International arbitration: Which institution?

Most international arbitration users favour institutional, rather than ad hoc, arbitration. However, while there are numerous institutions to choose from, there is little guidance available on how to choose between them. 

This Quickguide:

• briefly outlines the differences between institutional and ad hoc arbitration, and why most parties favour institutional arbitration;
• considers the factors when choosing an arbitral institution; and
• compares key provisions and features of the rules of some of the most popular arbitral institutions.

This Quickguide assumes a level of familiarity with the fundamentals of international arbitration, which are discussed in our Quickguide, Introduction to International Arbitration.

Institutional vs ad hoc arbitration

Broadly speaking, there are two forms of arbitration: institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration. This is a fundamental choice that needs to be made by the parties. Only if they opt for institutional arbitration will they then need to consider the question of which institution to choose.

The differences between institutional and ad hoc arbitration are outlined briefly here and discussed in more detail in our Quickguide, Introduction to International Arbitration.

Institutional arbitration

Contracting parties that choose institutional arbitration agree to adopt the procedural rules of a particular institution and to have that institution administer, and supervise the conduct of, any arbitration that is commenced under the arbitration agreement. 

Institutional rules are designed to provide a comprehensive set of procedural rules governing everything from the procedure for commencing arbitration through to the rendering of the award and costs, as well as some limited post-award procedures (for example, correction of the award). The role of an institution in administering an arbitration conducted under its rules includes it overseeing the appointment of arbitrators (confirmation, default appointment and determining challenges); determining the fees payable to the arbitrator (usually by reference to a methodology set out in the institution's rules); taking advances on costs and managing payments to arbitrators; and assisting in logistics for hearings (hearing rooms, transcript services, etc). Some institutions also scrutinise tribunals' awards in draft to ensure their enforceability.

Ad hoc arbitration

By contrast, ad hoc arbitration is managed by the parties manage themselves, together with the tribunal once it is appointed. There is no institution involved to offer administrative or logistical support. 

Ad hoc arbitration is conducted under whatever rules are specified in the parties' specific arbitration agreement, supplemented by default provisions of the law of the seat of arbitration and procedural directions from the tribunal. 

When an ad hoc arbitration is commenced, it is for the parties to conduct the process in conjunction with the tribunal (once it is appointed). This means that the appointment of arbitrators and associated issues are managed by the parties, arbitrators' fees are negotiated directly with the arbitrator and paid directly by the parties, challenges to arbitrators may be determined by the courts of the seat, the parties must arrange all logistics for the hearing, and there is no supervision of awards. 

Why institutional arbitration is often favoured

A survey of international arbitration users in 2015 found that 79 per cent of the arbitrations they were involved in during the previous five years (2010-2015) were institutional arbitrations.¹ This trend of favouring institutional arbitration over ad hoc arbitration has continued in recent years.² 

There are various reasons why institutional arbitration is preferred. An institution can lend political or moral weight to awards, and some jurisdictions only recognise institutional arbitration, meaning that ad hoc arbitral awards may be harder to enforce internationally. More practically, institutional rules are designed to regulate the proceedings comprehensively from beginning to end, so the institutions are generally better equipped to handle any contingencies that arise, even if (as sometimes happens) a party fails to co-operate or refuses to participate in an arbitration. By incorporating an institution's rules into their agreement, contracting parties opt for a set of rules that have been tried and tested, with iterative improvements developed over time, to incorporate best practice and respond to users' demands. In addition, parties avoid the time and expense of drafting a suitable ad hoc clause.

As noted above, the institution will also assume administrative responsibility for the arbitration and take care of fundamental aspects of the arbitration procedure. The fees and expenses of the arbitration are, with varying degrees of certainty, regulated, and some arbitral institutions independently vet or scrutinise awards to ensure enforceability. 

The major arbitral institutions

There are many institutions to choose from, with regional preferences influencing choices to a degree. According to research conducted in 2025, the five most preferred institutions globally were: 

• the International Court of Arbitration at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), in Paris;
• the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC);
• Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC);
• the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA); and
• the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC).³

Certain institutions with less of a global presence are more popular in the regions where they are based. For example, the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) are popular in the Middle East, while the Vienna International Arbitration Centre (VIAC) administers many Central and Eastern European disputes, and Australian parties often favour the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA).

