Abstract
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has evolved from an optional adjunct to litigation into a principal component of global justice architecture. Across jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Hong Kong, reforms in arbitration, mediation, and online dispute resolution (ODR) have redefined procedural justice. The emergence of the Singapore Convention on Mediation (2019), the UNCITRAL Expedited Arbitration Rules (2021), and AI-assisted case management systems marks the transition toward a hybrid model combining efficiency with enforceability.
This article provides a comparative examination of these developments, situating Pakistan and the Global South within the broader global transformation of dispute resolution. It analyses evolving policy frameworks, institutional models, and technological innovations, and concludes with recommendations for harmonising ADR laws in emerging economies while retaining human-centred justice.
1. Introduction
The concept of ADR has undergone a paradigmatic transformation over the last two decades. Once perceived as an “alternative” to formal adjudication, ADR today stands as a co-equal pillar of justice delivery, complementing rather than displacing litigation. The convergence of legal reform, digitalisation, and globalisation has led to the institutionalisation of mediation and arbitration within judicial systems worldwide.
The United Kingdom’s 2024 Civil Procedure Rule amendment, which mandates mediation for small-claims money disputes up to £10,000, exemplifies this shift from voluntarism to procedural integration. Similarly, Singapore and Hong Kong have entrenched ADR mechanisms into their legal and commercial ecosystems through legislative and institutional development. The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Mediation (2018) and the Singapore Convention (2019) have further reinforced the global enforceability of consensual settlements.
For Pakistan and other Global South jurisdictions, ADR represents both an opportunity and a challenge. While resource constraints and backlog pressures necessitate alternatives to litigation, the adoption of ADR also requires structural and cultural transformation—judicial receptiveness, professional training, and legislative clarity. As developing economies increasingly attract cross-border investments under initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and CPEC 2.0, the demand for reliable, neutral, and technologically enabled dispute resolution frameworks has never been greater.
This article therefore seeks to provide a comparative and forward-looking analysis of ADR developments, linking global trends to Pakistan’s emerging framework under the Punjab ADR Act 2019, the Draft Arbitration Bill 2025, and institutional efforts by the Pakistan International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (PIAMC) and Punjab Commercial Dispute Resolution Framework (PC-DRF).
2. Theoretical Framework: From “Alternative” to “Integrated” Dispute Resolution
The evolution of ADR can be traced along three analytical trajectories—normative, institutional, and technological.
(a) The Normative Turn
The early conception of ADR as a voluntary, informal alternative has given way to its recognition as a constitutional and policy-mandated component of access to justice. Scholars have observed a normative turn whereby mediation and arbitration are embedded into procedural law and judicial policy. The European Union’s Directive 2008/52/EC on Mediation, and the UK’s civil justice reforms following Lord Woolf’s Access to Justice Report (1996), transformed ADR from peripheral experimentation into mainstream governance.
In Pakistan, this normative transition is reflected in the Punjab ADR Act 2019, which integrates mediation and conciliation into pre-trial and post-filing stages, mandating referral to mediation where appropriate. This statutory embrace of ADR signifies a constitutional alignment with Article 37(d) of Pakistan’s Constitution, which obliges the State to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice.
(b) Institutionalisation and Judicial Integration
Globally, courts have evolved from passive encouragers of settlement to active gatekeepers of ADR. The UK’s judiciary now treats ADR not merely as a choice but as an integral phase of the litigation continuum. Singapore’s Mediation Act 2017 and the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) model exemplify institutionalised mediation with enforceable outcomes. Similarly, Hong Kong’s Mediation Ordinance (Cap. 620) establishes confidentiality, enforceability, and accreditation standards.
Pakistan’s trajectory is following this pattern. The Lahore High Court’s ADR Rules 2021 and the PIAMC initiative demonstrate growing judicial endorsement of ADR, although consistent practice remains a challenge. Judicial officers are now being trained through the Punjab Judicial Academy and the Federal Judicial Academy to facilitate pre-trial mediation and case management.
(c) The Technological Dimension
Technological integration is the latest dimension of ADR’s evolution. The global pandemic accelerated the acceptance of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), which now encompasses asynchronous negotiation, virtual hearings, and AI-assisted case analytics. UNCITRAL’s Technical Notes on ODR (2017) and the UK’s Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) pilot illustrate how digital platforms can enhance access while preserving procedural fairness.
