Arbitration in a changing global landscape: A five-year review
24 February 2026
Introduction
Is 5 years a long time?
In 2020, the world was grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic – an unprecedented global crisis which seemed set to change societies and economies for generations. Geopolitical tensions were simmering across Asia-Pacific, the Middle East and Europe, but a full-scale land war in Europe seemed unlikely to most. Inflation rates were broadly stable despite the pandemic induced global recession. ChatGPT had not yet been launched, and generative artificial intelligence (AI) was largely unknown.
Fast forward to 2026. A lot has changed. Commentators increasingly speak of a "polycrisis" emerging in the half decade since 2020, with a convergence of geopolitical shocks, economic unpredictability, climate pressures, and rapidly evolving technology dislodging many long-standing assumptions underpinning global commerce.
Change. Volatility. Uncertainty. Crisis. Shock. Each of these has the potential to undermine contractual bargains, disrupt economic equilibrium and, ultimately, generate commercial disputes.
This report explores whether the events of the past 5 years have affected how and where international commercial disputes are resolved.
We analyse data published by a range of leading arbitration institutions, and use it to draw conclusions, and make predictions, about what the future may hold for businesses seeking to use international arbitration.
Periods of global instability test not only contracts, but the systems designed to enforce them. Over the past five years, we have seen that political risk, regulatory intervention and economic volatility can materialise faster, and in more complex ways, than many businesses previously anticipated. In that environment, international arbitration plays a critical role in preserving confidence in cross-border business transactions and investments by providing neutrality, enforceability and procedural flexibility.
When business moves across borders, it depends on legal frameworks that outlast political cycles and market shocks. International arbitration remains one of the few mechanisms capable of delivering that continuity. In a more fragmented world, it is not just a dispute resolution tool — it is part of the infrastructure that makes international business possible.
Arne Fuchs, Partner and Global Head of Arbitration, Frankfurt
Our approach
Most arbitration institutions publish data. They typically disclose at least numbers of new cases in a given year and the industry in which those cases arise. Many provide more information.
We reviewed data published by four leading international institutions – the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC). These are globally known institutions, and the promulgators of the institutional rules most preferred by respondents to Queen Mary, University of London's 2025 International Arbitration Survey.1
We also reviewed data published by five institutions with smaller caseloads: the German Arbitration Institute (DIS), the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA), the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), and the Saudi Centre for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA). The data published by these institutions is less extensive, rendering meaningful comparison with the larger institutions difficult.
Nevertheless, we wanted to shine a light on the work of these institutions. Some are more established than others, but they all serve important economies and regions. How they develop, and the extent to which they can draw cases from the larger institutions, will bear on how the practice of international arbitration evolves.
Finally, we comment on the latest statistics published by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). CIETAC is different to the other major institutions covered, due to its very large caseload but predominant domestic Chinese clientele.
There are inevitably caveats associated with the exercise reflected in this report. First, not all institutions report data in the same way. Different categories, definitions, parameters and reporting bases apply. Perhaps a useful call from users of arbitration would be for more consistency in reporting, across agreed metrics. That would facilitate comparison and informed selection of institutions.
We do think that the data is sufficient to provide insights on the practice of international commercial arbitration in the 5 years between 2020 and 2024, and inform what lies ahead for users of the process.
What the data tells us - our larger institutions
The filing of new cases
The data suggests that the leading arbitration institutions are in good health. Case numbers fluctuate over time, and are generally at a scale at which a particular dispute generating multiple arbitrations, or event, can impact the number.2
Annual new case numbers
To the extent that one can discern a trend in the data of some institutions growing at the expense of others, it is notable that our two Asian institutions – HKIAC and SIAC – may be growing more quickly than their comparators. This could be due to economic or cultural factors within the Asian region, generating more disputes, or a greater willingness to arbitrate disputes that do arise. It may also reflect a movement in drafting preferences from some parties in their arbitration clauses, away from European-associated institutions towards Asian ones. It seems likely that Russian parties, in particular, are less likely to select LCIA, SCC or ICC arbitration than was the case in 2020.
