2025 International Arbitration Survey – The path forward: Realities and opportunities in arbitration

White & Case’s global team, in collaboration with the School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary University of London, have launched the sixth edition of the International Arbitration Survey.

The 2025 Survey explores a number of key international arbitration issues, including: how AI is changing the game in international arbitration, efficiency, the enforcement of arbitration awards and public interest issues (such as human rights and corporate social responsibility).

This edition saw a 97% increase in respondents from the previous survey, with 2402 questionnaire responses received and 117 interviews conducted.

View full image: Regions in which respondents principally practice or operate (PDF)

White & Case made a donation to the Child Rights International Network for every completed questionnaire.

London is the top choice overall for respondents, and for both arbitrators and counsel. London and Singapore both rank among the top five seats for each of the six regions in which respondents principally practice or operate.

View full image: Preferred seats by region (PDF)

View full image: Most preferred seats (PDF)

• London and Singapore are among the top five preferred seats for respondents in each of the six regions in which respondents principally practice or operate.
• Respondents, especially those in Asia-Pacific and Europe, show strong preferences for seats in their respective regions. Asia-Pacific is the only region in which Hong Kong, Beijing or Shenzhen appear in the top five seats. London is the only non-Asian seat in the top five seats chosen by Asia-Pacific respondents. For respondents based in Europe, Singapore is the only non-European seat among the top five preferences.
• North American respondents include New York and Washington DC among their top five choices. New York and Miami are also appreciated by Caribbean and Latin American respondents. Middle East-based respondents favour Dubai in their top five selections, as do respondents in Africa.
• The five most preferred seats for arbitration across the full respondent pool are London, Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing and Paris.
• Respondents cited 117 diverse seats from across the world.
• The factors influencing preference for seats, as confirmed by interviewees, were consistent with those singled out by respondents to our previous surveys, such as the support for arbitration by local courts, neutrality and impartiality of the local legal system and national arbitration law and strong enforcement track record.

The ICC Arbitration Rules top the ranking, with 39% of all respondents including them as one of their choices, closely followed by the HKIAC Rules and the SIAC Rules (each attracting votes from 25% of respondents).

View full image: Preferred arbitral rules by region (PDF)

View full image: Most preferred arbitral rules (PDF)

• The ICC Rules are in the top three selections for each of the six regions in which respondents principally practice or operate. The SIAC Rules are in the top five for participants from all regions except Caribbean/Latin American. Both the LCIA Rules and the UNCITRAL Rules made the top five for participants from all regions except Asia-Pacific.
• Asia-Pacific respondents prefer the rules of institutions based in the region, other than the ICC Rules. It is the only region in which the rules of the HKIAC or any mainland China-based rules provider make the top five.
• Respondents in other regions also show preferences for rules providers based in or adjacent to their region. Middle Eastern respondents include the DIAC Rules in their top five choices. Both North American and Caribbean/Latin American respondents include the AAA-ICDR Rules among their top five selections.
• The five most preferred sets of arbitral rules across the full respondent pool are the ICC Rules, HKIAC Rules, SIAC Rules, LCIA Rules and UNCITRAL Rules.
• Respondents cited 66 different sets of ad hoc, administered institutional and non-administered institutional rules.
• Reasons for preferring specific institutional rules were influenced by the general reputation of the institution and level of administration. Choices of sets of ad hoc rules were inspired by their flexibility and ability to customise to user needs.

Both counsel and arbitrators are responsible for behaviour that negatively impacts efficiency in arbitration. Respondents called for greater proactivity and courage from both counsel and arbitrators to address this. On enforcement of awards, the majority of respondents believe annulled awards should not be enforceable.

View full image: Enforcement (PDF)

View full image: Efficiency (PDF)

• The behaviours that most negatively impact efficiency in arbitration include adversarial counsel approaches (24%), lack of proactive case management by arbitrators (23%), and counsel over-lawyering (22%).
• Expedited arbitration procedures (50%), early determination procedures for manifestly unmeritorious claims or defences (49%) and consolidation or joinder (29%) are considered the most effective mechanisms for improving arbitration efficiency.
• Respondents enjoyed excellent experiences with mechanisms for expediting arbitrations, such as expedited arbitration procedures embedded in arbitral rules and paper-only arbitration, and would be willing to use them again. They also acknowledged the need to balance efficiency with procedural fairness.
• 61% of respondents think awards that are annulled at the seat should not be enforceable in other jurisdictions, although some suggest it might be advisable to allow enforcement of an award that has been annulled in questionable circumstances. 

Respondents are conscious of the challenge of balancing confidentiality and transparency where public interest issues may arise in arbitrations. Confidentiality remains key, particularly in commercial arbitrations not involving State parties.

Public access to arbitration

• The vast majority favour maintaining confidentiality, especially in commercial arbitration. There is, however, greater support for publication of redacted awards, especially for disputes involving States or state entities.
• Respondents expect that environmental and human rights issues will be increasingly encountered in both purely commercial arbitrations and disputes involving States or state entities.

Use of AI is expected to grow significantly over the next five years, driven by the potential for efficiencies. Principal current uses of AI include factual and legal research, data analytics and document review. AI assistance in drafting and in evaluating legal arguments is also expected to increase, but there are concerns around accuracy, ethical issues, and AI's ability to handle complex legal reasoning.

AI in international arbitration

• The principal drivers for the increased use of AI in international arbitration are saving party and counsel time (54%), cost reduction (44%) and reduction of human error (39%).
• At present, the principal obstacles to the greater use of AI in international arbitration are concerns about errors and bias (51%), confidentiality risks (47%), lack of experience (44%) and regulatory gaps (38%).
• Respondents largely approve of the use of AI by arbitrators to assist in administrative and procedural tasks. There is strong resistance, however, to its use for tasks requiring the exercise of discretion and judgment, which are fundamental aspects of the mandate given to arbitrators.
• The general consensus is that over the next five years, international arbitration and its users will adopt, and adapt to, AI. For now, the enthusiasm for greater use is tempered, however, by the desire for transparency, clear guidelines and training on the use of AI.