Various specialist institutions handle disputes in particular areas and industries. Examples include:

• the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO), which caters for intellectual property and technology disputes;
• the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which administers sports-related arbitrations; and
• the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA), which administers arbitrations arising in relation to certain commodities transactions.

There are other organisations, such as the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA), which produce arbitral rules (referred to as "terms" in the LMAA context) designed for ad hoc arbitrations arising in particular sectors, and do not themselves administer arbitrations or perform any of the other functions associated with typical arbitral institutions. 

Unlike the specialist institutions, which tailor their rules and often maintain lists of arbitrators with expertise in the relevant sector, most of the major arbitral institutions (like the ICC and LCIA) do not specialise in this way. Instead, they produce rules designed to accommodate and work for the broad range of disputes that could arise in international, commercial transactions. The parties still have the option to appoint specialist arbitrators where desirable and evidence from party-appointed expert witnesses may also be relied upon in an arbitration. Nevertheless, particularly in sectors with established trade practices, a party may feel more comfortable dealing with an institution that specialises in its field.

Key factors to consider when choosing an arbitral institution

Having decided to select institutional arbitration, the next decision to be made is which institution to choose. 

As a general rule, newly formed institutions or institutions lacking a proven track record should be avoided. That aside, there is no magic formula for choosing between them. Increasingly, institutions and their rules are converging, offering similar processes with fewer stark differentiators. For example, many of the leading institutions have now introduced mechanisms such as emergency arbitration, summary dismissal and fast-track arbitrations, as well as making express provision for virtual or hybrid hearings. Therefore, while differences remain (as detailed in the comparative table of the leading arbitral institutions at the end of this Quickguide), it can be harder to decide between the leading institutions based on the features of the rules alone.

Given this, other factors may also play an important role when parties are deciding which institution to use, in particular an institution's reputation and parties' past experience with it. Other factors considered by parties include the depth and breadth of arbitrators an institution might recommend or appoint, the quality and consistency of an institution's staff, and its approach to costs. However, for lower value or less strategically important disputes, some parties are willing to consider lesser known institutions that offer a more competitive price.⁴ 

While the choice of seat and institution are separate, and there is no need to select an institution based at the seat chosen by the parties, a reputable institution, with modern, sophisticated rules, that is based in the parties' chosen seat will often be viewed favourably. Reasons for this include the institution's perceived association with, and knowledge of how things work in, that jurisdiction, as well as for its geographic proximity. That said, the larger institutions routinely administer arbitrations seated in other jurisdictions. Whatever choice is made about the institution, it is sensible, where possible, to align the seat of arbitration with both the governing law of the contract and the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. 

It is important to note that, where parties fail to specify a seat of arbitration, their chosen institutional rules may dictate the seat. For example, the LCIA Rules and the HKIAC Rules provide that, in the absence of agreement between the parties, the default seat shall be, respectively, London and Hong Kong. Other rules will typically leave it to the tribunal to determine the appropriate seat, taking account of all the circumstances in the case.

While institutional arbitration rules provide a detailed framework for an arbitration, they are not a complete code and there will still be a need for extensive procedural directions from the arbitral tribunal. Directions will be required on issues ranging from the timetable of the arbitration to the approach to be taken to submissions, evidence and hearings. Therefore, much of the detailed conduct of an arbitration will be determined by the specific approach of the arbitrators. Among other things, their degree of experience in international arbitration, legal background and training, and their views on the legal issues to be determined in the arbitration, will influence their approach. It follows that, when nominating an arbitrator, a party should consider carefully the approach it wants the tribunal to take. Note that the institutional rules may impose limits on the parties' choice of arbitrator, including in respect of their nationality. In this regard, most major institutional rules provide that a sole arbitrator or chair of a three-member tribunal must not be the same nationality as either of the parties, unless the parties agree otherwise.