New case statistics are always met with much fanfare but discerning trends, let alone the reasons behind those trends, is notoriously difficult. It does, however, seem that SIAC is on the rise. The growth of Asian economies relative to the rest of the world must be a factor. It is also a culmination of decades of government investment – in SIAC itself (including to support its global marketing efforts), in ensuring its arbitration legislation remains cutting-edge, in its pool of arbitration-trained local and international judges, and in building supporting infrastructure such as the dedicated hearing facilities at Maxwell Chambers. The level of government support far outstrips that of its competitors and, as long as that remains the case (and SIAC makes the right bets on things like AI), I expect this trend to continue.
Michael Weatherley, Partner, Brisbane and Singapore
The nationality of parties
With one exception, the nationality data shows a strong link between an institution's headquarters and the regions from which it draws its arbitrating parties. UK parties consistently lead the LCIA's nationality data by a wide margin; HKIAC draws parties from Hong Kong and Mainland China; SIAC from Singapore, East Asia and India.
The exception is, of course, the ICC, an organisation which has long marketed its arbitration services on the basis of international reach and neutrality. Other institutions refer to the city of their headquarters in their name, which may sometimes influence negatively perceptions of their neutrality. The ICC does not, helping it avoid this. Although headquartered in Paris, France, the ICC draws on its network of national committees to support its work. The ICC boasts case management teams in Paris, Singapore, Hong Kong, New York, São Paulo, and Abu Dhabi. But even the ICC across our review period often saw one country most represented in its cases: the United States of America.
Other notable features in the data include the consistently strong showing of offshore jurisdictions in the HKIAC caseload. The British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands rank near the top of the list of represented nationalities throughout the review period. They are second only to Hong Kong and Mainland China. This reflects the popularity of companies incorporated in offshore jurisdictions as a means of structuring Chinese investments.
Staying in Asia, there is a perceptible trend of increased use of SIAC arbitration by Mainland Chinese and Hong Kongese parties. Parties from these jurisdictions were present in SIAC data throughout the review period. In the past few years, they have become more prominent.
2024 top 5 nationalities
It is unsurprising to observe a correlation between parties' nationalities and their choice of institution – in particular, the shift among Asia-based clients toward selecting institutions based within the region has been ongoing for some time, as the HKIAC and SIAC have caught up with their more established rivals like the ICC and LCIA. Leaving aside regional and geographical affiliations, the other nationalities represented in the data broadly reflect global trends, with parties from the Americas dominating the charts.
Sylvia Tee, Partner, Hong Kong and Beijing
The sectors in which disputes are arising
The category of data which promised to be most interesting to users of arbitration was the sector reporting. Each of our big institutions reported their caseloads by reference to the most represented sectors. As institutions tended to have a cluster of less well represented sectors at the foot of their top ten, limiting the value of the data, we focused on the top 5 sectors for each institution.
Unfortunately, the different criteria used by institutions to define sectors makes it difficult to draw strong conclusions from the data. For the LCIA, transport and commodities was the most represented single sector for each of 2022, 2023, 2024, supplanting banking and finance (2021) and energy (2020) at the top of the list. This could indicate a run of shipping disputes, but may also reflect the post-Ukraine invasion volatility in commodities markets. The LCIA notes that "The types of commodities that were the subject matter of the disputes are wide ranging, including LNG, coal, metals, cement, fertilisers, and agricultural products".
Technology does sneak into the LCIA's top 5 in the 2023 and 2024 caseloads, but not with a statistically significantly higher percentage than in the preceding two years. Telecoms and specialised technologies is around the ICC's top 5 in 2024. Its caseload is dominated by construction and energy disputes.
LCIA and ICC: 2024 top dispute sectors
This is a trend to watch, though. One may expect the global rush to digitalise, and to exploit the potential of (AI), to generate disputes. The modest references to technology disputes in the data are only likely to become more prominent in the years ahead.
AI’s trajectory is irreversible; the real test is scaling efficiency to match demand. Technology cycles will outpace construction programmes, creating a strategic risk: pouring billions into data centres that must remain upgradeable. Expect disputes over design defects, upgradeability, and fitness for purpose.
Harsh Hari Haran, Partner, London
Expedited arbitration
If data were gathered on the subject that arbitration practitioners spend most time agonising about, it would likely be the time and cost required to arbitrate claims. Most arbitration lawyers will have experience of conversations with non-arbitrator colleagues, or clients, on the subject of whether arbitration or litigation produces a faster or less expensive process.
