Most international arbitration users favour institutional, rather than ad hoc, arbitration. However, while many institutions exist to choose from, relatively little guidance is available on how to choose between them.
This Quickguide:
- briefly outlines the differences between institutional and ad hoc arbitration, and why most parties favour institutional arbitration;
- considers the factors when choosing an arbitral institution; and
- compares key provisions and features of the rules of some of the most popular arbitral institutions.
This Quickguide assumes a level of familiarity with the fundamentals of international arbitration, which are discussed in our Quickguide, Introduction to International Arbitration.
Institutional vs ad hoc arbitration
There are two forms of arbitration: institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration. The parties must make this fundamental choice. Only if they opt for institutional arbitration will they then need to consider which institution to choose.
The differences between institutional and ad hoc arbitration are outlined briefly here and discussed in more detail in our Quickguide, Introduction to International Arbitration.
Institutional arbitration
Contracting parties that choose institutional arbitration agree to adopt the procedural rules of a particular institution and to have that institution administer, and supervise the conduct of, any arbitration that is commenced under the arbitration agreement. Some arbitration rules expressly provide for this. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Arbitration Rules 2026, for example, provide in Article 1(1) that, where the parties have agreed to arbitrate under those rules, they are deemed to have agreed that any arbitration "shall be conducted pursuant to the Rules and administered exclusively by the ICC International Court of Arbitration" (see also Rule 1.1 of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Arbitration Rules 2025).
Institutional rules are designed to provide a comprehensive set of procedural rules governing everything from the procedure for commencing arbitration through to the rendering of the award and costs, as well as some limited post-award procedures (for example, correction of the award). The role of an institution in administering an arbitration conducted under its rules includes it overseeing the appointment of arbitrators (confirmation, default appointment and determining challenges); determining the fees payable to the arbitrator (usually by reference to a methodology set out in the institution's rules); taking advances on costs and managing payments to arbitrators; and assisting in logistics for hearings (hearing rooms, transcript services, etc). Some institutions also scrutinise tribunals' awards in draft to ensure their enforceability.
Ad hoc arbitration
By contrast, ad hoc arbitration is managed by the parties themselves, together with the tribunal once it is appointed. There is no institution involved to offer administrative or logistical support.
Ad hoc arbitration is conducted under whatever rules are specified in the parties' specific arbitration agreement, supplemented by default provisions of the law of the seat of arbitration and procedural directions from the tribunal.
When an ad hoc arbitration is commenced, it is for the parties to conduct the process in conjunction with the tribunal (once it is appointed). This means that the appointment of arbitrators and associated issues are managed by the parties, arbitrators' fees are negotiated directly with the arbitrator and paid directly by the parties, challenges to arbitrators may be determined by the courts of the seat, the parties must arrange all logistics for the hearing, and there is no supervision of awards.
Why institutional arbitration is often favoured
A survey of international arbitration users in 2015 found that 79 per cent of the arbitrations they were involved in during the previous five years (2010-2015) were institutional arbitrations.1 This trend of favouring institutional arbitration over ad hoc arbitration has continued in recent years.2
Parties prefer institutional arbitration for various reasons. An institution can lend political or moral weight to awards, and some jurisdictions only recognise institutional arbitration, meaning ad hoc arbitration awards may be harder to enforce internationally. More practically, institutional rules are designed to regulate the proceedings comprehensively from beginning to end, so the institutions are generally better equipped to handle any contingencies that arise, even if (as sometimes happens) a party fails to co-operate or refuses to participate in an arbitration. By incorporating an institution's rules into their agreement, contracting parties opt for a set of rules that have been tried and tested, with iterative improvements developed over time, to incorporate best practice and respond to users' demands. In addition, parties avoid the time and expense of drafting a suitable ad hoc clause.
The institution will also assume administrative responsibility for the arbitration and take care of fundamental aspects of the procedure. The fees and expenses of the arbitration are, with varying degrees of certainty, regulated, and some arbitral institutions independently vet or scrutinise awards to ensure enforceability.
