SAKURA Law Office | Legal Update by Managing Partner Kenshiro Michishita

September 28, 2026 (fully revised October 5, 2026)

SAKURA Law Office | Kenshiro Michishita, Managing Partner

SAKURA Law Office has fully revised Legal Update No. 19 by Managing Partner Kenshiro Michishita, addressing international arbitration as a transaction-design and dispute-management discipline rather than a boilerplate alternative to court litigation.

For General Counsel and deal teams, the commercial value of arbitration depends on a chain of choices made long before a request for arbitration is filed: the scope of the arbitration agreement, seat, institution and rules, tribunal composition, procedural language, substantive governing law, law governing the arbitration agreement, access to emergency relief, evidence architecture and the jurisdictions in which an award will ultimately need to be enforced. A clause that simply says that disputes are to be “resolved by arbitration” may leave the most consequential issues unanswered.

Japan’s arbitration framework materially changed on April 1, 2024. The amended Arbitration Act, influenced by the 2006 amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law, introduced a detailed statutory framework for tribunal-ordered interim measures and mechanisms for their court-backed approval and enforcement, expanded access to the Tokyo and Osaka District Courts for specified arbitration-related proceedings and created circumstances in which Japanese translations of foreign-language awards or other materials may be dispensed with. Arbitration seated in Japan must therefore be understood together with the supporting and supervisory role of Japanese courts.

Japan’s institutional practice has also become more visibly international. JCAA reports that 63 of 71 cases filed from 2021 through 2025, or 89%, were international cases, and English was the procedural language in 60% of those international cases. The average period from tribunal constitution to final award in cases concluded during that period was 10.5 months. At the same time, major overseas institutions continue to revise their procedural frameworks, including the SIAC Rules 2025. Dispute clauses copied from older transactions should not be assumed to reflect current procedural options.

This Legal Update explains, as of October 5, 2026, how companies, private equity and venture investors, overseas General Counsel and foreign law firms should structure and manage international arbitration with a Japan nexus, from drafting the clause and selecting the seat through emergency relief, evidence, award strategy, setting aside and recognition and enforcement in Japan.

Executive Summary

The arbitration agreement is the jurisdictional foundation of the process. Japan’s Arbitration Act recognizes written and electronic arbitration agreements and the separability of the arbitration clause from the underlying contract. If court proceedings are brought over a dispute covered by a valid arbitration agreement, Article 14 generally requires dismissal upon a timely request by the defendant, subject to statutory exceptions. In multi-document transactions, inconsistent dispute clauses can fragment a single commercial controversy into parallel arbitrations and litigation.

The seat is not the institution and is not the hearing venue. Choosing Japan as the seat connects the arbitration to the Japanese Arbitration Act and to Japanese court support and supervision. Institution and rule selection determines case administration, appointment mechanisms, expedited and emergency procedures, multi-party and multi-contract tools, confidentiality provisions and costs. Arbitrator selection also requires a disciplined independence and conflicts analysis. The Supreme Court of Japan’s December 12, 2017 decision treated disclosure duties as requiring attention to facts actually known or normally discoverable through reasonable investigation, while the 2024 IBA Conflicts Guidelines further update international soft-law practice.

Once a dispute emerges, contractual notices, pre-arbitration negotiation or mediation steps, claim deadlines, statutory limitation issues, insurance notices and evidence preservation should be mapped before filing. International arbitration often permits targeted document production broader than ordinary Japanese civil litigation, but it is not U.S.-style discovery. The 2020 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence are frequently used as a reference framework, not as automatically applicable law. The governing institutional rules and tribunal orders remain critical.

Urgent relief requires a choice among tribunal interim measures, emergency-arbitrator relief and court-ordered provisional attachment or disposition. Japan’s 2024 amendments strengthened the legal force of qualifying tribunal-ordered interim measures, but court relief can remain essential where secrecy, third-party effect or coercive freezing of Japanese assets is required. Article 15 expressly preserves access to court provisional measures notwithstanding an arbitration agreement.

Arbitral awards are final in a different sense from court judgments: there is ordinarily no merits appeal, but limited setting-aside review remains available at the seat. For Japan-seated awards, Article 44 provides narrow grounds and a generally three-month deadline. Recognition and enforcement in Japan are governed primarily by Articles 45 and 46 and are reinforced by the New York Convention. A favorable award is still not the same thing as recovery; asset mapping and enforcement-jurisdiction analysis should begin before or at the outset of arbitration.