Institutions tend to publish data on the duration of their proceedings inconsistently, making cross-institution comparison hard.
The ICC reported in 2024 that the average duration of proceedings was 26 months, with a median duration of 22 months, for arbitrations that resulted in final awards in 2024 (compared to 27 and 25 months median duration respectively the previous year). The LCIA produced analysis in December 2024 of proceedings which had reached a final award between 2017 and 2024, indicating a median duration of around 20 months. The HKIAC's equivalent figure (for 2013 to 2023) was a median duration of 15 months.
These figures are comparable to the reported duration of commercial national court proceedings. A recent report from data provider Solomonic reported a median time to judgment for English commercial disputes of 598 days in 2024 (just under 20 months).
Duration of arbitration proceedings – selected data
A consequence of concerns about the duration of arbitration is that many institutional arbitration rules contain expedited procedures. These may require party agreement, or may apply automatically if the value in dispute is below a particular monetary threshold. Amongst our chosen institutions, the LCIA is an outlier: (as of 2025) it does not have an expedited procedure, although it has a longstanding provision in its rules permitting a party to apply for expedited formation of the tribunal.
What does the data tell us about the use of, and prospects, of expedited arbitration applications?
Applications to the LCIA Court for expedited formation of the tribunal have remained remarkably consistent across the review period. Largely, so have the outcomes. Applications for expedited formation have been steady at low to mid double-digit levels annually, with relatively few grants; obtaining expedited formation in LCIA proceedings therefore remains difficult. That may change with consultation on the next iteration of the LCIA Rules expected this year.
Across HKIAC, applications for the expedited procedure were also broadly consistent across the review period (20 to 28 in each year). The data suggests that it may be becoming harder to obtain expedition, with only 13 applications granted in 2024 (24 applications) compared to 24 in 2020 (28 applications), but it is of course not possible to make that conclusion confidently given the underlying requests and bases for their rejection are unknown and the data pool is too small to draw reliable inferences.
Arbitration has come under attack in recent years for a time-consuming process. However, as the data demonstrates, English litigation proceedings are of a similar duration to arbitration proceedings under various institutional rules. Experience dictates that this is also the case in other jurisdictions and it must be remembered that, for some commercial relationships, arbitration will be the only means of obtaining a neutral, final and binding decision which is readily enforceable.
Emma Johnson, Partner, London
Emergency Arbitration
Emergency arbitration is a relatively new addition to institutions' procedural toolkits. Our selected institutions introduced the concept over a four-year span between 2010 and 2014, with SIAC first (the ICC had previously had a rarely used pre-arbitral emergency procedure which was revised to become an emergency arbitrator procedure in 2012).
Introduced with much fanfare, emergency arbitration was intended to address the inherent challenge arbitration faced responding to situations where urgent relief was required, but due process required that time was taken to empanel tribunals.
What does the data show about use of emergency arbitration? In short: it is hard to get emergency relief.
Emergency arbitration – annual applications
Emergency arbitration – selected outcomes
Across the review period, LCIA emergency arbitrator applications were in the single digits, with the trend towards fewer applications being granted over time. ICC applications also broadly declined over time, with a dataset low of 17 applications in 2024. HKIAC applications declined over the review period, to single digits in 2023 and 2024. SIAC's figures showed a decline in applications over the review period, offset by an uptick to a period high of 21 applications in 2024.
The data begs the question: why is emergency arbitration seemingly used less frequently than might be expected? There are a number of possibilities. Most have to do with the nature of emergency relief. To be effective in many circumstances, emergency relief must be quickly obtainable, readily enforceable, capable of binding third parties (such as a bank holding sums which the applicant wants frozen), and obtainable on an ex parte basis (without the respondent knowing the applicant is seeking relief).
Arbitration struggles on all counts. Although steps have been taken to make emergency relief enforceable via national court systems, the process is often unwieldy and slow. Third parties may comply with an order of an emergency arbitrator, but unless they are party to the arbitration proceedings (or have agreed to comply), they are under no obligation to do so. Often, ex parte relief cannot be sought, although SIAC notably revised its rules in 2025 to incorporate a without notice procedure. Generally, emergency arbitrators are obliged to hear from applicant, and respondent, before ruling on the relief sought.