The major arbitral institutions
Many institutions exist to choose from, with regional preferences influencing choices to a degree. According to research conducted in 2025, the five most preferred institutions globally were:
- the ICC, in Paris;
- the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC);
- SIAC;
- the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA); and
- the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC).3
Certain institutions with less of a global presence are more popular in the regions where they are based. For example, the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) are popular in the Middle East, while the Vienna International Arbitration Centre (VIAC) administers many Central and Eastern European disputes, and Australian parties often favour the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA).
Various specialist institutions handle disputes in particular areas and industries. Examples include:
- the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO), which caters for intellectual property and technology disputes;
- the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which administers sports-related arbitrations; and
- the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA), which administers arbitrations arising in relation to certain commodities transactions.
Other organisations, such as the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA), produce arbitral rules (referred to as "terms" in the LMAA context) designed for ad hoc arbitrations arising in particular sectors, but do not themselves administer arbitrations or perform any of the other functions associated with typical arbitral institutions.
Unlike the specialist institutions, which tailor their rules and often maintain lists of arbitrators with expertise in the relevant sector, most of the major arbitral institutions (like the ICC and LCIA) do not specialise in this way. Instead, they produce rules designed to accommodate and work for the broad range of disputes that could arise in international, commercial transactions. The parties still have the option to appoint specialist arbitrators where desirable and evidence from party-appointed expert witnesses may also be relied upon in an arbitration. Nevertheless, particularly in sectors with established trade practices, a party may feel more comfortable dealing with an institution that specialises in its field.
Key factors to consider when choosing an arbitral institution
Once parties decide on institutional arbitration, they must choose which institution to use.
As a general rule, newly formed institutions or institutions lacking a proven track record should be avoided. That aside, there is no magic formula for choosing between them. Increasingly, institutions and their rules are converging, offering similar processes with fewer stark differentiators. For example, many of the leading institutions have now introduced mechanisms such as emergency arbitration, summary dismissal and fast-track arbitrations, as well as making express provision for virtual or hybrid hearings. Therefore, while differences remain (as detailed in the comparative table of the leading arbitral institutions at the end of this Quickguide), it can be harder to decide between the leading institutions based on the features of the rules alone.
Given this, other factors may also play an important role when parties are deciding which institution to use, in particular an institution's reputation and parties' past experience with it. Other factors considered by parties include the depth and breadth of arbitrators an institution might recommend or appoint, the quality and consistency of an institution's staff, and its approach to costs. However, for lower value or less strategically important disputes, some parties are willing to consider lesser known institutions that offer a more competitive price.4
While the choice of seat and institution are separate, and there is no need to select an institution based at the seat chosen by the parties, a reputable institution, with modern, sophisticated rules, that is based in the parties' chosen seat will often be viewed favourably. Reasons for this include the institution's perceived association with, and knowledge of how things work in, that jurisdiction, as well as for its geographic proximity. That said, the larger institutions routinely administer arbitrations seated in other jurisdictions. Whatever choice is made about the institution, it is sensible, where possible, to align the seat of arbitration with both the governing law of the contract and the law applicable to the arbitration agreement.
Where parties fail to specify a seat of arbitration, their chosen institutional rules may dictate the seat. For example, the LCIA Rules and the HKIAC Rules provide that, absent agreement between the parties, the default seat shall be, respectively, London and Hong Kong. Other rules typically leave it to the tribunal to determine the appropriate seat, taking account of all the circumstances.
While institutional arbitration rules provide a detailed framework for an arbitration, they are not a complete code and the arbitral tribunal will still need to give extensive procedural directions. Directions will be required on issues ranging from the timetable of the arbitration to the approach to be taken to submissions, evidence and hearings. The arbitrators’ specific approach will therefore determine much of the detailed conduct. Among other things, their international arbitration experience, legal background and training, and their views on the legal issues to be determined in the arbitration, will influence their approach. When nominating an arbitrator, a party should therefore consider carefully the approach it wants the tribunal to take, in the context of the dispute that has arisen. Note that the institutional rules may impose limits on the parties' choice of arbitrator, including in respect of their nationality. In this regard, most major institutional rules provide that a sole arbitrator or the chair of a three-member tribunal must not share the nationality of either party, unless the parties agree otherwise.
