THE AUTHOR:
Pritam Dumbré, Editor at the Houston Place of Arbitration
Arbitration sits at the heart of global commerce, allowing businesses, states, and investors to resolve complex disputes through a system founded on neutrality, expertise, and enforceability. It remains one of the most widely preferred and effective mechanisms of dispute resolution. Its public reputation, however, is often influenced by a relatively small number of controversial cases and headlines. On this premise, a panel hosted by Byfield Consultancy and Osborne Clarke during London International Week (“LIDW 2026”) sought to examine a deceptively simple question: “Who speaks for arbitration: Arbitration in the Media and Public Discourse”.
Held at the International Dispute Resolution Centre, the discussion brought together Gus Sellitto (Byfield Consultancy), Greg Fullelove (Osborne Clarke), Ben Rigby (Global Legal Post), Aimee Ward (Ashurst), and Christiane Deniger (Burford Capital). The panel ultimately considered whether more needed to be done to improve arbitration’s reputation and public understanding of the subject.
Between Headlines and Reality: How Arbitration Is Narrated
Sellitto commenced the discussion by asking the panel whether arbitration was facing increasing scrutiny. Rigby did not attribute this to any loss of confidence in arbitration itself, but rather to a gap in understanding among those outside the field. For arbitration practitioners, the advantages remain well known: confidentiality, neutrality, enforceability, expertise, and flexibility. Most public controversies surrounding disputes often begin from a different starting point altogether. Large awards, investor-State disputes, and questions of transparency frequently attract attention and shape perceptions of the process.
Investor-State arbitration in particular has drawn increasing scrutiny. Its recurring criticism is that private actors are able to challenge democratic decisions through a private dispute resolution mechanism. While not all such criticisms are well founded, Rigby considered some concerns surrounding transparency, diversity, and accountability worthy of introspection. He also stressed the importance of distinguishing investor-State disputes from international commercial arbitration. From a journalist’s perspective, attention is often drawn by the filing of a claim, while the eventual resolution may receive little coverage. Unless the arbitration community explains how the system operates in practice, it risks leaving that narrative to speculation.
Building on that theme, Sellitto noted the criticism that businesses suing governments are sometimes portrayed as resorting to “legal terrorism”. Deniger found that characterisation as inherently unfair. Arbitration exists because parties choose it and, in the context of investor-State dispute settlement (“ISDS”), because States have agreed through treaties to provide protections for foreign investment. Ward similarly observed that investor-State disputes attract a disproportionate share of public attention. Even within the small percentage of arbitrations that enter public discourse, most are ISDS cases. She pointed to P&ID v. Ministry of Petroleum of Nigeria [2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm) as an illustration. The award, reportedly equivalent to roughly a third of Nigeria’s annual budget, was later set aside by the English courts on grounds of fraud and corruption. The case attracted significant criticism and renewed calls for greater transparency and accountability. At the same time, Ward emphasised the need to distinguish investor-State arbitration from commercial arbitration when communicating developments to wider audiences.
Sellitto then asked whether such cases unfairly shape perceptions of arbitration more broadly. Fullelove observed that arbitration remains a relatively niche area, even within the legal profession. As a result, readers encountering negative headlines may not distinguish between different forms of arbitration. In reality, thousands of arbitrations proceed smoothly each year. A small number may attract adverse publicity, but that could very well be the case for any other profession.
The Responsibility to Explain
Deniger observed that many private practitioners also serve as arbitrators, a reality that can quickly give rise to perceptions of conflict. The issue is often not whether a conflict exists, but how it is perceived and framed. In the context of investor-State disputes, those concerns become more sensitive and may require experienced practitioners to take the lead in navigating them.
Drawing on her experience in energy disputes, Ward noted that sophisticated in-house arbitration teams increasingly play an important role in advising businesses and, in some instances, facilitating enforcement itself. Sellitto suggested that greater awareness among arbitration users remains equally important.
For Fullelove, turning that awareness into reality would require engagement beyond the disputes community. Arbitration should be discussed more widely as a means of resolving commercial deadlock, thereby improving both understanding and visibility. Rigby similarly identified chambers of commerce as valuable points of contact with businesses. Through their committees, experienced practitioners can encourage greater engagement with dispute resolution and help shape understanding from within. Deniger added that such organisations often serve as an important bridge between practitioners and end users.
Ward also highlighted the value of industry events. Beyond facilitating dialogue between businesses and arbitration practitioners, they provide an effective forum for explaining how arbitration operates and the types of disputes it is designed to resolve.
Ambassadors for Arbitration
The discussion finally turned to the role of specialist and mainstream media. Sellitto noted the contribution of dedicated publications such as CDR and GAR before asking how arbitration’s advantages might be communicated more effectively beyond specialist audiences. Rigby cautioned that no single actor could achieve that objective alone. Both commercial and investor-State arbitrations are perceived differently across jurisdictions, adding another layer of complexity. He instead proposed a more coordinated effort. Institutions can provide authoritative facts, practitioners can explain arbitration in clearer and more accessible terms, arbitrators can contribute without compromising their independence, and academics and former judges can place arbitration within a broader rule of law context.
The panel welcomed the global engagement by institutions and professional bodies. Institutions such as the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) and the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) continue to shape arbitration as both a process and a global discourse. The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (“CIArb”) remains instrumental in training future practitioners, while the International Bar Association (“IBA”) continues to provide guidance where needed. Across all these efforts, the common objective remains making arbitration more practical, accessible, and better understood.
Deniger noted the need to challenge misconceptions surrounding issues such as third-party funding, while Ward similarly advocated earlier engagement with the wider media. Better information and clearer communication, she suggested, can often prevent unnecessary speculation. The speakers also stressed the importance of engaging with journalists early, rather than responding only after misconceptions have taken hold.
Turning Criticism into Credibility
Looking ahead, Sellitto invited the panel to consider what might improve arbitration’s reputation. Deniger advocated a broader pool of arbitrators, including greater sector-specific expertise, alongside continued efforts to streamline proceedings and improve clarity. Rigby observed that success should not be measured by the absence of criticism, but by a more informed debate. Journalists, policymakers, institutions, and users alike should better understand the distinctions between commercial arbitration and ISDS, as well as the difference between confidentiality and transparency. Legitimate concerns surrounding diversity, costs, delay, representation, and accountability must be addressed through reform rather than dismissed outright.
Fullelove did not regard criticism of arbitration as inherently damaging. In his experience, arbitration remains an effective mechanism precisely because of the flexibility it affords parties. The challenge lies in ensuring that those benefits are better understood by users.
Ward hoped to see more proactive case management, greater diversity, and continued efforts to improve efficiency. Looking further ahead, she pointed to the opportunities presented by technology and AI. If arbitration can integrate those developments responsibly while preserving the qualities that have made it successful, that in itself would be a true success story.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Pritam Dumbré is an international arbitration and commercial disputes professional, legally trained and based in London. He currently serves as Editor to the Houston Place of Arbitration. Pritam is a Certified Tribunal Secretary with experience in e-case management and has been common-law qualified since 2022. He holds an LL.M. in Comparative and International Dispute Resolution from the School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, and a Master’s degree in Politics. He closely follows geopolitical developments and focuses on investor–State disputes, arbitration in the film and creative industries, and art disputes. Pritam has contributed to arbitration commentary and remains actively engaged with the international disputes community. He speaks English, French, Hindi, and Marathi.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
![DOI v. DOJ and others [2025] SGHC(I) 15: A Progressive Dimension of International Arbitration](https://dailyjus.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-09-Arya-Hartalkar-sgvyap-120x86.png)
