Following a tradition, we have taken a closer look at available figures of the main arbitral institutions.
Last year, we noted that most institutions did not achieve new records in 2021; together, the institutions included in our research recorded 7389 new cases. This number did not include ICDR cases as they were not available to us. In 2022, there were 7554 new cases, out of which 755 were before the ICDR. If we disregard the ICDR figures to compare the two years, there were 6799 new cases in 2022 i.e., almost 600 cases less than in 2021.
Was this a one-time effect while overall the numbers of new arbitrations is rising? Not really. The number of new cases is even lower than in 2012 if one disregards CIETAC which had 1060 cases in 2012 and 4086 cases in 2022! If we disregard CIETAC’s impressive numbers, the other institutions had 3468 new cases combined; this is less than the 3525 cases they had in 2012.
Do we see a turning point or a ceiling in the constant increase of the last years? The ICC reached its lowest figure since 2012, with 710 new cases. Likewise, the LCIA had the lowest figure of the last five years, namely 293 new cases. The KCAB had 342 new cases, the lowest figure since 2013. After last years’ record of 205 new cases, the PCA returned to its average figure, with 50 new cases.
|ICC (International Chamber of Commerce)||710||853||946||869||842||810||966||801||791||767||759|
|ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes)||41||66||58||39||56||53||48||52||38||40||50|
|SCC (Stockholm Chamber of Commerce)||143||165||213||175||152||200||199||181||183||203||177|
|LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration)||293||377||440||395||317||285||303||326||300||301||277|
|SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre)||357||469||1080||479||402||452||343||271||222||259||235|
|HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre)||344||277||318||308||265||297||262||271||252||260||293|
|CAM-CCBC (Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada)||116||128||105||97||101||141||98||112||95||90||64|
|DIS (German Arbitration Institute)||164||133||162||110||153||152||166||134||132||121||125|
|VIAC (Vienna International Arbitration Centre)||41||44||40||45||64||43||60||40||56||56||70|
|Swiss Arbitration Centre||93||86||83||95||81||74||81||96||106||69||92|
|ICDR (International Centre for Dispute Resolution)||755||n/a||n/a||882||993||1026||1050||1063||1052||1165||996|
|CIETAC (China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission)||4086||4071||3615||3333||2962||2298||2181||1968||1610||1256||1060|
|PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration)||50||205||59||49||56||41||40||42||39||35||27|
|KCAB (Korean Commercial Arbitration Board)||342||500||405||443||393||385||381||413||382||338||360|
|JCAA (The Japan Commercial Arbitration Association)||19||15||-||-||-||-||-||-||-||-|
The amount in dispute in SCC cases has almost doubled to EUR 1.63 billion. Likewise, the amount in dispute in DIS proceedings increased by 78%, amounting to EUR 2.8 billion. The VIAC had an amount in dispute of approximately EUR 1 billion in 2022 compared to EUR 554.17 million in 2021. In contrast, the KCAB has recorded a decrease in 2022 of almost 50% of the amount in dispute, and the HKIAC recorded a 1.5 billion decrease.
The average number of international cases remains very high, with LCAI reporting 95% of its cases as international and the Swiss Arbitration Centre reporting 87%.
The ICDR recorded the highest number of emergency arbitration requests: 145.
The number of arbitrator challenges did not undergo major changes in many institutions. Yet, CAM CCBC saw a significant increase of the figures, from 3 to 14 cases. Similarly, arbitrators challenges jumped from 4 to 11 in the HKIAC. On the other hand, the LCIA received no challenges for the first time in over 25 years.
A positive finding this year is the upward trend in the number of female arbitrators: almost all arbitration institutions have recorded an increase in the number of female arbitrators. Women represented 75% of the arbitrators appointed by CAM-CCBC and 39.06% of arbitrators considering the parties’ and CAM-CCBC’s appointments. In VIAC proceedings, women represented 44% of all appointments.
Despite the very welcoming improvement, there is still a long path ahead. Indeed, the number of female appointments by institutions is increasing: 54% at SCC, 45% at LCIA, 46.2% at SIAC, besides CAM-CCBC’s impressive 75% figure. However, party-appointments are still far from equal. Many figures are very disappointing: 16.5% at KCAB, 18.9% at HKIAC, 19% at LCIA, 27% at SCC. No institution was even close to 50%.
|ICC||ICSID||SCC||LCIA||SIAC||ICDR||HKIAC||CAM-CCBC||DIS||VIAC||Swiss Arbitration Centre||CIETAC||PCA||KCAB||JCAA|
|Amount in dispute||n/a||n/a||EUR 1.63 billion||n/a||USD 5.61 billion||USD 4.2 billion||USD 5.5 billion||BRL 7.9 billion (USD 1.58 billion)||EUR 2.84 billion||EUR 1.03 billion||n/a||USD 17.40 billion||n/a||USD 371.4 million||n/a|
|Emergency arbitration applications||n/a||n/a||2||0||12||145||32||1||n/a||n/a||n/a||2||n/a||n/a||n/a|
|Expedited procedure applications||n/a||n/a||44 (30.7%)||10 (3%)||87 request, of which 48 were accepted (13.4%)||127 (17%)||20 (5.81%)||n/a||n/a||n/a||39 (42%)||n/a||n/a||n/a||n/a|
|Arbitrator challenges||n/a||n/a||3||0||2||n/a||11||14 (13 male and 1 female)||n/a||n/a||n/a||49 (number of decisions made)||n/a||n/a||n/a|
|Percentage of female arbitrators||n/a||23% (considering cases under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules)||34% (combining party and institution appointments) |
54% (appointed by the SCC) 27% (appointed by the parties)
|45% (appointed by the LCIA) |
19% (appointed by the parties)
|46.2% (appointed by the SIAC) |
27% (appointed by the parties)
|n/a||27% (appointed by the HKIAC) |
18.9% (appointed by the parties)
|38,21% (in 3 arbitrators tribunals) |
60% (in sole arbitrator tribunals) 39.06% (of all appointments) 75% (appointed by the CAM-CCBC)
|n/a||44% (combining party and institution appointments) |
57% (appointed by the VIAC) 33% (appointed by the parties)
|46% (appointed by the SCAI)||n/a||n/a||27% (appointed by the KCAB) |
16.5% (appointed by the Parties)
|Arbitrator nationality (top 3)||n/a||1. Western European (40%) |
2. North American (25%)
3. South American (20%)
|1. Sweden (73.3%) |
2. UK (5.9%)
3. Germany (3.7%)
|1. UK (63%) |
2. Canada (n/a)
3. USA (n/a)
|1. Singapore (33%) |
2. United Kingdom (27%)
3. Australia (6%)
|n/a||1. Hong Kong (32.7%) |
2. UK (18.2%)
3. Australia (9.4%)
|n/a||n/a||1. Austria (55%) |
2. CEE/SEE/CIS (24%)
3. Western Europe (18%)
|n/a||n/a||n/a||1. Korea (31.7%) |
2. United States (15.0%)
3. United Kingdom (9.6%)
 7554 minus 4086 from CEITAC.
 4585 minus 1060 from CEITAC.