Level of institutional involvement
Arbitral institutions have varying levels of involvement in managing and administering arbitrations. Institutions such as the HKIAC and LCIA promote their "light touch" approach, with rules that emphasise party autonomy, minimise institutional procedures and entrust the tribunal with the primary decision-making power. Other institutions, such as the ICC and SIAC, are known for more intensive involvement in arbitrations.
We can observe these two contrasting approaches in the scrutiny of arbitral awards. Some institutions, including the ICC and SIAC, conduct mandatory scrutiny of draft tribunal awards, which cannot be released to the parties before they are approved by the institution. At the ICC, the ICC Court performs the scrutiny process and can require modifications to the form of the award and, without affecting the tribunal's freedom of decision, may also draw the tribunal's attention to points of substance. The SIAC Registrar performs a similar role for SIAC awards. The idea is to detect and correct defects, which could lead to an award being successfully challenged or give rise to difficulties in its enforcement. It is not, however, a substantive review of the tribunal's legal and evidentiary analysis, nor the 'correctness' of their ultimate decision.
However, many other institutions, including the HKIAC and the LCIA, neither scrutinise nor approve the award. Their rules contain form requirements (as will the law of the seat of the arbitration), which should be adhered to, but the institutions leave it to the tribunal to render a valid award.
Different parties place different value on the scrutiny process: while some consider the additional quality assurance to be a benefit, others see it as creating the potential for unnecessary delay and further expense.
Fees
Perhaps one of the clearest distinguishing features of the various institutions is the methodology used to calculate arbitrators' fees and institutional administrative fees, and, ultimately, the typical costs of an arbitration administered by them.
The majority of institutions calculate both their administrative fees and tribunal fees on an ad valorem basis: that is, by reference to the amounts in dispute in an arbitration. Examples include the ICC, CIETAC, SIAC and the SCC Arbitration Institute (SCC). However, other institutions, like the LCIA, calculate administrative and tribunal fees based on time spent and capped hourly rates. The HKIAC offers parties a choice between these methods for tribunal fees (although institutional charges are determined ad valorem). Note, however, that time spent may still be factored into an ad valorem system by fixing costs within minimum and maximum limits. Similarly, the claim value, and its anticipated complexity, can be relevant in an hourly rate system, as the circumstances of a case are factored in when determining the appropriate maximum hourly rate to be charged.
Those institutions charging on an ad valorem basis often provide a cost calculator on their website to give parties an insight into the likely cost of arbitration. Where institutions charge on the basis of time spent and hourly rates, parties must rely on data produced by the institution itself to obtain such an insight.5 Increasingly, institutions are publishing data on costs and duration of arbitration by reference to value of the claim. However, differing methodologies adopted by the various institutions can make direct comparisons difficult.
Privacy and confidentiality
Confidentiality is one of arbitration’s key advantages, and users often cite it as a reason for choosing arbitration to resolve their disputes.
The law of the seat of arbitration often determines the level of privacy and confidentiality that attaches by default. However, where confidentiality is paramount, the parties should cater for it expressly in their arbitration agreement. That said, the approach to confidentiality in a set of arbitral rules may also be a factor when choosing the arbitral institution, as different institutions take different approaches and not all provide for confidentiality by default in their rules.
The LCIA Rules, for example, have strict confidentiality obligations, which apply to the parties, the arbitrators and the LCIA itself. The LCIA does not publish awards, or parts of awards, even in redacted form. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the WIPO Rules, which are designed specifically for intellectual property and technology disputes, also contain some of the strictest confidentiality provisions.
By contrast, the CIETAC Rules 2024 expressly provide for the privacy of hearings but do not address broader confidentiality obligations, while both the ICC and SCC impose confidentiality obligations on the institution itself and on the tribunal, but not the parties or their advisers.
