Source: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/international-arbitration-laws-and-regulations/japan
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 18:40:49+00:00

Document:
An arbitration agreement must be in writing (Art. 13.2 of the Japanese Arbitration Act, Act No. 138 of 2003, as amended, the “Arbitration Act”). (Unless otherwise indicated, article and chapter numbers referred to in this chapter are those of the Arbitration Act.) An arbitration agreement is in writing when the agreement is reduced to: (i) the documents signed by the parties; (ii) the correspondence exchanged by the parties, including those sent by facsimile transmissions and other communication devices which provide written records of the communicated contents to the recipient; and (iii) other written instructions. Additionally, electromagnetic records (i.e. email transmissions) are deemed to be in writing (Art. 13.4).
The Arbitration Act does not stipulate specific elements to be incorporated in an arbitration agreement. In practice, the elements usually incorporated are: (i) the parties; and (ii) the scope of the submission to arbitration. In addition, the following elements should be included: (i) applicable arbitration rules; (ii) applicable rules of evidence; (iii) place of arbitration; (iv) number of arbitrators; (v) language to be used in the procedure; (vi) required qualification and skills of the arbitrator(s); (vii) waiver of sovereign immunity; and (viii) confidentiality agreement.
Japanese courts are friendly to arbitration agreements in general. Unlike the UNCITRAL Model Law, Japanese courts do not directly refer the case to arbitration, but dismiss the lawsuit in favour of an arbitration agreement. To this end, the defendant should file a motion to dismiss prior to the first court hearing (Art. 14.1).
The Arbitration Act governs the enforcement of arbitration agreements in Japan. It was enacted in 2003 and became effective on March 1, 2004. The English translation of the Arbitration Act is available at the following website (please note that this English translation may not reflect the amendments made after 2003): http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?id=2155&vm=04&re=02.
Yes. The Arbitration Act applies equally to both domestic and international arbitration.
Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement (Art. 14.1). The national court will dismiss a case brought before it if it finds that the parties’ arbitration agreement is valid. The court will not order the case to be submitted to arbitration. Please see question 1.3 above.
Promotion of Settlement (Art. 38.4). The Arbitration Act stipulates that the tribunal may attempt to settle the dispute. Generally speaking, Japanese practitioners, including arbitrators, prefer to settle the dispute rather than to make an arbitration award. This provision requires the parties’ consent for the tribunal’s attempt to settle, to avoid the situation that arbitrators place unnecessary pressure upon the parties for settling the case. Parties may withdraw their consent at any time until the settlement is reached.
Arbitrator’s Fee (Art. 47). Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, arbitrators can determine their own fees, while the UNCITRAL Model Law does not have such provisions. Since the fee schedules of arbitration institutions are usually applied to institutional arbitrations; in practice, this provision only applies to ad hoc arbitration.
Deposit for Arbitration Costs (Art. 48). Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, arbitrators may order that the parties deposit an amount determined by the arbitral tribunal as the preliminary arbitration costs.
Consumer Dispute Exception (Supplementary Provision Art. 3). The Arbitration Act confers consumers a unilateral right to terminate the arbitration agreement entered into between a consumer and a business entity. Arbitration proceedings may be carried on if: i) the consumer is the claimant of the arbitration; or ii) the consumer explicitly waives the right to discharge after the arbitral tribunal explains about the arbitration procedure to the consumer at an oral hearing.
Employment Dispute Exception (Supplementary Provision Art. 4). An arbitration agreement between an employer and an employee with respect to future disputes over employment is invalid.
Under the Arbitration Act, there are no mandatory rules specifically governing international arbitration proceedings sited in Japan.
“Arbitrability” is broadly defined in Japan to cover a variety of civil and commercial disputes. Unless otherwise provided by law, civil and commercial disputes that may be resolved by settlement between the parties (excluding that of divorce or separation) are “arbitrable” (Art. 13.1). However, a matter is not “arbitrable” if the final decision of the dispute may be binding on third parties. Although there are few laws which explicitly deny “arbitrability”, the following subject matters are generally considered to NOT be “arbitrable”: (i) validity of intellectual property rights granted by the government, e.g. patents, utility models and trademarks; (ii) shareholders’ action seeking revocation of a resolution of the shareholders’ meeting; (iii) administrative decisions of government agencies; and (iv) insolvency and civil enforcement procedural decisions. In addition, Art. 4 of Supplementary Provisions to Arbitration Act provides that, for the time being until otherwise enacted, any arbitration agreements concluded on or after March 1, 2004, the subject of which constitutes individual labour-related disputes that may arise in the future, shall be null and void.