SAKURA Law Office and Managing Partner Kenshiro Michishita approach international arbitration as a continuous cross-border disputes strategy extending from contract architecture through evidence, interim relief, settlement, post-award review and enforcement. The relevant question is not which institution or seat is “best” in the abstract, but which architecture is most likely to deliver the client’s commercial objective in the jurisdictions that matter.

1. Arbitration Clauses Are Transaction Architecture, Not Boilerplate at the Back of the Contract

Arbitration derives its authority from consent. Article 13 of Japan’s Arbitration Act recognizes arbitration agreements recorded in writing or qualifying electronic records and embodies separability: invalidity, rescission or other ineffectiveness of provisions of the underlying contract does not automatically invalidate the arbitration agreement. A fraud, mistake or authority challenge to the main contract therefore does not, by itself, move the dispute into court.

Scope is often more important than form. A clause limited to “breach of this Agreement” may leave formation, validity, termination, tort, statutory or related indemnity claims outside the chosen forum. That problem becomes acute in M&A, joint ventures and technology transactions, where an SPA, shareholders’ agreement, transition-services agreement, escrow arrangement, licence, supply contract, DPA or order form may contain different institutions, seats or jurisdiction clauses. Dispute-resolution architecture should be reviewed across the transaction set, including the ability to consolidate cases or join related parties under the selected rules.

Article 14 gives the arbitration agreement procedural force in court. Where litigation is commenced over a dispute covered by a valid arbitration agreement, the court generally dismisses the action on a timely application by the defendant, subject to specified exceptions. Timing matters: a party should assess whether to invoke the arbitration agreement before making substantive merits submissions that may prejudice that procedural position.

Multi-tier clauses also require precision. A Notice of Dispute, executive negotiation, mediation and arbitration sequence can help preserve commercial relationships, but it can also generate satellite disputes if the clause does not make clear whether each stage is a strict condition to arbitration or a process obligation. M&A and other claims may also be subject to contractual Claim Notice or arbitration-commencement deadlines separate from statutory limitation periods. The dispute clause therefore needs to be read with indemnity, notice and limitation provisions, not in isolation.

2. Seat, Institution and Tribunal Are Different Decisions — and Japan Is a Legally Distinct Seat Choice

The seat is the legal home of the arbitration. It is distinct from the institution administering the case and from the physical or virtual location of a hearing. An arbitration may be seated in Tokyo, administered under ICC Rules and conduct hearings in Singapore or online. Clear drafting should identify the legal seat rather than rely on ambiguous “venue” wording.

A Japan seat connects the proceeding to the Japanese Arbitration Act and Japanese court support and supervision, including arbitrator appointment in appropriate cases, jurisdictional review, evidence assistance, approval and enforcement of qualifying interim measures, setting aside and enforcement-related applications. The 2024 amendments and related court rules also widened access to the Tokyo and Osaka District Courts for specified arbitration-related matters and created translation relief in defined proceedings.

Institutional rules are a separate layer. As of October 2026, the JCAA continues to offer its Commercial Arbitration Rules (2021), Interactive Arbitration Rules (2021) and administration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. If a clause provides for JCAA arbitration without identifying the rule set, JCAA states that the Commercial Arbitration Rules apply. Overseas rules also evolve: SIAC’s seventh-edition rules took effect on January 1, 2025, while the ICC Rules in force date from 2021. Rule selection should be based on procedure, cost, emergency relief, expedited tools, multi-party and multi-contract needs, and likely enforcement strategy rather than institutional brand alone.

JCAA’s current statistics are relevant to the practical assessment of Japan-based arbitration. From 2021 through 2025, 63 of 71 filed cases, or 89%, were international, and English was used in 60% of international cases. JCAA reports an average of 10.5 months from tribunal constitution to final award for cases concluded during the same period. Those data do not make JCAA the automatic choice for every Japan-related contract, but they do demonstrate that arbitration administered from Japan is used in genuinely cross-border disputes.

Tribunal composition requires the same discipline. Subject-matter expertise, governing-law familiarity, language, case-management ability and availability must be weighed together with independence and impartiality. In its December 12, 2017 decision, the Supreme Court of Japan addressed the arbitrator’s statutory disclosure duty by focusing on whether the relevant fact was known or would normally have been discovered through reasonable investigation. The 2024 IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest similarly reinforce disclosure and investigation practices. Conflicts checks may need to extend beyond named parties to affiliates, counsel, insurers, funders and other materially connected persons under the applicable framework.

