FORUM COMPETITION AND REGULATORY SIGNALLING: HOW THE UNITED KINGDOM, SINGAPORE, AND INDIA CRAFT THEIR ARBITRATION IDENTITIES IN THE GLOBAL MARKET

Abstract

International arbitration has become a competitive global marketplace in which states deliberately construct and promote distinct regulatory identities to attract cross-border commercial disputes. This research delves into how the United Kingdom (UK), Singapore, and India, three influential yet contrasting jurisdictions, engage in forum competition through a blend of legislative design, judicial behaviour, institutional development, and market-driven branding. Drawing on theories of regulatory signaling, the research conceptualizes arbitration reform as a strategic communicative act by which states convey neutrality, efficiency, enforceability, and international commercial sophistication to global users. UK exemplifies stability-based signaling, leveraging the Arbitration Act 1996, a disciplined common-law judiciary, and the prestige of the London Court of International Arbitration to project an image of doctrinal consistency and commercial reliability. Singapore, by contrast, operates as a model of regulatory entrepreneurship, frequent targeted amendments, a strong pro-enforcement judiciary, and state-supported institutions, such as SIAC and Maxwell Chambers together signal innovation, efficiency, and user-centric governance. India represents a reform-driven trajectory, using successive amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, evolving jurisprudence, and nascent institutional efforts to rebuild credibility after decades of perceived judicial interventionism. By comparing the distinct signaling strategies across these jurisdictions, the research illustrates how different pathways, stability, innovation, and reform, shape global perceptions, and market share in international arbitration. It further highlights how mismatches between legislative ambition and judicial practice, especially in emerging jurisdictions, can dilute signaling effectiveness. The research delineates that successful arbitration identity formation requires coherent coordination among law-making, judicial conduct, and institutional capacity, supported by consistent messaging to international users. The research offers broader insights into how states participate in the global competition for dispute-resolution authority, with implications for policymakers, arbitral institutions, and the evolving international arbitration landscape.