Yes. The Arbitration Act has adopted the Kompetenz-Kompetenz rule, and Art. 23.1 provides that: “[t]he arbitral tribunal may rule on assertion made in respect of the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement or its own jurisdictions (which means its authority to conduct arbitral proceedings and to make arbitral awards)”.
The court will dismiss the lawsuit if the defendant files a timely motion to dismiss. If the defendant fails to file a timely motion to dismiss, the court will proceed to hear the merits of the case. See also question 1.3 above.
Based on the Kompetenz-Kompetenz rule (Art. 23.1; see also question 3.2 above), the arbitral tribunal will primarily review its own jurisdiction. If the arbitral tribunal affirms its jurisdiction, either party, within 30 days of the receipt of the ruling, may request the relevant court to review such ruling (Art. 23.5).
In addition, courts may address the issue of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal at the stage of enforcement and/or enforceability of an arbitration award.
The court will conduct the de novo review of the tribunal’s decision in respect of its jurisdiction. In other words, the court will not be bound by the tribunal’s decision itself, and will review the tribunal’s jurisdiction case independently from the tribunal’s own decision.
As a principle, an arbitration agreement is binding only upon the parties to the arbitration agreement. In the case of a joint venture, the participants to the joint venture may be bound to the arbitration agreement to which the joint venture is a party. Furthermore, the court extended the scope of an arbitration agreement with respect to the parties to the arbitration proceedings as a result of applying New York law (which was chosen by the parties as governing law) to the interpretation of the arbitration agreement. K.K. Nihon Kyoiku Sha v. Kenneth J. Feld, 68 Hanrei Jiho 1499 (Tokyo H. Ct., May 30, 1994); appeal to the Supreme Court denied, 51 Minshu 3709 (Sup. Ct., Sep. 4, 1997).
There is no provision related to limitation periods for the commencement of arbitrations. Under Japanese law, the rules of limitation periods are substantive rather than procedural. Accordingly, parties may choose the law of limitation pursuant to the conflict of laws in Japan (namely, the Act on General Rules of Application of Laws (Act No. 78 of 2007)).
Neither the Arbitration Act nor the Bankruptcy Act provides any specific provisions as to how ongoing arbitration proceedings will be affected by insolvency proceedings with respect to the parties to the arbitration. In addition, there is no particular case law on this point. Thus, it is difficult to define the effect in Japan of pending insolvency proceedings upon arbitration proceedings, while an academic authority argues that the arbitration proceedings shall be suspended upon the commencement of insolvency proceedings on the parties and shall be resumed once a bankruptcy trustee is appointed.
Primarily, the arbitral tribunal shall apply the law agreed by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. If the parties fail to agree on the applicable law, the tribunal shall apply such law of the state with which the dispute is most closely connected (Arts. 36.1 and 36.2). Notwithstanding these provisions, the tribunal shall decide ex aequo et bono when the parties have expressly authorised it to do so (Art. 36.3). In addition, in the case of a contract dispute, the tribunal shall decide in accordance with the terms of the contract and shall take into account the applicable usages, if any (Art. 36.4).
Generally speaking, in those cases where regulatory issues (e.g. issues relating to labour law, antimonopoly law and patent law) are involved, mandatory laws may prevail over the laws chosen by the parties to the arbitration.
According to Art. 44.1 of the Arbitration Act, validity of an arbitration agreement should be subject to the law agreed by both parties as an applicable law, or in case of failing, to the laws of Japan.
There are no specified limits to the selection of arbitrators, i.e. parties may agree on the number, required qualification and skills of arbitrators, and the methods of the selection.
Yes. The Arbitration Act provides a default procedure for selecting arbitrators, which is basically the same as that of the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Yes. Courts can select arbitrators upon the request of either party if there is no agreement between the parties with respect to the selection of arbitrators, or the parties and/or party-appointed arbitrators fail to select arbitrators. In selecting arbitrators, the court shall take into account the following factors: (i) the qualifications required of the arbitrators by the agreement of the parties; (ii) the impartiality and independence of the appointees; and (iii) whether or not it would be appropriate to appoint an arbitrator of a nationality other than those of the parties (Art. 17.6).
