Key Results from the 2021 Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey

For a number of years, the School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), has published the results of empirical surveys on international arbitration in partnership with the law firm White & Case LLP.

The most recent such survey, entitled Adapting Arbitration to a Changing World, was published in Spring 2021. It reflects feedback in over 1000 questionnaire responses and nearly 200 interviews from a wide cross-section of international arbitration practitioners, including in-house counsel, private practice lawyers, arbitrators, and arbitral institution staff, among others.

Key results from the 2021 survey are as follows.

• Among 90% of respondents, international arbitration is the preferred method to resolve cross-border disputes. 
• The five most preferred seats of arbitration are London, Singapore, Hong Kong, Paris, and Geneva. London and Singapore were tied for the top choice among respondents. Hong Kong was the next most preferred seat (representing a significant increase from the previous survey, despite recent political issues). The results reflected respondents’ view that these five seats are “safe” in terms of support for arbitration by the local judiciary, the local judiciary’s impartiality, and a reliable track record in enforcing agreements to arbitrate and arbitral awards.
• The five most preferred arbitral institutions are the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), and the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). There was a significant increase in the number of respondents who selected SIAC and HKIAC from the previous survey. The institutions’ general reputation and respondents’ previous experiences with the institutions were the main factors behind respondents’ preferences.
• If an oral hearing could not be held in person (e.g.: due to the COVID-19 pandemic), nearly 80% of respondents said they would choose to proceed on schedule with a virtual hearing, as opposed to 16% who said they would postpone the hearing until it could be held in person.
• Based on recent experience with virtual hearings due to the COVID-19 pandemic, respondents said the potential flexibility in hearing dates is the major benefit of virtual hearings, followed by enhanced efficiency through technology use and more procedural and logistical flexibility. Respondents, however, expressed concerns about difficulties in accommodating different time zones in virtual hearings, as well as challenges for counsel and clients in conferring and concern about controlling witnesses and assessing witness credibility.
• In the future, respondents indicated openness to a mix of virtual and in-person hearings, with a slight preference for the former for procedural hearings but a preference to keep the in-person option for substantive hearings (e.g.: on liability and damages).
• Over 50% of respondents said that progress had been made in terms of gender diversity on arbitral tribunals in recent years. Fewer respondents, however, considered that there had been progress regarding geographic, age, cultural, and ethnic diversity.

Commenting on the 2021 survey, the Deputy Director of the QMUL Deputy Director, School of International Arbitration said: “The results reflect an interesting snapshot of change in arbitral practice during a time of global upheaval. The arbitration community had to adapt quickly, and some of these changes will remain after the pandemic recedes. Virtual hearings and increased reliance on technology are clear examples of changes that will persist.”

For complete results and commentary, please see Adapting Arbitration to a Changing World at http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/research/2021-international-arbitration-survey/. 

For further information on the above, please contact this form.

Click here for the Japanese translation article.

---

The information provided in this article does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice and is for general informational purposes only. Readers of this article should contact an attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.