However, the promise of efficiency must be balanced with the preservation of empathy and confidentiality. Effective ODR systems replicate core due-process guarantees—secure notice, equal access, translation support, and privacy through encrypted breakout rooms. Mediators require training in digital communication psychology to ensure that technology does not erode the human essence of mediation.
II – Comparative Global Developments, Enforcement, AI/ODR, and Institutional Reforms
3. Comparative Global Developments in ADR
(a) United Kingdom: From Encouragement to Compulsion
The United Kingdom has emerged as a regulatory pioneer in institutionalising ADR through court-linked mediation. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) now explicitly empower courts to order mediation as part of case management, culminating in the 2024 reform mandating mediation for small-claims money disputes up to £10,000. The move reflects a strategic shift from voluntary settlement encouragement under the Woolf Reforms (1996) to procedural compulsion.
The UK’s approach emphasises data-driven policy: the HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) routinely publishes performance metrics demonstrating time and cost reductions where ADR is employed. The judiciary’s supportive stance is underscored by the decision in Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576, which, while initially discouraging compulsion, paved the way for a measured approach integrating ADR as part of proportionality and efficiency mandates.
The UK’s policy architecture now includes:
- Court-annexed mediation services linked to online filing portals.
- The Civil Mediation Council (CMC), responsible for accreditation and standards.
- Pilot programmes using AI-assisted triage to direct suitable cases toward mediation.
(b) Singapore: The “One-Stop” Dispute Resolution Hub
Singapore has developed one of the world’s most comprehensive ADR ecosystems, combining legislative precision with institutional coherence. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC), and the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) operate as complementary entities within an integrated “Dispute Resolution Triangle.”
The Mediation Act 2017 provides enforceability for mediated settlements domestically, while the International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A) aligns with the UNCITRAL Model Law, ensuring international compatibility. Singapore’s ratification of the Singapore Convention on Mediation (2019) has positioned it as the principal Asian proponent of enforceable mediation, with 58 signatories and 19 parties as of 2025.
Government initiatives such as the National Mediation Strategy (2023-2030) integrate digital mediation platforms, AI translation tools, and sustainable-development-linked dispute resolution training—features that the Global South can adapt to local contexts.
(c) Hong Kong: The East Asian Mediation Model
Hong Kong’s ADR framework represents a mature convergence of legal tradition and regional innovation. The Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) fully incorporates the UNCITRAL Model Law (2006 Revision), ensuring parity with global standards. Its Mediation Ordinance (Cap. 620) (2013) guarantees confidentiality and establishes a mediation code of conduct.
A notable development is the International Organization for Mediation Preparatory Office (IOMed) established in Hong Kong (2024/25) under the Belt and Road Initiative, aiming to institutionalise state-to-state and commercial mediation for cross-border disputes. This represents the first state-sponsored mediation institution designed to parallel the enforcement reliability of arbitration under the New York Convention.
Hong Kong’s role as a “bridge jurisdiction” between common-law and Chinese legal systems allows it to serve as a model for Pakistan, whose bilingual and hybrid legal culture offers similar potential.
(d) The UNCITRAL Influence
The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has provided the normative backbone of modern ADR. The Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, rev. 2006) and Model Law on Mediation (2018) offer template legislation now adopted or adapted by over 100 states.
The UNCITRAL Expedited Arbitration Rules (2021) introduced nine-month timelines, early case management, and consolidation provisions. These have influenced revisions of the ICC Rules (2021) and LCIA Rules (2020), each emphasising transparency, funding disclosure, and digital hearings.
Pakistan’s proposed Arbitration Bill 2025, drafted with reference to UNCITRAL standards, seeks to replace the Arbitration Act 1940, thereby harmonising domestic law with international best practice.
4. Enforceability and Cross-Border Mechanisms
(a) The Singapore Convention on Mediation (2019)
The Singapore Convention provides a direct enforcement mechanism for international mediated settlement agreements, analogous to the New York Convention (1958) for arbitral awards. It eliminates the need for re-litigation or conversion into consent judgments, provided that the agreement resulted from mediation and involves international commercial elements.
Its growing ratification among Asian and African states underscores mediation’s rise as a “hard-law” mechanism. Pakistan’s accession, once completed, would bolster investor confidence and complement its participation in the New York Convention (enacted via the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 2011).