3. When a Dispute Crystallizes, Fix the Rights, Deadlines, Evidence and Decision-Making Structure Before Filing

A request for arbitration should rarely be the first serious work product. Counsel should first lock down the complete contract set and extract the arbitration clause, governing-law provisions, notice mechanics, negotiation or mediation prerequisites, claim deadlines, liability limitations, indemnities, termination provisions, insurance-notification requirements and statutory limitation issues into a single chronology. A strong merits case can be weakened by an avoidable procedural dispute over notice, timing or pre-arbitration steps.

Jurisdictional strategy is also front-loaded. Article 23 permits the tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. If the tribunal resolves jurisdiction in a separate preliminary ruling, the Act provides a time-limited route to court review while allowing the arbitration to continue. Parties should therefore decide whether jurisdiction should be bifurcated, argued with the merits or coordinated with a parallel court application.

Evidence in international arbitration sits between civil-law document practice and common-law disclosure. Witness statements, expert reports and targeted document production are common, but broad U.S.-style pretrial discovery is not inherent in arbitration. The 2020 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence are frequently used as a reference point, yet they apply only to the extent adopted or used within the tribunal’s procedural framework. Parties should not assume that missing evidence will later be compelled from the opponent.

Companies should preserve contracts, email, messaging platforms, board papers, accounting and transaction data, source code, access logs and other digital evidence once a serious dispute is foreseeable. Preservation must be coordinated with privilege, trade-secret protection, data-protection law, cross-border data transfer and cybersecurity. The IBA Evidence Rules expressly contemplate discussion of cybersecurity and data protection in early evidentiary consultations, which reflects the practical reality of modern cross-border proceedings.

Counsel structure matters as well. Japan’s 2020 Foreign Lawyers Act amendment expanded the range of international arbitration matters in which registered foreign lawyers and certain other foreign-qualified lawyers may act. The precise scope remains qualification- and fact-sensitive. In significant Japan-related disputes, Japanese and foreign counsel often divide responsibilities across governing-law analysis, factual development, witness preparation, arbitral procedure and Japanese court work for interim relief, setting aside or enforcement.

4. Urgent Relief Requires a Three-Way Comparison: Tribunal, Emergency Arbitrator and Court

The commercial value of a future award can disappear if assets, evidence or contractual status cannot be protected during the case. Counsel should compare tribunal-ordered interim measures, emergency-arbitrator procedures and court-ordered provisional attachment or disposition. They are not interchangeable. Notice, secrecy, third-party effect, coercive power, security requirements, location of the asset and speed may point to different routes.

Article 15 makes clear that an arbitration agreement does not bar a party from seeking provisional relief from a court before or during arbitration. If Japanese bank accounts, receivables or real estate are at risk of dissipation, Japanese civil provisional remedies can remain strategically central. A court can also be the more effective forum where relief must bind a third party or be obtained without alerting the respondent in advance.

The 2024 Arbitration Act amendments materially strengthened tribunal interim measures. The statute now provides a structured framework for orders aimed at preserving assets, maintaining or restoring the status quo, preventing conduct that would prejudice the arbitration and preserving evidence, together with mechanisms for seeking Japanese court approval and, depending on the category of measure, enforcement or monetary consequences for non-compliance. The amendments address the historical concern that arbitral interim orders could lack sufficient coercive force.

Institutional emergency procedures add another layer. Under the JCAA Commercial Arbitration Rules, the institution seeks to appoint an emergency arbitrator within two business days in qualifying cases, and the emergency arbitrator is expected to decide within two weeks. That can be highly effective for status-quo or contractual relief aligned with the arbitration. It may be less effective than court relief for a secret freeze of a third-party bank account. The correct question is therefore not whether emergency arbitration exists, but what legal power is needed against which person or asset by what date.

5. Finality Makes Tribunal Selection, Due Process, Settlement and Set-Aside Strategy More Important, Not Less

Arbitration does not ordinarily provide a merits appeal. That finality is one of its principal commercial advantages, but it means that errors in tribunal selection, case theory, evidentiary presentation or procedural strategy cannot usually be repaired through a full appellate rehearing. Management should understand this trade-off at the contracting stage, not only after an unfavorable award arrives.

For Japan-seated arbitrations, Article 44 provides limited grounds for setting aside, including invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice or inability to present a case, excess of mandate, serious irregularity in tribunal composition or procedure, non-arbitrability and conflict with Japanese public policy. A setting-aside application is not an appeal on factual findings or legal reasoning. The general three-month deadline following notice through delivery of a copy of the award requires rapid coordination among external counsel, headquarters, boards, insurers and investment committees.

