This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2023 Arbitration Statistics Report. The report offers a comprehensive comparative analysis of the 2023 annual statistics published by some of the world’s leading arbitral institutions, including the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, VIAC, DIAC, SCC, NAI, PCA, and ICSID. Covering caseloads, procedural innovations, diversity efforts, financial stakes, and state involvement, the report highlights key trends shaping international arbitration and calls for greater transparency and consistency across the sector.
Analysis of Caseloads, International Reach, the Leading Seats and Applicable Laws
THE AUTHOR:
José Emilio Ruiz Pineda, Foreign Legal Expert
An Increase in Caseload for Most Institutions
For this section, the data has been sourced from the official annual reports published by each of the arbitral institutions for the years 2022 and 2023, respectively.
Most institutions registered an increase in their caseload in 2023 compared to 2022. The ICC registered 890 new cases, compared to 710 cases in 2022, marking its third-best year in its history. The LCIA registered 377 new arbitrations, up from 333 in 2022, highlighting a recovery from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and confirming a steady growth. For their part, the Asian arbitral institutions continue their path towards growth; the SIAC, most notably, registered 663 new cases, compared to 357 in 2022, marking its second-best year. The HKIAC, registered 281 new arbitration cases, down from 344 in 2022, which was a record high for the institution. The DIAC, serving the MENA region, registered a total of 355 cases, compared to 340 in 2022. In Europe, the VIAC, registered a total of 72 cases, compared to 60 in 2022. For the Nordics, the SCC registered 175 new cases, an increment from 143 in 2022. Meanwhile, the Dutch offering, the NAI, registered 70 new cases in 2023 compared to 133 in 2022. For the Americas, the ICDR registered a total of 848 international cases in 2023, a healthy increase from 755 in 2022.
The PCA registered 82 new cases, bringing the total to a record-breaking 246 administered cases for 2023. This is a notable increase from 50 new cases in 2022, which tallied to 204 administered cases. Turning to ICSID, it registered 45 new cases, with their caseload reducing to 329 in 2023, compared to 346 in 2022. ICSID attributes this reduction to their efficiency, reporting that 68 proceedings were concluded in 2023. It is important to note ICSID has already released its caseload statistics for the fiscal year 2024, based on cases registered or administered by ICSID as of 30 June, 2024. However, since the focus of the present report is 2023, these 2024 statistics have not been considered.
The reports confirm that the ICC, ICDR, and SIAC are showing the strongest figures. The ICC emerges as the institution with the widest coverage, closely followed by the ICDR. For both the SIAC and HKIAC, most of their cases are coming from the Asian region, which represents a large number of the overall caseload activity in 2023 from a comparative perspective.
The HKIAC reported that 39.6 percent of all parties involved in arbitration in 2023 were from Mainland China. In contrast, the SIAC registered parties from China, India, and the US as their top users. Likewise, does the DIAC, where the majority of their caseload comes from the MENA region, with 72 percent of all parties involved in its cases coming from the UAE, it is worth noting that the Centre’s caseload has reported five years of consecutive growth. The VIAC appears to have a strong and growing presence in the CEE and SEE regions. The LCIA holds a strong presence in the UK, European, and MENA markets. The ICDR, the international division of the AAA, holds a strong coverage of the North America, Asian, European, and Latin American regions.
New Developments
Regarding new developments that may have an effect in future caseloads, several institutions have been busy working to improve and enhance their offerings. In 2024, the HKIAC and the NAI published their new set of arbitration rules, which promise more efficient processes, cost reductions, and a focus on reducing environmental impact. In the MENA region, on 1 October 2023, the DIAC, launched its DIAC Mediation Rules. On 1 January 2025, the SIAC published the seventh edition of its arbitration rules.