In a maritime dispute case between a Japanese company and an Indian distributor, the court selected an attorney listed in the candidate list of the Tokyo Maritime Arbitration Commission of the Japan Shipping Exchange (“TOMAC”) as the sole arbitrator. Although the court seemed to have considered the nationalities of the parties, it chose a Japanese arbitrator on the basis that all listed candidates of TOMAC were Japanese nationals and that the foreign party did not mention its preference on the nationality of the arbitrator during the proceeding. Case No. Heisei 15 (wa) 21462, 1927 Hanrei Jihou 75 (Tokyo D. Ct., Feb. 9, 2005).
Reasonable doubt as to the impartiality and independence of the arbitrators can be the grounds for challenging them (Art. 18.1). In order to secure the effectiveness of such a ‘challenge’ system, both arbitrator candidates and arbitrators are obliged to disclose all the facts which may raise doubts as to their impartiality or their independence (Arts. 18.3 and 18.4).
The “IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration” are widely recognised among international arbitration practitioners in Japan. Further, the Japan Association of Arbitrators (“JAA”) published a “Code of Ethics for Arbitrators” in 2008. The JAA’s Code of Ethics provides a standard for compliance with regard to the neutrality and impartiality of arbitrators.
Yes, but, in principle, the Arbitration Act allows parties to have broad autonomy and the arbitral tribunal to have broad discretion (Art. 26). The mandatory rules concerning “equal treatment of parties”, “due process” and “public order” (Arts. 25 and 26.1). In addition, the Arbitration Act provides “default rules” with respect to the procedure, including: waiver of right to object (Art. 27); place of arbitration (Art. 28); commencement of arbitral proceedings and interruption of limitation (Art. 29); language (Art. 30); time restriction on parties’ statements (Art 31); procedure of hearings (Art. 32); default of a party (Art. 33); an expert appointed by an arbitral tribunal (Art. 34); and court assistance in taking evidence (Art. 35).
Yes. In arbitration proceedings, certain procedural steps are required under the Arbitration Act, which include: equal treatment and due process (Art. 25); tribunal’s authority (Kompetenz-Kompetenz) (Art. 23.1); time limitation for arguing the tribunal’s jurisdiction (Art. 23.2); prior notice of oral hearings (Art. 32.3); accessibility to the other party’s brief and all of the evidence (Art. 32.4); form of awards (Art. 39); and completion of arbitral proceedings (Art. 40). The Arbitration Act further provides rules for arbitration proceedings which involve a court’s intervention and/or assistance (Art. 35).
Except for those general rules that govern legal practice in Japan, there are no particular rules that govern the conduct of counsel from Japan in arbitral proceedings sited in Japan.
The Arbitration Act provides the arbitral tribunal with a wide range of powers with respect to arbitral proceedings. For example, the party who intends to request the court to assist with the examination of evidence, e.g. witnesses, expert witnesses and written evidence, shall obtain the tribunal’s prior consent (Art. 35.2). The Arbitration Act also gives the arbitral tribunal powers to determine on its jurisdiction (Kompetenz-Kompetenz) (Art. 23.1) and to render interim measures (Art. 24).
The Attorney Act (Act No. 205 of 1949) strictly prohibits non-lawyers (including lawyers admitted in foreign jurisdictions) from performing legal business in Japan (The Attorney Act, Art. 72). A foreign lawyer registered in Japan may handle some legal business in Japan, but only to the extent that the Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling of Legal Services by Foreign Lawyers (Act No. 66 of 1986, the “Foreign Lawyers Act”) allows them. On the other hand, the Foreign Lawyers Act explicitly sets out an exception to those restrictions, saying that lawyers admitted in foreign jurisdictions (whether registered in Japan or not) may represent in international arbitration proceedings, including settlement procedures (Arts. 5-3 and 58-2 of the Foreign Lawyers Act).
There are no statutory laws or rules providing for arbitrator immunity in Japan.
No. Courts may intervene or support arbitration proceedings only when requested by the parties to the arbitration. Once the arbitral tribunal is composed, procedural issues arising during the arbitration procedure should be handled by the tribunal (Art. 23.1).