Arbitrator-disclosure issues can intersect with post-award challenges, but the analysis is fact-specific. The 2017 Supreme Court decision should not be reduced to a rule that every non-disclosure invalidates an award. Counsel must examine the underlying relationship, what the arbitrator knew or could reasonably have discovered, when any challenge was or should have been made, and how the facts connect to the statutory set-aside framework.

Settlement should also be designed for enforcement. Article 38 permits an arbitral tribunal, upon the parties’ request after settlement, to record agreed terms in the form of an arbitral award. A stand-alone settlement agreement may be sufficient where voluntary compliance is secure; a consent award may be more useful where instalment payments, continuing obligations or cross-border enforcement risk remain. The procedural form of settlement should match the enforcement risk that remains after commercial compromise.

6. Recognition and Enforcement in Japan Are Built on the Arbitration Act and the New York Convention — but an Award Is Not Yet Recovery

Articles 45 and 46 are the core Japanese provisions for recognition and enforcement. Article 45 gives arbitral awards, whether made inside or outside Japan, the effect prescribed by the statute subject to limited refusal grounds broadly familiar from international arbitration practice. Compulsory execution in Japan requires an enforceability order under Article 46. The court is not a merits appellate tribunal; the focus is the statutory recognition and enforcement framework.

The 2024 amendments improved the enforcement procedure. Where the court considers it appropriate after hearing the respondent, it may dispense with all or part of the Japanese translation of a foreign-language award or related material in the specified proceedings. Defined connecting factors can also permit applications to the Tokyo or Osaka District Court. These are practical reforms, but translation relief is discretionary and should not be assumed in every case.

The New York Convention remains the central treaty framework for cross-border enforcement. Japan acceded on June 20, 1961 and the Convention entered into force for Japan on September 18, 1961. Japan made the reciprocity reservation, applying the Convention to awards made in the territory of another Contracting State. Japan’s Arbitration Act, however, also contains its own recognition framework without limiting Article 45 by seat in the same way. Actual enforcement analysis should therefore consider domestic law, the Convention, the seat and the award’s status together.

Commercial strategy must continue past the award. Asset intelligence should identify deposits, receivables, real estate, shares, intellectual property and other material assets before or during the arbitration. Enforcement jurisdictions differ on limitation periods, required documents, translation and authentication, public policy, provisional relief, insolvency and state immunity. JCAA reports that, to its knowledge, applications to enforce JCAA awards from 2020 through 2025 in Japan, China, Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand were all granted. That is useful institutional data, but each new enforcement remains jurisdiction- and fact-specific.

7. The Right Arbitration Architecture Is the One That Serves the Commercial Objective

Arbitration is not categorically superior to Japanese court litigation. It can offer a neutral seat, party influence over tribunal composition, flexible language, non-public proceedings and strong cross-border enforceability. It also carries arbitrator and institutional costs, ordinarily lacks merits appeals and can require court assistance for coercive evidence or urgent state-backed measures. Where the relevant assets, witnesses and documents are concentrated in Japan and appellate review matters, Japanese court litigation may be commercially rational.

Institutional choice should be equally functional. JCAA, ICC, SIAC and other institutions provide different approaches to expedited proceedings, emergency relief, multiple parties and contracts, costs, scrutiny and case management. The SIAC Rules 2025, for example, introduced new tools including a Streamlined Procedure, Preliminary Determination and Coordinated Proceedings. The lesson is not that newer rules are necessarily better, but that dispute clauses should be tested against realistic future disputes rather than inherited from old templates.

Japan’s institutional environment has continued to develop after the 2024 statutory amendments. The Ministry of Justice continues its international-arbitration promotion programme and held Japan International Arbitration Week 2026. JCAA’s cross-border caseload and use of English demonstrate an active international practice. Those facts make Japan a credible seat option, but policy promotion is not a substitute for case-specific analysis of governing law, evidence, arbitrators, interim relief and enforcement jurisdictions.

SAKURA Law Office and Managing Partner Kenshiro Michishita advise on international arbitration as an integrated cross-border disputes process: dispute-clause architecture at the deal stage, forum analysis when a dispute emerges, notice and deadline control, evidence preservation, tribunal selection, interim relief, coordination with foreign counsel, settlement, setting aside and recognition and enforcement. The appropriate strategy changes depending on whether the business objective is monetary recovery, preservation of a contract, acquisition of shares or assets, protection of IP, cessation of competitive conduct, confidentiality or reputational control.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. Does an arbitration clause always prevent court litigation?