The PCA, on 11 September 2024, announced it had approved the PCA Optional Protocols on Expedited Procedure, Scrutiny of Awards and Emergency Interim Measures. A long awaited and important addition to the procedural offerings of the PCA. Turning to the ICSID, the Member States of the ICSID approved the ICSID Proposed Amendments to the Regulations and Rules for ICSID Convention Proceedings 2022, ICSID Additional Facility Conciliation Rules 2022, and the ICSID Mediation Rules 2022 which entered into force in 2022, with their adoption steadily improving.
On 16 October 2024, the SCC’s Board introduced, with immediate effect, its policy on the disclosure of third parties with an interest in the outcome of the disputes, including but not limited to funders, parent companies, and Ultimate Beneficial Owners (“UBOs”). The policy is mandatory in nature. Under SCC arbitration, parties are expected to make said disclosure in their first written submission. Naturally, subsequent disclosures must follow should a new third party acquire a significant interest in the outcome of the dispute. The policy is aimed to avoid conflicts of interest between the arbitrators and other person or entity with an interest in the outcome of the dispute.
Comparatively, the SCC’s disclosure policy is similar to that of Article 14 (7)(a)-(b) of the AAA-ICDR arbitration rules, which state that ‘the tribunal “may” require the parties to disclose’. In contrast, disclosures requirements under the arbitration rules of the ICC, SIAC (2025), HKIAC, DIAC, VIAC, NAI, and ICSID are mainly focused on revealing the existence and identity of third-party funders, not of parent companies and UBOs. The outliers, the arbitration rules of the LCIA and the PCA, are silent on this matter.
Internationality at the Core
It is important to highlight that most, if not all, of the arbitral institutions mentioned in this report administer a large number of international matters. However, not all arbitral institutions define what constitutes an international matter. Therefore, for the purpose of this report, we will assume that it means that at least one of the parties is from a different jurisdiction. In this respect, the ICC reported that parties from at least 141 jurisdictions were involved in proceedings, of note is that 77 percent of awards rendered in 2023 were drafted in English. For the LCIA 96 percent of their cases were international. The SIAC revealed that 93 percent of cases were international in nature. The HKIAC noted that 89.7 percent of all administered arbitrations were international in nature. The DIAC reported that 49 different countries were represented in their cases, meaning that 28 percent of all administered arbitrations were international in nature. Notably, an impressive 96 percent of cases were conducted in English.
For its part, the VIAC annual report reflected that 67 percent of parties were international. The majority of parties, representing 36 percent, came from the CEE and SEE regions, with a significant number coming from Romania. Interestingly, the VIAC reported that 61 percent of its cases were conducted in English and 24 percent in German.
The SCC reported that 55 percent of their cases were international. The NAI revealed that 39 percent of their cases were international; notably, 62 percent of cases were conducted in English, which signals there are strong elements of internationality in its proceedings. For the ICDR, all their cases are considered to be international, as this is the international division of the AAA. In 2023, the ICDR conveyed that 93 countries were represented in their cases. Similarly, the PCA revealed that parties from at least 110 jurisdictions were involved in their proceedings. The ICSID did not explicitly report on the number of jurisdictions represented in its cases but stated that States from every geographic region in the world appeared in ICSID proceedings.
As such, arbitral institutions compete in the market to attract and administer arbitrations involving parties from all around the world. As shown above, the institutions covered in this report have succeeded in gaining the trust of international businesses. This success would not be possible without a continuous process of improving their modus operandi. For example, by publishing rules that make proceedings more cost-efficient, improve the timeframe of arbitral procedures, and introduce provisions that address salient issues such as joinder and consolidation.
Focus on the Law of the Seat and the Applicable Law
The character of modern business and trade underscores the importance of arbitral institutes in the global market. This global aspect can be assessed in various ways, including the nationalities of the involved parties, the number of jurisdictions relevant to a particular case, or the legal frameworks governing the dispute. Indeed, arbitral institutions that administer cases across diverse seats and applicable laws clearly show their capability to address the needs of global trade.