Yes (Art. 24). The arbitral tribunal can award preliminary and interim relief when it considers it necessary. Usually, preliminary relief is used to maintain the status quo. The tribunal can exercise such powers without any assistance of the court. However, the preliminary relief rendered by the arbitral tribunal shall not be recognised or enforced by courts.
Yes (Art. 15). Upon request of a party to the dispute, courts can grant preliminary relief at any time before or during the arbitral proceedings, in respect of any civil dispute subject to arbitration.
The courts will assess whether the requirements for the granting of preliminary or interim relief as stipulated in the Civil Provisional Remedies Act (Act No. 91 of 1989, “CPRA”) have been satisfied. In order for the courts to grant preliminary or interim relief, (i) the right or relationship of rights to be preserved, and (ii) the necessity for preliminary or interim relief must be evidenced by making a prima facie showing. Further, the courts may order either party to provide appropriate security for the preliminary or interim relief. In practice, the arbitral tribunal’s ability to order its own effective interim measures may influence the court’s decision as regards to the necessity requirement of (ii) above.
Japanese courts will not issue an anti-suit injunction in aid of arbitration under any circumstances.
Yes. Both courts and arbitral tribunals may order either party to provide appropriate security for interim measures (Art. 24.2 and relevant provisions of the CPRA).
The Arbitration Act does not provide for the enforcement of preliminary relief and interim measures ordered by arbitral tribunals. It is generally considered that Japanese courts will not enforce preliminary relief and interim measures ordered by arbitral tribunals in Japan or in other jurisdictions.
The Arbitration Act does not provide any specific rules of evidence. Instead, it gives arbitral tribunals the authority to determine the admissibility of evidence, necessity for taking evidence and probative value of evidence (Art. 26.3). Generally speaking, most practitioners in Japan, including both attorneys and arbitrators, usually follow Japanese evidence rules, which do not include fully-fledged discovery. In the meantime, the “IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration” are being widely acknowledged by Japanese practitioners of international commercial arbitration.
The Arbitration Act provides the arbitral tribunal with a wide range of powers with respect to arbitral proceedings, including disclosure of documents and examination of witnesses (Arts. 26.2 and 26.3). Under Japanese law, however, since arbitrators do not have subpoena powers, they must request the assistance of national courts if they wish to compel the production of documents in possession of third parties, or to compel the attendance of witnesses. See also question 8.3.
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, courts can assist with taking evidence upon request of the tribunal or of a party (Art. 35.1). The requesting party shall obtain the tribunal’s consent prior to the request. The court’s assistance, including a document production order, examination of witnesses and obtaining expert opinions, is subject to the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 109 of 1996, as amended, “CCP”).
It is left up to the arbitral tribunal’s discretion to decide how it handles evidence and testimony, unless otherwise agreed by the parties (Art. 26.3). As long as the tribunal finds it necessary and appropriate, written testimony may be admitted. If such testimony is admitted, the tribunal usually allows the other party to cross-examine the witness in the hearing.
Under Japanese law, there is no clear categorical concept of “attorney-client privilege” with respect to the production of documents. As long as the tribunal follows Japanese rules of evidence, attorney-client privilege rarely poses an issue because fully-fledged discovery is rarely conducted. However, if the arbitral proceedings give rise to such issue, arbitrators will usually respect attorney-client privilege.
Arbitral awards must be in writing. The majority of arbitrators must sign the award. If one or more arbitrator(s) cannot sign the award, reasons must be provided as to why they cannot. Reasons for conclusions, the date, and the place of arbitration must be included in the award (Art. 39). Where the settlement of parties is reduced to the form of an arbitral award, the arbitral tribunal should explicitly mention such background information (Art. 38). There is no requirement under the Arbitration Act that the arbitrators must sign every page.
Under the Arbitration Act, the arbitral tribunal has the power to correct any miscalculation, clerical error or any other similar error in the arbitral award, upon the request of the parties or by its authority (Art. 41). The arbitral tribunal may also interpret a specific part of the arbitral award upon request by a party (Art. 42). If a party requests the correction or interpretation of an award, the request must generally be made within 30 days from the date of the receipt of notice of the arbitral award (Art. 41(2), Art. 42(3)). Unlike the UNCITRAL Model Law, there is no time restriction with respect to corrections made by the arbitral tribunal on its own authority.