(b) Enforcement Challenges in the Global South
Despite normative convergence, enforcement remains inconsistent across the Global South. Delays, judicial unfamiliarity, and limited awareness among lawyers often undermine ADR’s potential. Case law in jurisdictions such as India (Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v HSCC (India) Ltd (2019) 9 SCC 389) illustrates gradual judicial sensitivity to neutrality and enforceability.
In Pakistan, judicial support is emerging: Messrs Ghulam Rasool & Co v Government of Pakistan (PLD 2022 SC 456) affirmed the sanctity of arbitration agreements, signalling a shift toward enforcement predictability.(n 23)
5. AI and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR): Innovation and Integrity
Digital transformation has accelerated ADR’s evolution into AI-assisted dispute resolution. Platforms now use machine learning for document summarisation, case triage, and predictive analytics.
(a) Benefits and Applications
AI tools support:
- Automatic generation of case timelines and summaries.
- Settlement-range analytics aiding negotiation.
- Speech-to-text transcription and multilingual translation for hearings.(n 24)
Such applications enhance speed and cost-efficiency, reducing administrative burdens on neutrals.
(b) Ethical Boundaries and Disclosure
AI introduces new ethical frontiers. The guiding principle remains “human in the loop.” Substantive decisions must remain human-made; AI may assist but not adjudicate. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and LCIA are considering model rules mandating disclosure of AI use in submissions to preserve transparency.
Key guardrails include:
- Disclosure when substantive drafting is AI-assisted.
- Prohibition of AI adjudication without consent.
- Data confidentiality and restriction on model training.
- Bias testing and algorithmic accountability.
Pakistan’s Digital Pakistan Policy (2021) and Virtual Assets Ordinance (2025) can support AI-enabled ADR by defining data governance and admissibility standards.
(c) Fairness and Empathy in ODR
Maintaining empathy and procedural fairness in virtual settings remains paramount. Research from the UK’s HMCTS OCMC pilot indicates comparable settlement rates to in-person mediation when digital platforms include breakout rooms, secure communication channels, and asynchronous participation options.
For the Global South, hybrid models combining online intake with physical facilitation (community mediation centres, tele-conciliation booths) can bridge digital divides while preserving access to justice.
6. Institutional and Rule-Based Reforms
(a) ICC and LCIA: Transparency and Funding Disclosure
Modern institutional rules have incorporated transparency and efficiency measures. Article 11(7) of the ICC Arbitration Rules 2021 mandates disclosure of third-party funders to manage conflicts of interest. The LCIA Rules 2020 modernised consolidation procedures, cost allocation, and technology use, while expanding emergency arbitrator powers.
These changes strengthen tribunal independence and predictability, aligning with global best practice. For Pakistan, adopting equivalent provisions in the forthcoming Arbitration Act 2025 would enhance credibility among foreign investors.
(b) ICSID and Regionalisation
The ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) has updated its rules (2022) to include mediation and conciliation tracks, reflecting ADR’s mainstreaming in investor-state disputes.(n 28) The rise of Regional Arbitration Centres—notably AIAC (Kuala Lumpur), DIFC-LCIA (Dubai), and PIAMC (Lahore)—signals decentralisation of dispute resolution capacity from the Global North to the Global South.
The Global South ADR Alliance (GSAA), launched in Islamabad in 2025, symbolises this shift toward collaborative capacity building and standardisation across emerging economies.
PART III — Capacity Building, Sectoral ADR, Pakistan and the Global South, Comparative Table, and Conclusion
7. Capacity Building and Accreditation Standards
(a) The Global Benchmark: IMI and CIArb Models
Standardisation in mediator and arbitrator accreditation is critical to ensuring procedural integrity. The International Mediation Institute (IMI) has developed Qualifying Assessment Programs (QAPs) that certify mediators against global competency benchmarks, covering ethics, training hours, supervised practice, and continuing professional development (CPD).
The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) similarly sets international standards through structured membership grades (Associate, Member, Fellow) and continuing education requirements. These frameworks enhance cross-border portability of credentials and foster mutual recognition between jurisdictions.
(b) Pakistan’s Emerging Accreditation Framework
In Pakistan, accreditation remains fragmented but evolving. The Punjab ADR Act 2019 and Lahore High Court’s ADR Rules 2021 authorise the establishment of mediator rosters. The Pakistan International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (PIAMC), operational since 2023, follows CIArb-aligned training pathways, while the TCC ADR Lahore initiative has introduced mediator certification models adapted from CEDR and IMI frameworks.