Emergency relief in arbitration faces inherent challenges: it must compete with certain national courts that can often act faster, bind third parties, and grant truly ex parte relief. While institutions have made commendable efforts to address these limitations-such as SIAC's recent introduction of a without-notice procedure-the reality is that when speed and enforceability matter, parties still find that courts remain the better option. The upshot is emergency arbitration is a valuable tool for certain circumstances, but it does not replace judicial interim relief.
Emma Tormey, Partner, Dubai
Gender diversity
Diversity comes in many forms. It is a particularly vital subject for arbitration, as a dispute resolution process founded on internationalism and global participation. The greatest focus of diversity efforts within the arbitral community in the past decade or so has been on gender, and specifically representation on arbitral tribunals. In 2015 the Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge was drawn up, with the aim to "increase, on an equal opportunity basis, the number of women appointed as arbitrators in order to achieve a fair representation as soon practically possible, with the ultimate goal of full parity" 3. It now claims nearly 6,000 signatories.
As a group of counsel, arbitrators, representatives of corporates, states, arbitral institutions, academics and others involved in the practice of international arbitration, we are committed to improving the profile and representation of women in arbitration. In particular, we consider that women should be appointed as arbitrators on an equal opportunity basis.
The Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge
Each of our selected institutions reported gender diversity on tribunals. Across the institutions, gender diversity did not increase markedly, but the trend was upward. LCIA's data ranged from the high 20%s to low to mid 30%s range for overall female representation between 2020 and 2024. In 2024 45% of arbitrators appointed by the LCIA Court specifically (i.e not by a party) were female. This difference in percentages illustrates a point: for gender parity to be achieved on tribunals there is only so much that the appointing authorities of institutions (like the LCIA Court) can do. Parties and counsel will also have to embrace diversity when nominating arbitrators.
The ICC picture had a range between the mid and high 20%s, albeit with greater diversity in the latter years of our survey period. ICC Court appointments were 46% female in 2024. HKIAC reported a general upward trend, with 35% of arbitrators appointed by the HKIAC itself female in 2024. SIAC ranged between 32% and 46% for appointments by SIAC itself, with a period high in 2022.
What conclusions can be drawn, 10 years on from The Pledge?
A critical view would be that gender diversity efforts are increasingly slowly, but parity remains a way off. The percentage representation of women on arbitral tribunals evidenced by our data has not increased significantly within institutions over the review period. That may be because the focus on this issue a decade ago, culminating in the launch of the Pledge, has receded. It may be because of a lack of pathways for less established female practitioners onto tribunals. Either way, now may be the time to revisit efforts in relation to gender diversity, to reaffirm their value in the light of a different social and political climate to that of 2015, and to consider what more can be done.
The institutions tend not to report figures for other forms of diversity, other than geography or nationality based characteristics of arbitrators. The transparency of arbitration would be enhanced by greater visibility over the ethnic and generational make up of tribunals.
The other institutions
Institutions like the DIS, SCC, DIAC, SCCA and ACICA form a strong second tier of internationally relevant arbitral institutions. Each plays a leading role within its region, with overall increasing caseloads and growing international engagement.
Judith Sawang, Partner, Frankfurt
ACICA
The Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration was established in 1985. Its reported caseload is much lower than that of the larger institutions, but it had 21 and 25 new cases reported respectively in 2023 and 2024.
Australian parties dominate the statistics, but there is variety in other nationalities, with the UK, China, USA, India and South Korea featuring in recent reports.
Although shareholder disputes were the largest category of cases in 2023, construction, energy and infrastructure has a strong flavour in ACICA's work, reflecting Australia's economic strengths and the sectors most drawn to arbitration.
DIS
The German Arbitration Institute (Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, or DIS) traces its roots back to 1920. Across our review period, DIS case numbers were broadly stable, with 130 plus cases in each year, and a high of 191 in 2023 (topped by a record number of 218 new cases in 2025 outside our review period).
Due to its central role in core civil-law markets, the German Arbitration Institute (DIS) is widely regarded as one of the leading arbitral institutions in Continental Europe.