Parties are entitled to request the court to “set aside” an arbitral award on the following basis: (i) the arbitration agreement is not valid; (ii) the party making the application was not given notice as required under Japanese law during the proceedings to appoint arbitrators or during the arbitral proceedings; (iii) the party making the application was unable to defend itself in the proceedings; (iv) the arbitral award contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement or the claims in the arbitral proceedings; (v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral proceedings were not in accordance with the provisions of Japanese law (or where the parties have otherwise reached an agreement on matters concerning the provisions of the law that is not in accordance with public policy); (vi) the claims in the arbitral proceedings relate to disputes that cannot constitute the subject of an arbitration agreement under Japanese law; or (vii) the content of the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy or the good morals of Japan (Art. 44.1).
Regarding (iii) above, a recent court decision articulated that “unable to defend” shall mean that there was a material procedural violation in the arbitration proceedings (i.e. the opportunity to defend was not given to the party throughout the proceedings). With respect to (vii) above, the same court also said that merely claiming that the factual findings or ruling of the arbitration tribunal were unreasonable should not be regarded as a valid basis for setting aside the award. In re American International Underwriters, Ltd., 1304 Hanrei Taimuzu 292 (Tokyo D. Ct., July 28, 2009).
There are no explicit provisions in the Arbitration Act which allow parties to agree to exclude any grounds for challenging an arbitral award. It is generally considered that the parties may not waive their rights to set aside arbitral awards.
Probably not. There are no explicit provisions in the Arbitration Act which restrict parties from expanding the grounds for appealing or challenging the arbitral award. However, the court, in obiter, rejected the parties’ argument to set aside the award based on an additional ground set out in the mutual agreement by the parties. Descente Ltd v. Adidas-Salomon AG et al., 123 Hanrei Jiho 1847 (Tokyo D. Ct., Jan. 26, 2004).
No appeal is allowed against an arbitral award; however, a party can file with a competent district court a motion to set aside the award. Such motion should be made within three months upon the receipt of the arbitration award or before the enforcement decision has become final and conclusive (Art. 44.2).
Yes. Japan acceded to the New York Convention on June 20, 1961. The New York Convention became effective in Japan from September 18, 1961, with a reservation of reciprocity. Since the New York Convention has direct effect in Japan, there is no domestic statute implementing the New York Convention. On the other hand, foreign awards of a non-signatory country/region to the New York Convention, such as Taiwan, can be enforced according to the relevant provision of the Arbitration Act (Art. 46).
No. Although several bilateral treaties refer to commercial arbitration, none of them provides simpler enforcement procedures than that of the New York Convention.
As the New York Convention has a direct effect in Japan, parties can simply follow the procedural requirements stated in the New York Convention. As required in the New York Convention, parties need to prepare a Japanese translation of the award if it is written in a foreign language.
Arbitral awards, irrespective of whether or not the arbitration took place in the territory of Japan, shall have the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment (Art. 45.1). This provision is generally understood to mean that an arbitral award shall be pled as res judicata.
As per Art. 45.2 of the Arbitration Act, Japanese courts will consider if the enforcement of the award will be in conformity with the laws of Japan, whether it is procedural law or substantive law. This standard is basically the same as the one used to set aside an arbitral award (Art. 44.1).
The Arbitration Act does not have a particular provision with respect to confidentiality. It is entirely up to the parties’ agreement or the relevant institutional rules for arbitration rules applied to the procedure. At the same time, the rules of most arbitration bodies in Japan, such as the Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (“JCAA”) and TOMAC, have provisions in respect of confidentiality. As confidentiality of arbitration proceedings relies on the rules of each arbitration organisation, the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings has the same protection as an ordinary confidentiality agreement.
The Arbitration Act does not explicitly prohibit parties from referring to information disclosed in the course of arbitral proceedings. Accordingly, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, or provided for in the relevant institutional rules for arbitration, parties may refer to the information disclosed in the previous arbitration in subsequent court proceedings.
No. However, “punitive damages” that exceed compensatory damages might not be enforced by Japanese courts, as courts may find that the concept of punitive damages is against the “public policy” in Japan. Under the New York Convention (Art. 2(b)) and the Arbitration Act (Arts. 45 and 46), courts may reject the enforcement of an award if is contrary to the “public order” of Japan. A foreign judgment which contained punitive damages, claimed separately from compensatory damages, has been rejected by the court on the grounds that the enforcement of which would be contrary to “public order”. Mansei Industrial K.K. v. Northcon [I], 51 Minshu 2530 (Sup. Ct., Jul. 11, 1997).