Level of institutional involvement

Arbitral institutions have varying levels of involvement in managing and administering arbitrations. Institutions such as the HKIAC and LCIA promote their "light touch" approach, with rules that emphasise party autonomy, minimise institutional procedures and entrust the tribunal with the primary decision-making power. Other institutions, such as the ICC and SIAC, are known for more intensive involvement in arbitrations.

We can observe these two contrasting approaches in the scrutiny of arbitral awards. Some institutions, including the ICC and SIAC, conduct mandatory scrutiny of draft tribunal awards, which cannot be released to the parties before they are approved by the institution. At the ICC, the ICC Court performs the scrutiny process and can require modifications to the form of the award and, without affecting the tribunal's freedom of decision, may also draw the tribunal's attention to points of substance. The SIAC Registrar performs a similar role for SIAC awards. The idea is to detect and correct defects, which could lead to an award being successfully challenged or give rise to difficulties in its enforcement. It is not, however, a substantive review of the tribunal's legal and evidentiary analysis, nor the 'correctness' of their ultimate decision.

However, many other institutions, including the HKIAC and the LCIA, neither scrutinise nor approve the award. Their rules contain form requirements (as will the law of the seat of the arbitration), which should be adhered to, but the institutions leave it to the tribunal to render a valid award. 

Different parties place different value on the scrutiny process: while some consider the additional quality assurance to be a benefit, others see it as creating the potential for unnecessary delay and further expense.

Fees

Perhaps one of the most obvious distinguishing features of the various institutions is the methodology used to calculate arbitrators' fees and institutional administrative fees, and, ultimately, the typical costs of an arbitration administered by them.

Many institutions (including the ICC, CIETAC and SIAC) calculate both their administrative fees and the arbitrators' fees on an ad valorem basis: that is, by reference to the amounts in dispute in an arbitration. Others, like the LCIA, calculate administrative and tribunal fees based on time spent and capped hourly rates, while the HKIAC offers parties a choice between these methods for tribunal fees (although institutional charges are determined ad valorem). Note, however, that time spent may still be factored into an ad valorem system by fixing costs within minimum and maximum limits. Similarly, the claim value, and its anticipated complexity, can be relevant in an hourly rate system, as the circumstances of a case are factored in when determining the maximum hourly rate to be charged. 

Those institutions charging on an ad valorem basis often provide a cost calculator on their website to give parties an insight into the likely cost of arbitration. Where institutions charge on the basis of time spent and hourly rates, parties must rely on data produced by the institution itself to obtain such an insight. Increasingly, institutions are publishing data on costs and duration of arbitration by reference to value of the claim. However, the different methodologies used can make comparisons difficult. 

Privacy and confidentiality

Confidentiality of arbitration is one of its key advantages, and is often cited by users as a reason for choosing it to resolve their disputes. 

The law of the seat of arbitration often determines the level of privacy and confidentiality that attaches by default. However, where confidentiality is paramount, the parties should cater for it expressly in their arbitration agreement. That said, the approach to confidentiality in a set of arbitral rules may also be a factor when choosing the arbitral institution, as different institutions take different approaches and not all provide for confidentiality by default in their rules.

The LCIA Rules, for example, have strict confidentiality obligations, which apply to the parties, the arbitrators and the LCIA itself. The LCIA does not publish awards, or parts of awards, even in redacted form. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the WIPO Rules, which are designed specifically for intellectual property and technology disputes, also contain some of the strictest confidentiality provisions. 

By contrast, the CIETAC Rules 2024 expressly provide for the privacy of hearings but do not address broader confidentiality obligations, while the Stockholm-based SCC Arbitration Institute's (SCC) 2023 Rules impose confidentiality obligations on the SCC itself and the tribunal, but not the parties.

Information security is becoming more important to parties and tribunals alike, and is increasingly addressed in institutional rules. Both the 2024 update to the HKIAC Rules and the 2025 revision of the SIAC Rules introduced requirements that parties and tribunals consider information security when adopting procedures for the conduct of the arbitration. 

