Introduction
As every year,[1] we have taken a closer look at the statistics that are available for arbitration proceedings at some of the most important arbitral institutions.[2]
Over the last four years, the picture has always been the same: the number of proceedings was rising – in Europe, in the Americas as well as in Asia. This picture seems to have changed in 2021: some institutions have achieved new records, such as the ICSID. However, most of the institutions did not achieve new records, despite having had a good year. The number of new cases has dropped at the ICC, SCC, SIAC, HKIAC, DIS.
Do we see a turning point or a ceiling? Probably not. The numbers remain impressively high. Arbitration proceedings remain very popular as the following table shows:
Caseload numbers
| Arbitral institution | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) | 853 | 946 | 869 | 842 | 810 | 966 | 801 | 791 | 767 | 759 |
| ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) | 66 | 58 | 39 | 56 | 53 | 48 | 52 | 38 | 40 | 50 |
| SCC (Stockholm Chamber of Commerce) | 165 | 213 | 175 | 152 | 200 | 199 | 181 | 183 | 203 | 177 |
| LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration) | 377 | 440 | 395 | 317 | 285 | 303 | 326 | 300 | 301 | 277 |
| SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre) | 469 | 1080 | 479 | 402 | 452 | 343 | 271 | 222 | 259 | 235 |
| HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre) | 277 | 318 | 308 | 265 | 297 | 262 | 271 | 252 | 260 | 293 |
| CAM-CCBC (Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada) | 128 | 105 | 97 | 101 | 141 | 98 | 112 | 95 | 90 | 64 |
| DIS (German Arbitration Institute) | 133 | 162 | 110 | 153 | 152 | 166 | 134 | 132 | 121 | 125 |
| VIAC (Vienna International Arbitration Centre) | 44 | 40 | 45 | 64 | 43 | 60 | 40 | 56 | 56 | 70 |
| SCAI (Swiss Chambers' Arbitration Institution) | 86 | 83 | 95 | 81 | 74 | 81 | 96 | 106 | 69 | 92 |
| ICDR (International Centre for Dispute Resolution) | n/a | n/a | 882 | 993 | 1026 | 1050 | 1063 | 1052 | 1165 | 996 |
| CIETAC (China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission) | 4071 | 3615 | 3333 | 2962 | 2298 | 2181 | 1968 | 1610 | 1256 | 1060 |
| PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration) | 205 | 59 | 49 | 56 | 41 | 40 | 42 | 39 | 35 | 27 |
| KCAB (Korean Commercial Arbitration Board) | 500 | 405 | 443 | 393 | 385 | 381 | 413 | 382 | 338 | 360 |
| JCAA (The Japan Commercial Arbitration Association) | 15 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| TOTAL | 7389 | 7524 | 7319 | 6837 | 6257 | 6178 | 5770 | 5258 | 4960 | 4585 |
Other relevant data
As every year, we have also collected some additional data.
Even though some airports or borders closed because of Covid-19, the share of international cases stayed high. The LCIA lead the field with 95%, followed by the SIAC, SCAI, and the HKIAC, which rose back to its 2019 level of more than 80% of international cases.
The applications for emergency arbitration increased in SCC, LCIA, and SIAC proceedings. On the other hand, the figures dropped 70% in HKIAC proceedings and 25% in SIAC proceedings.
The number of applications for expedited increased in LCIA, SIAC, and SCAI proceedings, but dropped in SCC and HKIAC proceedings.
The number of arbitrator challenges remains low: in most institutions, there were less than 5 arbitrator challenges. The highest number was in SCC proceedings: 18 challenges.
Particularly important is the data on gender diversity. Here, the picture does not seem to be further improving. The overall percentage of female arbitrators stagnates at around 20-25% (similar to the 25,4% in 2020 and the 23,6% in 2019). The percentage is as low as 4% in JCAA proceedings and 13% in ICSID proceedings. The number of female tribunal members in VIAC arbitrations decreased from 31,7%in 2020 to 16,4% in 2021. The arbitral institutions continue to be the driving force behind appointing female arbitrators, e.g. 77% of the arbitrators appointed by SCAI were female.
The parties’ preferred nationality of arbitrators remained mostly unchanged, the only outlier being the KCAB, which became more international.
| ICC | ICSID | SCC | LCIA | SIAC | HKIAC | CAM-CCBC | DIS | VIAC | SCAI | CIETAC | PCA | KCAB | JCAA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amount in dispute | n/a | n/a | EUR 840 million | n/a | USD 6.54 billion | USD 7 billion | BRL 5.6 billion (~ USD 1.05 billion) | EUR 1.57 billion | EUR 554.17 million | CHF 1.27 billion (~ USD 1.35 billion) | RMB 112.13 billion (~ USD 17 billion) | n/a | USD 717 million | JPY 9 billion (~ USD 65 million) |
| International arbitrations | n/a | n/a | 47% | 95% | 86% | 81,6% | n/a | 35% | n/a | 81% | 20.4% | n/a | 10% | 93% |
| Emergency arbitration applications | n/a | n/a | 7 | 8 | 15 | 4 | 2 | n/a | n/a | 4 | n/a | n/a | n/a | None |
| Expedited procedure applications | n/a | n/a | 49 | 49 | 93 | 23 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 33 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 3 |
| Arbitrator challenges | n/a | n/a | 18 | 18 | 1 | 4 | 3 | n/a | n/a | 3 | 28 [9] | n/a | n/a | 1 |
| Percentage of female arbitrators | n/a | 13% | 29% | 13% | 35,8% | 12,7% (appointed by the parties), 21,8% (appointed by the HKIAC) | 34,3% (in Tribunals); 71,4% (in Sole Arbitration) | n/a | 16,4% | 22% (appointed by the parties), 77% (appointed by the SCAI) | n/a | n/a | 23,7% | 4% |
| Arbitrator nationality (top 3) | n/a | 1. USA (9.63%) 2. France (9.51%) 3. UK (8,45%) | 1. Europe (95,27%) 2. North American (3,63%) 3. Northern Asia (0,727%) | 1. UK (63%) 2. Canada (n/a) 3. USA (n/a) | 1. Singapore (31,27%) 2. UK (29,65%) 3. Australia (7,28%) | Appointed by the HKIAC: 1. Hong Kong (27,5%) 2- UK (19,7%) 3. Australia (10,6%) | n/a | n/a | 1. Austria (39,7%) 2. Switzerland (20,7%) 3. Hungary (6,9%) | 1. Switzerland (77%) 2. France (5,5%) 3. UK (3,4%) | n/a | n/a | 1. Korea (37,3%) 2. USA (16,2%) 3. UK (10,3%) | 1. Japan (60.9%) 2. Austria (8.7%) 3. Singapore (8.7%) |
Conclusion
Last year, we remarked “how well arbitration has fared in 2020 despite the extreme circumstances”. Although the caseload slightly decreased in 2021, the institutions still had a very busy year. Regarding specific data, such as the number of applications for expedited proceedings and the number of arbitrator challenges, there was not a clear trend. With regards to diversity, there is a stagnation: there was neither a shift in the parties’ preferred nationalities, nor a rise in numbers of female arbitrators.
[1] Statistics for 2020, 2019, 2018, 2016, 2015.
[2] ICC, ICSID, SCC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, CAM-CCBC, DIS, VIAC, SCAI, ICDR, CIETAC, PCA, KCAB, JCAA.
