Effective oral advocacy in international arbitration requires counsel to identify the decisive issues, respond directly to tribunal questions and adapt their submissions to the time available, speakers observed during Session 2, titled “The Art of Persuasion: Oral Advocacy in International Arbitration”, at Asia ADR Week 2026.
The session was moderated by Janice Ooi, with panellists Adam Lee of Christopher & Lee Ong, Chen Zhong of Commerce & Finance Law Offices, and Siva Kumar Kanagasabai of Halim Hong & Quek.
The discussion covered practical aspects of oral advocacy, including reading tribunal interventions, conducting effective cross-examination, managing time-constrained hearings, using tone and pace persuasively, and structuring closing submissions.
Reading the Tribunal: Distinguishing Questions from Doubts
Chen Zhong highlighted the importance of understanding the purpose behind a tribunal’s questions. Counsel must distinguish between questions seeking clarification and those indicating that the tribunal remains unconvinced by a particular proposition.
He emphasised that advocates should answer questions directly before offering further explanations. Counsel must also recognise when to defend a core proposition, qualify an argument or reconsider a position in light of the tribunal’s concerns.
The discussion underscored the importance of flexibility in advocacy while maintaining a firm position on the central issues of liability and relief.
Cross-Examination: Knowing When to Stop
Adam Lee highlighted the importance of identifying the objective of each question during cross-examination and avoiding unnecessary repetition.
Once a witness has provided the required answer, counsel should consider whether further questioning is necessary. Continuing to question a witness after securing the desired admission may give the witness an opportunity to qualify or explain the answer.
The discussion also examined the principal objectives of cross-examination: eliciting favourable evidence, undermining testimony adverse to a party’s case, and testing a witness’s credibility. The panellists emphasised the value of focused questions while cautioning against excessive aggression or badgering, particularly in international proceedings involving different legal and cultural backgrounds.
Managing Time Without Losing the Argument
The panellists also addressed the challenges of oral hearings conducted under strict time limits, including the use of chess clocks in international arbitration.
Adam Lee emphasised the value of preparing concise versions of submissions so that counsel can present the essential arguments even when time is limited. Rather than attempting to reproduce every point orally, advocates can direct the tribunal to relevant portions of written submissions, witness statements and documentary evidence.
The discussion highlighted that effective time management is not simply about speaking faster, but about prioritising the strongest legal arguments and the facts that matter most to the outcome.
Chen Zhong highlighted the importance of speaking clearly and at a measured pace, particularly before multilingual tribunals where participants may be following proceedings in a second or third language.
Strategic pauses can help emphasise important propositions, while an unnecessarily aggressive tone may undermine counsel’s credibility. Advocates should remain attentive to the tribunal’s responses and be prepared to explain an argument differently if it is not being understood.
The discussion also focused on structuring effective closing submissions. Rather than merely repeating the opening statement or reciting extensive written submissions, counsel should identify the decisive evidence, connect the factual findings to the applicable legal test and explain why the requested relief follows.
The panellists highlighted the value of taking the tribunal directly to crucial documents and relevant passages in hearing transcripts, particularly where a witness has made a significant admission.
The central takeaway from the session was that persuasive advocacy depends not on the volume of arguments presented, but on counsel’s ability to identify what matters, address the tribunal’s concerns and make the path to the requested award clear.