The scale of international dispute resolution illustrates why this matters for Pakistan’s commercial future. The ICC registered 881 new arbitrations in 2025, involving 2,531 parties from 147 jurisdictions. Its pending caseload at year-end represented approximately US$299 billion in disputes. ICC’s International Centre for ADR also received 36 mediation requests during the year. These figures are not merely institutional statistics. They reflect a commercial reality: businesses increasingly regard dispute resolution as part of transaction design. Choice of forum, governing law, arbitration agreement, seat, institutional rules, interim relief and enforcement are often considered before a commercial relationship begins—not after it fails. For Pakistan, this creates an opportunity. The real test is confidence. The next stage of ADR development should therefore be measured not simply by the number of ADR centres, laws, rules or referrals. The deeper measure is confidence. Will commercial parties trust the process? Will courts consistently respect valid arbitration agreements? Will judicial intervention remain principled and proportionate? Will foreign awards receive predictable treatment? Will mediators and arbitrators have the professional training and institutional credibility necessary for sophisticated disputes? Will commercial counsel understand when mediation is preferable to arbitration, when arbitration is preferable to litigation, and when litigation itself is indispensable? These are ultimately questions of legal culture as much as legislative design.

Pakistan has an opportunity to develop, not merely import, best practice.

This is where I believe the conversation should become more ambitious. Pakistan should certainly learn from jurisdictions with mature ADR ecosystems. But comparative law should not become an exercise in transplantation. Pakistan has its own constitutional structure, statutory framework, commercial realities, judicial culture and institutional needs. The objective should therefore be to develop a Pakistan ADR model that is domestically credible and internationally intelligible. That requires legislation, yes. But it also requires jurisprudence. It requires trained practitioners. It requires credible institutions. It requires informed commercial users. And it requires a judiciary capable of providing the right degree of support, supervision and restraint. The opportunity before us. The Supreme Court’s participation in Istanbul is therefore welcome not simply because Pakistan was present at an international ADR forum. It is welcome because it places Pakistan within an increasingly important global conversation about how justice should be delivered in a commercial world where disputes routinely cross borders and where time, enforceability and commercial continuity can be as important as the ultimate merits of a claim.