For long-term sustainability, a National ADR Accreditation Authority (NADRAA)—similar to Singapore’s Mediation Accreditation Committee—could unify standards, linking court-recognised rosters to continuous education.
(c) Judicial and Professional Training
Judicial academies in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh have initiated mediator-judge training programmes. For example, the Punjab Judicial Academy’s ADR Training Curriculum (2022) includes 40-hour modules on mediation ethics, AI-assisted ODR, and communication psychology. This reflects a regional recognition that the success of ADR depends less on law and more on mindset—a transformation of judicial and practitioner culture.
8. Sectoral and Hybrid Mechanisms
(a) Construction and Infrastructure Disputes
The construction industry exemplifies the need for sectoral ADR. The FIDIC Red Book (2017) institutionalised Dispute Adjudication/ Avoidance Boards (DABs), promoting proactive dispute management. Pakistan’s Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) Rules (2020) now reference ADR for contract administration.
Hybrid models such as Med-Arb and Arb-Med are increasingly popular in Asia, combining efficiency with enforceability. Under UNCITRAL’s Expedited Arbitration Rules (2021), proceedings can conclude within nine months, making these hybrids suitable for infrastructure projects and CPEC-related contracts.
(b) Energy, Finance, and Intellectual Property
The Energy Charter Treaty’s conciliation provisions, sectoral panels in WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre, and Islamic Finance Mediation Rules (by the International Islamic Centre for Reconciliation and Arbitration, Dubai) demonstrate specialised frameworks balancing technical accuracy with Sharia compliance. Pakistan’s energy sector, governed by NEPRA and OGRA regulations, could similarly adopt tailored ADR clauses for tariff and performance disputes.
9. ADR in Pakistan and the Global South: Opportunities and Imperatives
(a) The Pakistani Context
Pakistan’s legal framework for arbitration remains anchored in the Arbitration Act 1940, a colonial-era statute misaligned with contemporary standards. The proposed Arbitration Bill 2025 seeks to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law (2006 revision) and integrate provisions for interim measures, emergency arbitrators, and institutional arbitration.
Parallel reforms—the Punjab ADR Act 2019, PC-DRF 2020, and court-linked mediation pilots—illustrate provincial commitment to modernisation. The PIAMC Lahore and Karachi Centre for Dispute Resolution (KCDR) are early institutional exemplars of capacity building within Pakistan’s hybrid public-private legal landscape.
However, implementation challenges persist: inconsistent judicial attitudes, lack of enforcement predictability, and insufficient professional training. Strengthening ADR therefore requires a three-pronged strategy:
- Legislative modernisation and harmonisation.
- Institutional investment and accreditation alignment.
- Judicial sensitisation and cultural transformation.
(b) The Global South Perspective
The Global South faces shared challenges: limited resources, judicial congestion, and lack of harmonised enforcement mechanisms. Yet, these jurisdictions possess cultural predispositions toward conciliation and community-based justice. The task is not to “import” Western ADR, but to hybridise it with indigenous traditions of consensus.
Initiatives like the Global South ADR Alliance (GSAA)—launched in Islamabad in 2025—reflect this vision by promoting mutual learning, cross-border accreditation, and collaborative rulemaking.(n 36) Countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, Malaysia, and Bangladesh have demonstrated that institutional innovation can flourish even in resource-constrained contexts when aligned with policy leadership and international cooperation.
10. Comparative Table: ADR Frameworks in Selected Jurisdictions
| Jurisdiction | Key Statutes/Rules | Institutional Framework | Distinctive Features | Challenges/Observations |
| United Kingdom | Civil Procedure Rules (Part 26, 2024 Amendment); Arbitration Act 1996 | Civil Mediation Council (CMC); LCIA | Mandatory mediation for small-claims; AI-driven case management pilots; robust enforcement under Arbitration Act | Ongoing debate on mediation compulsion and privacy safeguards |
| Singapore | Mediation Act 2017; International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A); Singapore Convention on Mediation Act 2020 | SIAC, SIMC, SICC | Integrated “Dispute Resolution Triangle”; international enforceability; bilingual digital infrastructure | Risk of over-centralisation; balancing neutrality with state promotion |
| Hong Kong | Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609); Mediation Ordinance (Cap. 620) | HKIAC; International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) | UNCITRAL-aligned rules; Belt & Road mediation hub; confidentiality and accreditation regime | Dependence on mainland cooperation; geopolitical perception risks |
| Pakistan | Arbitration Act 1940 (to be replaced by Draft Arbitration Bill 2025); Punjab ADR Act 2019 | PIAMC, KCDR, TCC ADR Lahore | Hybrid model with mediation-arbitration linkage; judicial ADR pilots; emphasis on capacity building | Legacy law constraints; uneven enforcement; need for national accreditation authority |
11. The Road Ahead: AI, Data, and Smart Contracts
The next decade will be defined by the fusion of AI, blockchain, and smart contracts within ADR. Blockchain-secured dispute ledgers can record settlements with tamper-proof integrity, while smart contracts can auto-trigger ODR clauses for predefined events (e.g., payment disputes).