European parties arbitrate at the DIS (dominated by Germans), but either Chinese or United States parties appeared in the top 5 non-European nationalities in each year of our survey period.
In 2023 and 2024, DIS provided data on the sectors represented in its cases. Energy features prominently in each year, followed by health, veterinary and social services – likely a reflection of the strength of Germany's pharmaceutical industry.
SCC
Sweden's Stockholm Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Institute (SCC) was founded in 1917. It rose to prominence in international dispute resolution as the chosen centre for Soviet-United States dispute resolution.
The SCC's case numbers were broadly stable over the review period, with an uptick in new cases to 204 in 2024 from a period low of 143 in 2022, a low likely brought about at least in part by Russia's invasion of Ukraine with the related imposition of sanctions. This no doubt hampered claimants' abilities to bring new claims against Russian counterparties.
That said, alongside European countries, Russian parties feature consistently in the SCC's top 5 represented nationalities, with no obvious drop off in their participation over the review period. The imposition of EU sanctions on Russia may have had some effect on the willingness of Russian parties to arbitrate under the auspices of the SCC, but this is not yet visible in the data.
The SCC publishes data on emergency arbitration under its rules. Application numbers are low across the review period (single digits), with the number of applications accepted, or partially granted, reflecting the challenges described elsewhere in the report with emergency arbitration.
SCCA
The Saudi Centre for Commercial Arbitration was established by Saudi Cabinet Decree in April 2014. It reported 120 new cases in 2024, an increase from 92 in 2023.
Construction and engineering cases dominate the industries represented. Will this remain the case as the Saudi economy evolves?
DIAC
In 1994, the Dubai International Arbitration Centre was established, and assumed its current name a decade later. It has a substantial caseload with over 300 new cases in each of 2022 and 2023, and 142 in the first half of 2024. Construction and property are the most represented sectors.
The particular case of CIETAC
CIETAC differs from the institutions considered in this section of the report. It has a very large caseload (6,013 new arbitration cases accepted in 2024). These are predominantly Chinese cases, although CIETAC reported 758 "foreign-related" cases accepted in that year. CIETAC reported that the places most represented in its non-Mainland China caseload were Hong Kong, USA, the BVI, Cayman, Italy, Germany, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Russia.
The sectors serviced by CIETAC are similar to those of other institutions, although the institution noted in 2024 "an increase in cases in high-demand sectors such as finance, construction projects and service contracts". Supporting our assessment of an increase in digital disputes, CIETAC observed "disputes involving cross-border e-commerce and online services have increased. Intellectual property rights disputes, such as software licensing and technology transfer between global technology giants and high-tech enterprises, often involved cutting-edge technical and legal challenges".
International arbitration stands at a crossroads, shaped by technological innovation, increasing multipolarity, and challenging geopolitical realities, and the coming years are likely to witness significant transformation in how disputes are resolved.
Whilst the growing role of artificial intelligence offers prospects of considerable efficiencies, it also raises important questions about due process, data security, and the appropriate boundaries of human decision-making that will have to be addressed.
Parties continue to increasingly expect arbitration to be efficient and offer value for money. Institutions have responded with expedited procedures, and other enhanced mechanisms. Further innovations will also have to come from arbitrators and counsel to ensure improved case management and more effective proceedings.
Another defining feature of this evolution will be the increasingly multipolar nature of the field, as international arbitration develops and matures in a growing number of jurisdictions around the world. This expansion will intensify competition among arbitral seats and institutions, fostering innovation. The challenge for international arbitration will be to maintain its unity as a process.
The inherent flexibility of international arbitration remains, however, one of its greatest strengths, and places it in a good position to adapt to and face these challenges.
Emmanuelle Cabrol, Partner, Paris
Conclusions, and looking forward
What conclusions can we draw from this survey? We suggest five takeaways:
1. The caseloads of the leading arbitration institutions have held up across these five volatile years. Asia's rise continues, as a leader in international arbitration, but the more established Europe-headquartered institutions remain busy. This reflects the turmoil of the review period, especially in the sectors most likely to arbitrate (as to which see the point below). It remains to be seen whether the LCIA and SCC have done enough to maintain their caseloads going forward, in light of the decline of Russia-related work.