Not automatically, but where a valid arbitration agreement covers the dispute, Article 14 generally requires dismissal upon a timely application by the defendant, subject to statutory exceptions. The existence, validity, scope and timing of the objection must be assessed in the particular case.

Q2. If Japanese law governs the contract, is Japan automatically the seat?

No. Substantive governing law, the law of the arbitration agreement and the seat are distinct choices. A Japanese-law contract can be arbitrated in Singapore, and a New York-law contract can be seated in Tokyo.

Q3. Is JCAA used for international cases?

Yes. JCAA reports that 63 of 71 cases filed from 2021 through 2025, or 89%, were international cases, and English was used in 60% of international cases.

Q4. Does a later-discovered arbitrator conflict automatically invalidate the award?

No. Disclosure duties, the nature of the relationship, the timing of any challenge and the statutory set-aside grounds must be analysed. The Supreme Court’s 2017 decision focused on facts known to the arbitrator or normally discoverable through reasonable investigation.

Q5. Can Japanese assets be frozen while arbitration is pending?

Potentially yes. Article 15 preserves access to court provisional remedies despite an arbitration agreement. Tribunal interim measures and emergency-arbitrator relief may also be available, and the appropriate route depends on the asset, third-party effect, secrecy, security and timing.

Q6. Does international arbitration provide U.S.-style discovery?

Not as an inherent feature. Targeted document production is common in many arbitrations, but its scope depends on the applicable rules, party agreement and tribunal orders. The IBA Evidence Rules are frequently used as guidance, not automatically applicable law.

Q7. Is arbitration always confidential?

Not in every respect. Non-public proceedings and a comprehensive legal duty of confidentiality are different concepts. JCAA Rules contain confidentiality provisions, but the applicable institutional rules, contract and tribunal orders should be reviewed in each case.

Q8. Can a party appeal an arbitral award on the merits in Japan?

Ordinarily no. For Japan-seated awards, Article 44 permits setting aside only on limited statutory grounds, generally subject to a three-month deadline. It is not a full merits rehearing.

Q9. Can a foreign arbitral award be enforced in Japan?

Potentially yes. Recognition is assessed under Article 45 and compulsory enforcement generally requires an order under Article 46. The New York Convention, the award’s status and any set-aside or suspension at the seat must also be considered.

Q10. Should a cross-border contract choose JCAA, ICC or SIAC?

There is no universal answer. Parties should compare the transaction geography, seat, governing law, amount and complexity, emergency-relief needs, multi-party and multi-contract risks, arbitrator pool, cost structure and likely enforcement jurisdictions, and align related contracts accordingly.

About the Legal Update Series by Kenshiro Michishita

SAKURA Law Office publishes the Legal Update series through the profile of Managing Partner Kenshiro Michishita, addressing corporate law, M&A, cross-border transactions, international disputes, financial regulation, Web3, AI and technology, data protection, intellectual property, crisis management and internal investigations.

No. 19 follows the cross-border disputes sequence on litigating in Japan and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, and addresses international arbitration from dispute-clause design through proceedings, interim measures, post-award review and enforcement.

SAKURA Law Office — Official Website

Kenshiro Michishita, Managing Partner — Profile

How SAKURA Law Office Can Assist

SAKURA Law Office advises Japanese and foreign companies, General Counsel, investors and foreign law firms on drafting and reviewing arbitration and dispute-resolution clauses, JCAA and other international arbitrations, validity and scope of arbitration agreements, seat and governing-law analysis, arbitrator selection, evidence and witness strategy, emergency arbitration, Japanese provisional attachment and disposition, tribunal interim measures, settlement, setting aside, recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

We also advise on dispute-resolution architecture across cross-border M&A, joint ventures, investments, distribution arrangements, licences, IT and SaaS contracts, manufacturing and supply transactions, including coordination with overseas counsel and Japanese court proceedings where assets, interim relief or enforcement are located in Japan.

Contact

For advice concerning international arbitration, JCAA arbitration, arbitration clauses, seat selection, arbitrator appointments, interim measures, setting aside, recognition and enforcement of awards or other cross-border commercial disputes, please contact SAKURA Law Office.

