Parties usually choose arbitral rules before any dispute arises, meaning they have to make educated guesses about what will serve them best down the line. While many factors are uncertain at that stage, three are almost always relevant in the event arbitration becomes necessary: how long the proceedings will take, how much they will cost and who might sit as arbitrator.
This article examines the latest statistics on these factors released by four leading global arbitral institutions, namely the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) and London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”). The arbitral rules of these institutions were recently identified in a study by Queen Mary University of London [1] as the top four most preferred choices globally.
Efficiency data: apples and oranges
In terms of the time and cost of proceedings, an “apples with apples” comparison between institutions is, unfortunately, impossible, as not all institutions routinely publish their data and those that do use a variety of parameters and metrics.
With that caveat in mind, the data suggest that ICC proceedings typically take longer than LCIA, SIAC or HKIAC proceedings,[2] while LCIA proceedings tend to be cheaper in terms of arbitrator fees and administrative services.[3]
This may in part be a function of differences in caseload (ICC cases typically being of significantly higher value, for example),[4] as well as differences in approach taken to particular issues. For example, the LCIA attributes its cost-effectiveness to its hourly rates model (as opposed to the ad valorem approach typically used by other institutions).[5] Similarly, the ICC’s mandatory scrutiny of awards naturally adds some time to the procedure but, while this perceived delay troubles some, others view the scrutiny mechanism as a valuable step to ensuring a higher quality (and more reliably enforceable) award.
Although a reliable data comparison remains difficult, useful insight can also be gained by considering the procedural rules and tools promulgated by the various institutions to promote efficiency. For example, the introduction of deadlines by which tribunals must render their awards or submit them for scrutiny is a welcome step in terms of encouraging efficiency on the part of the tribunal, while the introduction of more robust case management tools such as summary disposal powers in various institutional rules has better empowered tribunals to regulate the parties’ (and their lawyers’) conduct of the proceedings.
Arbitrator diversity: institutions leading the way
Another positive development in recent years has been the increased attention paid to arbitrator diversity, in terms of gender and other characteristics. The year 2024 saw the inclusion in the latest edition of the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules of an express requirement that HKIAC “shall take into account considerations of diversity” when appointing arbitrators, as well as the launch by the LCIA of its Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (“EDI”) Guidelines, setting out recommendations for integrating EDI principles throughout an arbitration.
Each of the ICC, LCIA, SIAC and HKIAC is a signatory to the Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge and has accordingly committed to addressing the under-representation of women on international arbitration tribunals, including by making publicly available statistics around appointee genders. The figures duly reported by each of them indicate a gradual increase in the overall proportion of female arbitrators appointed over recent years.
The data indicate that arbitral institutions appoint female arbitrators more frequently than parties or co-arbitrators (at the ICC, for example, female candidates accounted for 46% of ICC Court appointments, as compared to 33% of co-arbitrator nominations and 19% of party nominations; at the LCIA, female candidates represented 45% of LCIA Court appointments, 40% of co-arbitrator appointments and 21% of party appointments). This marks the institutions out as active drivers of progress in this respect, an encouraging sign for the future.
The LCIA’s 2024 report also includes data on the number of appointments of arbitrators who had not previously been appointed by the LCIA: 14% of the LCIA Court’s appointments, 17% of appointments by co-arbitrators and 16% of appointments by the parties. This metric is indicative of the extent to which the pool of arbitrator candidates has been widened (an important step towards improving diversity across all characteristics).
Although not explicitly confirming the number of first time appointees (rather reporting on the percentage of repeat versus single appointments within the year), the ICC emphasises in its report, alongside its policy of appointing the “best available candidates”, that it “encourages the proposal/appointment of candidates with less arbitrator experience and/or young arbitrators for less complex cases or cases involving relatively low amounts in dispute”.[6] It reports that, against a global average age of arbitrators confirmed or appointed generally of approximately 55 years, arbitrators appointed by the ICC Court were five years younger.
In terms of geographical diversity of arbitrators, the institutions closely linked with a particular jurisdiction (and unsurprisingly therefore registering a high proportion of cases with the governing law of that jurisdiction) tend to have higher proportions of arbitrators with the nationality of the institution’s “home State”. That said, each of the LCIA and SIAC has reported an increase year-on-year in the percentage of non-home State nationals appointed in 2024 (representing 45% of LCIA appointments and 72% of SIAC appointments). The ICC, sitting in a somewhat different position, reported appointees in 2024 from 91 different jurisdictions, with the highest represented regions being North and West Europe (49.9%), Latin America and the Caribbean (17.3%) and North America (10%).
In cases where arbitrator appointments are made by the parties, the institutions obviously have less direct influence. However, the important efforts being made in terms of institutional appointments allows less established candidates to gain experience and build a reputation, which in turn makes it easier for parties to select the most suitable arbitrator for their dispute from a wider pool than has traditionally been the case.
***
Overall, the most recent statistics paint an encouraging picture, highlighting the strides made by these leading institutions to streamline procedures and to broaden representation among arbitrators. With strong foundations and global reach, each of them is well positioned to continue expanding their appeal, attracting an increasingly international user base and reinforcing their reputations for leadership in the field.
[1] 2025 International Arbitration Survey, The path forward: Realities and opportunities in arbitration, White & Case / Queen Mary University of London
[2] The ICC published duration data for cases concluded by final award in 2024 (average 26 months; median 22 months). The LCIA’s latest duration data covers cases concluded by final award between January 2017 and May 2024 (median 20 months). Neither SIAC nor HKIAC published duration data for 2024, with the most recent available for SIAC covering the period from 1 April 2013 to 31 July 2016 (average duration of 13.8 months) and for HKIAC covering 1 November 2013 to 30 April 2023 (average duration of 17.7 months).
[3] As noted in the LCIA’s “Costs and Duration: 2017-2024” publication (pp 4-5), in the absence of published cost data by the other institutions this can only be tested by comparing the LCIA’s published cost data against estimates reached using a set of hypothetical claim values and durations.
[4] The average quantum in dispute in ICC claims filed during 2024 and pending as at the end of the year was USD 130 million, compared to USD 48.1 million in HKIAC-administered claims in the same year and USD 31.55 million in new 2024 case filings with SIAC. The LCIA has not published an average quantum in dispute but of the LCIA cases seeking quantified monetary relief in 2024, approx. 85% were claims for USD 50 million or less.
[5] LCIA Annual Casework Report 2024, p 1.
[6] ICC Dispute Resolution 2024 Statistics, p 10.