In this context, annual reports are becoming more comprehensive, providing useful data that informs the arbitration market on trends, preferred jurisdictions, and, most importantly, preferred arbitral institutions. The graph below accounts for the different number of seats and applicable laws chosen by the parties in 2023, as disclosed by the arbitral institutions. Not all arbitral institutions reported on the number of seats and/or applicable laws. However, from the institutions that did analyse both aspects (or one of them) – namely the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, DIAC, VIAC, SCC, and ICDR – the following can be distilled.
In ICC arbitrations, parties chose a total of 116 seats across 63 different countries, with the ICC Court fixing the place for arbitration in some cases, the preferred seats were located in France, the UK, and Switzerland. Regarding applicable laws, which amounted to 112, the preferred choices were the laws of the UK, Switzerland, and the laws of a state in the USA. Under LCIA arbitrations, parties chose a total of 16 different seats, with the UK being the preferred seat, chosen in 86 percent of all LCIA arbitrations. Regarding applicable laws, which amounted to 27, the preferred laws were those of the UK, Mexico, and the laws of a state in the USA.
The SIAC, for its part, did not report on the number of seats. However, the SIAC did report on the applicable laws, which amounted to 27 (tied with the LCIA). The preferred choices of laws were Singapore, the UK, and India. In HKIAC arbitrations, 96.8 percent of arbitrations were seated in Hong Kong, the rest were unspecified. Regarding applicable laws, the HKIAC reported that 14 sets of laws applied to its disputes, the preferred applicable laws were those of Hong Kong, the UK, and China. Under DIAC arbitrations, two seats reigned supreme, Dubai and DIFC, with 50 and 49 percent, respectively, with the other 1 percent representing the laws of Abu Dhabi, Muscat, and Riyadh. Regarding applicable laws, which amounted to 13, the preferred choices were those of Dubai, the UAE, the UK, and DIFC.
The VIAC reported that 87 percent of its arbitrations were seated in Austria and did not provide data on other seats. Regarding applicable laws, the VIAC reported that 7 sets of laws applied to its disputes. Notably, the laws of Austria were applicable in 52 percent of cases, followed by the laws of Germany, and the CISG, for which percentages were not provided. Under SCC arbitrations, parties chose a total of 4 different seats, with the majority of parties preferring Sweden as the seat. Regarding applicable laws, which also amounted to 4, the preferred law was Swedish, though a small percentage of parties chose the law of the UK.
Unfortunately, the NAI did not provide figures on the number of seats or applicable laws. The ICDR did not report on the number of applicable laws but did report on the preferred seats in the USA, which were New York in 121 instances and Miami in 91 instances.
The PCA and ICSID have been excluded from this section, as most of their proceedings are initiated and are generally decided on the basis of a Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”), Multilateral Investment Treaty (“MIT”), or Free Trade Agreement (“FTA”), among others. The PCA did not provide numbers on the choice of seats, a statistic that would be beneficial to access, confidentiality agreements allowing.
It is interesting to note that the ICC reported that 2 percent of all contracts underlying the disputes it administered included references to either the United Nations Convention of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) (1980), the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2016, ‘international laws and rules’, amiable composition, and the ICC Incoterms. Similarly, the SCC reported that 3 arbitrations had chosen the CISG as applicable law.
Arbitral institutions, which reported on the variety of seats and applicable laws, managed to demonstrate the universality of their offerings, which one may conclude indicates their presence in the international market.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
José Emilio Ruiz Pineda specializes in international commercial (and investment) arbitration. He is a foreign Legal Expert he advises and is involved in arbitrations under various arbitration rules (including the ICC Rules, SIAC Rules, the UNCITRAL Rules). Emilio is a Honduran qualified lawyer with an LL.M. in International Arbitration and Business Law from Erasmus University Rotterdam and serves as Vice-President of the Honduran Young Arbitrators organization in Honduras.
Discover more insights into the global trends shaping institutional arbitration in 2023 by exploring the full Arbitration Statistics Report now.
* 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.
* The arbitral institutions have been selected from the perspective of the author, a native Spanish and English-speaking Amsterdam-based international arbitration practitioner.