SAKURA Law Office

4F Ark Hills South Tower, 4-5 Roppongi 1-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-0032, Japan

Kenshiro Michishita, Managing Partner

Web: https://sakura-lawyers.jp/en/

Principal References

1. Arbitration Act — e-Gov Laws (official Japanese text; as amended by Act No. 15 of 2023) — https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/415AC0000000138

2. Ministry of Justice — 2023 Amendment of the Arbitration Act, including interim-measure enforcement and translation relief — https://www.moj.go.jp/MINJI/minji07_00328.html

3. Ministry of Justice — Bill to Amend the Arbitration Act: enactment, promulgation and April 1, 2024 commencement — https://www.moj.go.jp/MINJI/minji07_00320.html

4. Ministry of Justice — International Arbitration Portal (Japan) — https://www.moj.go.jp/arbitration/index.html

5. Ministry of Justice — Initiatives to Promote International Arbitration in Japan — https://www.moj.go.jp/arbitration/initiatives/

6. Tokyo District Court, Civil Division No. 8 — Arbitration-related court proceedings and jurisdiction — https://www.courts.go.jp/tokyo/saiban/minzi_section8/index.html

7. Supreme Court Rules on Procedures Relating to Arbitration — translation dispensation and related procedure — https://www.courts.go.jp/vc-files/courts/2024/20240401chusaikisoku.pdf

8. Supreme Court of Japan, December 12, 2017, 2016(Kyo)43 — arbitrator disclosure duties — https://www.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_jp/306/087306_hanrei.pdf

9. Ministry of Justice — Amendment Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling of Legal Services by Foreign Lawyers (Law No. 33 of 2020) — https://www.moj.go.jp/EN/housei/gaiben/housei07_00002.html

10. JCAA — Arbitration Rules, including Commercial Arbitration Rules (2021) and Interactive Arbitration Rules (2021) — https://www.jcaa.or.jp/en/arbitration/rules.html

11. JCAA — Model Arbitration Clauses — https://www.jcaa.or.jp/en/arbitration/clause.html

12. JCAA — Arbitration Roadmap — https://www.jcaa.or.jp/en/arbitration/flow.html

13. JCAA — Statistics (2021-2025 caseload, international-case ratio, duration and enforcement data) — https://www.jcaa.or.jp/en/arbitration/statistics.html

14. JCAA — Arbitration FAQs — https://www.jcaa.or.jp/en/arbitration/qa.php

15. JCAA — Commercial Arbitration Rules (2021) — https://www.jcaa.or.jp/common/pdf/arbitration/Commercial_Arbitration_Rules2021_en.pdf

16. UNCITRAL — Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments as adopted in 2006 — https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/modellaw/commercial_arbitration

17. UNCITRAL — New York Convention Status — https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/conventions/foreign_arbitral_awards/status2

18. United Nations Treaty Collection — Japan's accession to the New York Convention and reciprocity reservation — https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=22&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=XXII-1&src=IND

19. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan — New York Convention (official treaty text) — https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/treaty/pdfs/B-S38-E4-1299-3.pdf

20. IBA — Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (2020) — https://www.ibanet.org/MediaHandler?id=def0807b-9fec-43ef-b624-f2cb2af7cf7b

21. IBA — Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (2024) — https://www.ibanet.org/document?id=Guidelines-on-Conflicts-of-Interest-in-International-Arbitration-2024

22. ICC — 2021 Arbitration Rules — https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/rules-procedure/2021-arbitration-rules/

23. SIAC — SIAC Rules 2025, effective January 1, 2025 — https://siac.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Press-Release-SIAC-Announces-the-Official-Release-of-7th-Edition-of-the-SIAC-Rules-2025.pdf

24. SAKURA Law Office — Official Website — https://sakura-lawyers.jp/en/

25. SAKURA Law Office — Kenshiro Michishita, Managing Partner — https://sakura-lawyers.jp/en/lawyer/michishita-kenshiro/

Disclaimer

This article provides general information based on Japanese law, Ministry of Justice and court materials, JCAA materials, UNCITRAL instruments, institutional rules and general international arbitration practice available as of October 5, 2026. It does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion concerning any specific contract, arbitration, interim-relief application or award. The existence, validity and scope of an arbitration agreement, arbitrability, seat, substantive governing law and law of the arbitration agreement, authority of foreign lawyers, arbitrator independence and disclosure, document production, confidentiality, interim measures, setting aside, recognition and enforcement, and asset recovery depend on the contractual wording, parties, institutional rules, law of the seat, governing law, asset locations, applicable treaties and specific facts. Arbitration rules and national laws may change. Specific matters should be assessed under the statutes, rules, treaties and official materials in force at the relevant time.