ## Arb-med-arb SIAC's most distinctive offering, developed with the Singapore International Mediation Centre, is the arb-med-arb protocol. An arbitration is formally commenced and then paused while the parties attempt mediation. If mediation produces a settlement, it can be recorded as a consent award — which carries the enforceability of an arbitral award rather than merely a contract. If mediation fails, the arbitration simply resumes. This structure resolves a genuine problem: parties often want mediation's speed and control but worry about wasting time if the other side is not serious. Arb-med-arb gives them mediation's upside with arbitration already in place as a backstop. ## Enforceability in India Because both Singapore and India are parties to the New York Convention, a SIAC award is enforceable in India under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, subject to the limited statutory grounds on which enforcement may be refused. This enforcement architecture is a substantial part of why Indian parties have been willing to seat disputes abroad. ## The Indian context SIAC's heavy Indian caseload is precisely what Indian institutions are working to win back. The MCIA now offers comparable rules at lower cost with an Indian seat, and its growing share of organic-clause work suggests domestic institutions can retain Indian disputes when they perform. For a purely domestic Indian dispute, an Indian seat is usually the more practical choice; see the guide to drafting an arbitration clause for how to weigh seat and institution.