Yet, the principle of “algorithmic trust under human oversight” must prevail. Legal systems must delineate liability, ensure interpretability of AI decisions, and safeguard due process. For Pakistan and the Global South, digital ADR should complement—not replace—human-centred justice.
Collaboration with institutions like UNCITRAL, IMI, and CIArb can help developing jurisdictions leapfrog legacy inefficiencies and integrate directly into the global digital justice ecosystem.
12. Conclusion
ADR is no longer “alternative.” It has become the default paradigm of civil and commercial justice across advanced and emerging jurisdictions alike. The integration of mediation, arbitration, and ODR within judicial and institutional frameworks demonstrates a structural reimagining of justice—one that is faster, fairer, and more accessible.
For Pakistan and the Global South, ADR is not merely a procedural reform; it is a transformational agenda. Legislative harmonisation with UNCITRAL standards, ratification of the Singapore Convention, judicial training, and AI-enabled platforms will collectively bridge the gap between global norms and local realities.
The real test, however, lies in culture and incentives—the willingness of judges, lawyers, and litigants to see collaboration as strength rather than compromise. As technology and law converge, the challenge is not whether ADR will prevail, but whether it can preserve its human essence—balancing efficiency with empathy, and innovation with integrity.
References
- Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024 (UK).
- Government of Pakistan, Pakistan Vision 2025: CPEC Integration Plan (2024).
- Hazel Genn, Judging Civil Justice (Cambridge University Press 2010).
- Punjab Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2019 (Pakistan).
- Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576.
- Lahore High Court, ADR Rules 2021 (Pakistan).
- UNCITRAL, Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution (2017).
- Ministry of Justice (UK), HMCTS Online Civil Money Claims Pilot Report (2023).
- Civil Procedure Rules, Part 26, Rule 26.4 (UK, 2024 Amendment).
- HM Courts and Tribunals Service, Evaluation of Mediation Outcomes (2024).
- Civil Mediation Council (CMC), Annual Report (2023).
- Ministry of Law (Singapore), The Singapore Dispute Resolution Triangle (2024).
- Singapore International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A, 2020 Rev Ed).
- UNCITRAL, Status: Singapore Convention on Mediation (as of October 2025).
- Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) (Hong Kong).
- International Organization for Mediation (IOMed), Preparatory Office Hong Kong (2024).
- UNCITRAL, Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (2006).
- ICC Arbitration Rules (2021); LCIA Rules (2020).
- Draft Arbitration Bill 2025 (Pakistan, Ministry of Law).
- United Nations, Singapore Convention on Mediation (2019).
- Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 2011 (Pakistan).
- Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v HSCC (India) Ltd (2019) 9 SCC 389.
- Messrs Ghulam Rasool & Co v Government of Pakistan PLD 2022 SC 456.
- ICCA, AI and Arbitration Report (2024).
- LCIA, Artificial Intelligence Disclosure Guidance Note (2024).
- Ministry of Justice (UK), HMCTS Digital Mediation Review (2023).
- ICC Arbitration Rules 2021, Article 11(7).
- ICSID, Amendments to the ICSID Rules and Regulations (2022).
- Global South ADR Alliance (GSAA), Inaugural Declaration, Islamabad (2025).
- International Mediation Institute (IMI), Competency Standards for Mediators (2023).
- PIAMC, Operational Charter (2023); TCC ADR Lahore, Training Framework (2024).
- Punjab Judicial Academy, ADR Training Curriculum (2022).
- Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA), Procurement Rules (Amended) (2020).
- WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre, Sectoral Rules and Guidelines (2024).
- Ministry of Law and Justice (Pakistan), Draft Arbitration Bill 2025 (Consultation Version).
- Global South ADR Alliance (GSAA), Founding Framework Document (2025).
- UNCITRAL, Digital Economy and Smart Contracts Report (2024).