Despite its financial downturn, the Asian region continues to be a major factor on the financial scene. Its enormous population and resultant purchasing power, its constant search for more foreign investment, and an increasing tendency to “go global,” all contribute to the growing number of international transactions in and with the region. The plummeting Thai baht of July 1997 signaled a slow-down, but by no means a halt to the trend. And, regrettably, more transactions give rise to more disputes. Now two years on, although looking toward recovery, we are experiencing the litigious fallout of the crisis.[1]

“Is there an ‘Asian’ style of dispute resolution?” The introduction to Dispute Resolution in Asia begins with the warning that “[d]ated generalizations and anecdotes are a shaky basis for corporate decision-making. . .” and continues with the premise that, unlike the countries of the European Union, Asian states have to a large extent retained their social and legal diversity. We are first reminded of the five major sources of “Asian” legal heritage – civil law, common law, Islamic law, socialism and Hindu/Buddhist influences. Then the authors point out the varied political organizations in Asia – socialism, republicanism and constitutional monarchy. These distinctions provide the matrix for this comprehensive comparative study of the dispute resolution mechanisms in ten Asian jurisdictions.2