Insights from the 2025 QMUL International Arbitration Survey

The 2025 International Arbitration Survey, titled "The Path Forward: Realities and Opportunities in Arbitration" has been published by Queen Mary University of London’s School of International Arbitration, in collaboration with White & Case. Launched in October 2024, the report reflects insights from 2,400 international arbitration professionals, including in-house counsel, arbitrators, practitioners, academics, among others. It explores current trends, emerging challenges, and future developments shaping the arbitration landscape.

Seats of Arbitration

To begin, the survey reinforces the dominance of London as the global leader in arbitration, with it being top ranked by 34% of participants. London’s appeal lies in its established legal infrastructure, experienced arbitrators, and supportive courts that understand and respect the arbitration process. It also benefits from the familiarity of English law, which is often chosen as the governing law in international contracts.

Singapore, meanwhile, has cemented its status as a leading arbitration hub in Asia. It was one of only two cities (along with London) to rank in the top five across all six global regions surveyed. Also included in the top five are Beijing and Hong Kong, suggesting China's growing footprint in the international arbitration landscape. These trends indicate that parties are no longer resorting to familiar Western jurisdictions but might instead be choosing seats based on regional proximity and local expertise.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

87% of participants now favour arbitration to resolve cross-border disputes, with 39% using arbitration alone and 48% combining it with Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms (ADR). The most preferred arbitration rules were the ICC, HKIAC, SIAC, LCIA, and UNCITRAL Rules, with the ICC Rules notably represented in all regions.

This is likely a reflection of the fact that arbitral awards are generally perceived to be easier to enforce internationally in light of the New York Convention.

Efficiency in Arbitration

Despite arbitration being commended for speed and flexibility, the survey uncovers some internal inefficiencies. The three most commonly cited were: adversarial conduct by counsel (24%), tribunal inaction (23%), and over-lawyering (22%). Notably, 35% of arbitrators were particularly critical of over-lawyering, while 28% of counsel pointed to passive tribunals. To counteract these trends, participants overwhelmingly supported expedited procedures (50%) and early dismissal mechanisms (49%). While not new, these tools are gaining traction as part of a broader push for streamlined, cost-effective processes. Parties are increasingly expecting arbitrators to take control early, set clear timelines, and shut down meritless claims before they escalate into costly proceedings.

AI

Artificial intelligence (‘AI’) is positioned to become a mainstay of arbitration practice. A massive 91% of participants expect to use AI, and 52% believing that arbitrators will increasingly integrate AI into their work. Examples of what this may entail include calculating damages and costs, summarising evidence, and drafting procedural parts of awards and orders. The primary benefits cited in the survey for AI adoption were time savings (54%), cost efficiency (44%), and a reduction in human error (39%).

While AI promises time savings, cost reductions, and reduced human error, serious concerns remain. The risk of undetected AI errors or bias, and fears around data security, remind us that transparency in AI tools will be essential.

Geopolitical Sanctions

The influence of geopolitical and economic sanctions on arbitration is becoming more visible. Although 28% of participants said they experienced no impact, a notable 30% reported changing the seat of arbitration to avoid sanction-related complications.

Dubai, Hong Kong, and Singapore emerged as preferred alternatives, maybe due to their neutral reputations and business-friendly regulations.

Public Interest

Arbitration is increasingly being drawn into matters that affect the public at large, white collar crime (32%), environmental concerns (30%), and corporate social responsibility (CSR) (26%) were the most commonly cited public interest issues in the survey.

Arbitration’s core characteristics, such as confidentiality, party autonomy, and limited third-party involvement, can be at odds with the demands of transparency, accountability, and public scrutiny that typically surround public interest matters. However, 47% of participants highlighted balancing confidentiality with transparency as being a difficult challenge. While confidentiality is valued in commercial arbitration, it can appear adverse to the principles of open justice when the outcome affects communities or the environment.

Enforcement of Awards

Respondents were also asked about voluntary compliance with awards. In relation to ICSID arbitrations, 11% of respondents said voluntary compliance by states was seen "almost always" and another 23% that it happens "often", but 40% said that it happens only "sometimes". The survey results indicate that, in non-ICSID cases, where the award debtor is a private entity, voluntary compliance appears to be greater than where a state is the debtor. The report notes the views of interviewees that voluntary compliance often indicates a mutual interest in reaching an outcome. Respondents were asked whether awards set aside, annulled or suspended at the seat of arbitration should be enforceable in other jurisdictions. 61% of respondents said they should not, with this group including a majority of counsel (70%) and arbitrator (58%) respondents.