2. Arbitrations continue to be filed across a variety of industries, although traditional users in sectors like construction, engineering, energy, commodities and transportation continue to dominate the data. Technology disputes, though, appear to be a growing source of disputes.
3. Enthusiasm amongst users for emergency arbitration appears to be fading. Parties may be concluding that where interim relief is required, they are better off either awaiting the appointment of the tribunal, or going to court.
4. Gender diversity efforts show some progress. A decade on from the Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge, now may be the time for attention to be refocused on this issue and efforts doubled-down on by parties and counsel.
5. A number of institutions with smaller caseloads – some well established, others newcomers to the field – are battling for consideration amongst their more well-known counterparts. Most have a distinctly regional focus, but all are making strides to meet the needs of their users.
What will the next five years reveal?
The world is changing quickly. This report has only used those two letters on everyone's lips – AI - in passing. Can we meaningfully make predictions about what institutional arbitration statistics will show in 2030 without knowing what impact AI will truly have (both in terms of generating disputes and being deployed towards their resolution)?
All predictions are speculative. But we think that a number of points can be made which have real, practical, relevance for our clients, users of arbitration today.
1. The leading institutions will continue to dominate international arbitration. The extent to which the LCIA amends its rules as a means of retaining its status, in the light of challenges from institutions like SIAC remains to be seen. There are of course other major institutions not covered by this report (including the American Arbitration Association/International Centre for Dispute Resolution, Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA) and the major Chinese institutions, in addition to CIETAC). But together this family of "super institutions" will play an outsized role in evolving arbitration practice and commercial dispute resolution. We have sought to highlight the smaller, often regional, institutions. They will continue to grow.
2. The traditional industry users of arbitration will continue to loom large in the data. But technology will feature more and more in sector statistics. Technology disputes will also become intertwined and embedded in disputes in other sectors, such as construction disputes arising from the wave of data centres being rolled out globally, and the impact of AI on energy and resources ventures. Technology is rising in the arbitral data, highlighting the features of arbitration which make it most suitable for disputes in the sector: confidentiality, access to specialised decision-makers, and flexibility of process.
3. Institutions will revisit their approach to expedition. In a digitalised and politically volatile world, speed of decision making will become ever more important. Innovation reflected in institutions' adoption of summary/early determination mechanisms (and reflected also in the 2025 revision to England's Arbitration Act) will be rolled out more widely, and enhanced. As the pace of the world quickens, arbitration will overcome its traditional anxiety over due process to promote faster resolution.
4. Emergency arbitration will continue its relative decline. Its limitations appear inherent, despite attempts to address them. Parties will instead turn to courts, or seek to find other ways to "hold the ring" until a tribunal can be appointed to rule on interim relief. This may mean more parties contracting out of provisions in domestic arbitral laws which require interim applications to be brought before tribunals, rather than courts.
5. Gender diversity on tribunals will continue to increase. Criticism of the concept of diversity from some actors in society and politics will inspire a reassessment of why it matters. The focus on AI's role in commerce, and in dispute resolution, will prompt soul searching about the nature of human intelligence, and what it has to offer. Both these factors will drive a greater interest in diverse tribunals, and the benefits that they bring.
We look forward to revisiting these predictions in 2030.
Methodology
We reviewed data published by the LCIA, ICC, HKIAC and SIAC for their arbitration caseloads in each of 2020 to 2024. We also reviewed available reports for this period for ACICA, DIS, SCC, SCCA and DIAC.
LCIA duration data was derived from the LCIA's 2024 Costs and Duration Analysis; HKIAC data from the HKIAC's 2023 HKIAC Average Costs and Duration analysis.
Thanks go to Angelique Nelis, Jasmine Xu and Lucrezia Lawrance for their contribution to this review.
The information provided is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all developments in the law and practice, or to cover all aspects of those referred to.
Readers should take legal advice before applying it to specific issues or transactions.
- White-Case-QMUL-2025-International-Arbitration-Survey-report.pdf
- Institutions record new case numbers differently. We have used the highest figure reported by each institution for new arbitrations, including both those administered under the institution's own rules and where the institution has played a lesser role, such as assisting with appointment of arbitrators.
- https://www.arbitrationpledge.com/about-the-pledge