It is up to the relevant provisions of the applicable substantive law. Where Japanese law applies to the merits of the case, the arbitral tribunal will award such interest as stipulated in the contract, or in the Japanese statute (which is 6% per annum in commercial matters and 5% per annum in other civil matters).
The Arbitration Act provides for the rules with respect to the costs of the arbitration proceedings. As a general rule, each party to the arbitration shall bear the costs it has disbursed in the arbitral proceedings, unless otherwise agreed by the parties (Art. 49.1). If it is so indicated by the agreement of the parties, the arbitral tribunal may, in an arbitral award or in an independent ruling, determine the apportionment between the parties of the costs (Art. 49.2). The ruling on the cost by the tribunal shall have the same effect as an arbitral award (Art. 49.3).
Payment made pursuant to an arbitral award may be subject to relevant taxes in Japan. The basis of such may differ depending on the nature of the payment and the underlying dispute.
In general, funding by a third party is not specifically prohibited. However, attorneys are not allowed to lend money to their client unless there are special circumstances, such as in the event of an emergency, which require the advance payment of litigation costs. “Professional” funders are not active in the market for litigation or arbitration.
Contingency fee arrangements are not specifically prohibited. However, attorneys’ fees must always be appropriate and contingency fee arrangements might be considered inappropriate if they result in the amount of the attorneys’ fees becoming extremely high in comparison to the benefit obtained by their clients.
Yes. Japan signed it on September 23, 1965 and ratified it on August 17, 1967.
Japan has entered into 43 BITs (including Economic Partnership Agreements with investment sections) as of April 2017, most of which explicitly allow parties to resort their disputes to the ICSID. Also, Japan is a member country of the Energy Charter Treaty.
Japan does not have standard terms or model language that it uses in its investment treaties. As to what types of protection are available and what conditions have to be satisfied under the investment treaty, the provisions of the relevant treaty must be carefully examined.
The Supreme Court of Japan ruled that, while sovereign activities shall be immune from liability, liabilities which arose from non-sovereign activities, such as commercial transactions, of the foreign government will not be exempt. Tokyo Sanyo Trading K.K. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 60 Minshu 2542 (Sup. Ct., Jul. 21, 2006). New legislation with respect to the immunity of a foreign state, which came into effect on April 1, 2010, basically traces the above Supreme Court ruling.
In June 2017, the Cabinet of Japan approved “Basic Policy on Economic and Fiscal Management and Reform 2017”, which aimed to “develop a foundation to activate international arbitration” in Japan as one of the important policies of the Japanese Government. Under the cooperation of the public and private sectors, in February 2018, the Japan International Dispute Resolution Center (“JIDRC”) was established. On May 1, 2018, the Japan International Dispute Resolution Center (Osaka) (JIDRC-Osaka), the state-of-the-art facilities dedicated to resolving international disputes (international arbitration and ADR), started its operations. Also, the JIDRC plans to establish the same facilities for a hearing of arbitration and other types of ADR in Tokyo, the JIDRC-Tokyo, in 2019.
As to international commercial arbitration in Japan, disputes related to distribution agreements, licence agreements and joint-venture agreements are typically referred to arbitration under the JCAA rules. Further, maritime (domestic or international) and construction (mostly domestic) are major areas in which arbitration procedures are frequently used to resolve disputes.
Recently, the JCAA thoroughly amended the Commercial Arbitration Rules. The amended Rules came into force on February 1, 2014. The changes are generally in line with recent trends in amendments to the arbitration rules of other major international arbitral institutions. The key changes include enhancing the expeditious and proper conduct of arbitral proceedings by the arbitral tribunal. For instance, Rule 39.1 provides that the arbitral tribunal must use reasonable efforts to render an arbitral award within six months of the date on which it is constituted. Rule 39.2 provides that the arbitral tribunal must consult the parties and make a procedural schedule of the arbitral proceedings to the extent necessary and feasible as early as practicable. Moreover, the amended Rules introduced the provisions for interim measures by an emergency arbitrator (Rules 70 to 74).

References: Art. 3
 Art. 4
 Art. 4
 Art. 23
 v. 
 Art. 44
 Art. 72
 Art. 42
 v. 
 Art. 45
 v. 
 v.