Expedited arbitration

An expedited, or "fast track", arbitration procedure, offering simplified processes for certain claims has been a key focus for users of arbitration for many years.⁵ Most leading institutional rules provide for expedited arbitration, although the precise features of these processes vary. Often, they provide for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, who will conduct the procedure to a tight timetable and has discretion to determine the dispute on a documents-only basis, place limits on the parties' submissions and evidence, and limit (or even exclude) document production. Typically, these procedures only apply where the amount in dispute is below a certain threshold. 

As user familiarity has increased, with feedback positive, the monetary thresholds for the application of these expedited processes have gradually increased. For example, under the latest version of the SIAC Rules (2025), the expedited procedure can be applied for where the aggregate amount in dispute does not exceed SG$ 10 million (approximately US$ 8 million; previously SG$ 6 million (approximately US$ 4.5 million) under the 2016 Rules), the parties agree to its use , or the circumstances of the case warrant it. The SIAC 2025 Rules also introduced a separate streamlined procedure, which is even faster and applies where the parties agree to its application before the Tribunal is constituted or where the amount in dispute does not exceed SGD 1 million. The ICC expedited procedure, first introduced in the 2017 revision of the ICC rules, has been popular and seen the monetary threshold for its automatic application increase in each subsequent iteration of the rules (US$ 2 million under the 2017 rules, US$ 3 million in 2021 and expected to rise agfain under the 2026 rules). Parties can also choose to use the procedure for higher value cases, as contracting parties may want the flexibility a fast-track procedure can offer. The SCC has separate expedited arbitration rules (2023), which the parties can agree to use, and there is no threshold amount for their application, as they are opt-in. 

Summary dismissal

One criticism of arbitration has been the perceived inability to have clearly unmeritorious claims determined or dismissed at an early stage. This is particularly the case for financial institutions, many of which are familiar with summary judgment procedures available in some national courts. However, most leasing institutional rules now provide a mechanism for summary dismissal, early determination or otherwise (in stark contrast to, for example, the ad hoc UNCITRAL Rules) either by way of an explicit procedure, the general powers of the tribunal, or a combination of the two. For example, the HKIAC Rules provide for express powers of the tribunal to determine preliminary issues (introduced in 2024) in addition to an early determination procedure. Similarly, the SIAC Rules 2025 introduced a preliminary determination mechanism, in addition to the distinct procedure for the early dismissal of claims or defences that are manifestly without merit or outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal. 

In the investment arbitration context, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Arbitration Rules 2022 provide that a party may object that a claim is manifestly without legal merit. Such an objection must be made early in the proceeding and the tribunal will determine it as a preliminary matter, to a relatively tight timeframe (Rule 41). Although there is high threshold for success, this provision and its counterpart in the 2006 version of the rules, have led to some claims being dismissed in their entirety at an early stage.

Interim measures and emergency arbitrators

While broad powers for the arbitral tribunal to grant interim measures is a consistent feature across most major institutional rules, the scope of that power varies, as does its interplay with the right of parties to seek such measures from national courts. 

Most institutional rules permit applications for emergency or interim relief only with notice to the other party. However, the SIAC Rules 2025 introduced a novel feature to their emergency arbitrator provisions, which permits a party to seek interim relief from an emergency arbitrator on a preliminary basis without notice to the other side. Similarly, the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration 2021, issued by the Swiss Arbitration Centre, allow the arbitral tribunal, in exceptional circumstances, to make a preliminary order ex parte, before the request for interim relief has been communicated to any other party.

It is also commonplace for institutional rules to provide for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator prior to the constitution of an arbitral tribunal and/or the expedited formation of the tribunal to grant interim measures. The scope of the powers of an emergency arbitrator will depend on the particular rules, as well the time frame in which they are expected to make their decision. For example, under the CIETAC Rules and the ICC Rules, the arbitrator's decision must be made within 15 days from the date of acceptance of the appointment in the former case and the transmission of the file to the emergency arbitrator in the latter case. 

Comparison of major institutional rules

We compare the rules of the five most preferred arbitral institutions according to the 2025 QMUL International Arbitration Survey: ' The Path Forward: Realities and Opportunities in Arbitration'⁶ with respect to some of the key factors that parties should consider when choosing an institution.