Information security is becoming more important to parties and tribunals alike, and is increasingly addressed in institutional rules. Both the 2024 update to the HKIAC Rules and the 2025 revision of the SIAC Rules introduced requirements that parties and tribunals consider information security when adopting procedures for the conduct of the arbitration.
Expedited arbitration
An expedited, or "fast track", arbitration procedure, offering simplified processes for certain claims has been a key focus for users of arbitration for many years.6 Most leading institutional rules provide for expedited arbitration, although the precise features of these processes vary. Often, they provide for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, who will conduct the procedure to a tight timetable and has discretion to determine the dispute on a documents-only basis, place limits on the parties' submissions and evidence, and limit (or even exclude) document production. Typically, these procedures only apply where the amount in dispute is below a certain threshold.
As user familiarity has increased, with feedback positive, the monetary thresholds for the application of these expedited processes have gradually increased. For example:
- Under the SIAC Rules (2025), a party can apply for an arbitration to be conducted according to the expedited procedure where the aggregate amount in dispute is between SG$ 1-10 million (approximately US$ 775,000-7.5 million; previously, the upper threshold was set at SG$ 6 million under the 2016 Rules). The expedited procedure will also apply where the parties agree to its use, or the circumstances of the case warrant it. The expedited procedure is designed to result in a final award within six months of the tribunal's constitution. The SIAC 2025 Rules also introduced a separate "streamlined" procedure, which is even faster (three months from constitution to award) and applies where the parties agree to its application before the Tribunal is constituted or where the amount in dispute does not exceed SG$ 1 million.
- The ICC expedited procedure, first introduced in the 2017 revision of the ICC rules, has been popular, with the monetary threshold for its automatic application also increasing in each subsequent iteration of the rules (US$ 2 million under the 2017 rules, US$ 3 million in 2021 and US$ 4 million under the 2026 rules). Like the SIAC procedures, this is designed to result in an award within six months (from the initial case management conference (CMC)) and the ICC has also introduced a faster track procedure, known as the "highly expedited arbitration provisions" (three months from CMC to award). Unlike SIAC's streamlined procedure, however, the ICC's highly expedited arbitration provisions have no value thresholds and only apply where all parties agree to opt-in.
- The SCC has separate expedited arbitration rules (2023), which the parties can agree to use, and there is no threshold amount for their application, as they are opt-in.
Summary dismissal
One common criticism of arbitration is the perceived inability of arbitrator to dismiss or determine clearly unmeritorious claims at an early stage. This is particularly the case for financial institutions, many of which are familiar with summary judgment procedures available in some national courts.
However, most leading institutional rules now provide a mechanism for summary dismissal, early determination or otherwise (in stark contrast to, for example, the ad hoc UNCITRAL Rules) either by way of an explicit procedure, the general powers of the tribunal, or a combination of the two. For example, under the ICC Rules 2026, a party may apply for the early determination of one or more claims or defences, where these are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The HKIAC Rules provide for express powers of the tribunal to determine preliminary issues (introduced in 2024), in addition to an early determination procedure. Similarly, the SIAC Rules 2025 introduced a preliminary determination mechanism, in addition to the distinct procedure for the early dismissal of claims or defences.
In the investment treaty arbitration context, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Arbitration Rules 2022 provide that a party may object that a claim is manifestly without legal merit. Such an objection must be made early in the proceeding and the tribunal will determine it as a preliminary matter, to a relatively tight timeframe (Rule 41). Although there is high threshold for success, this provision and its counterpart in the 2006 version of the rules, have led to some claims being dismissed in their entirety at an early stage.
Interim measures and emergency arbitrators
Arbitral tribunals typically have a broad discretion to grant interim measures and this is a consistent feature across most major institutional rules. For example, the HKIAC Rules 2024 provide that the tribunal may, on application by a party, order any interim measures it deems necessary or appropriate. Many arbitral rules also expressly provide tribunals with power, in appropriate circumstances, to order security for costs and, even where this is not express (as is the case under the ICC Rules, for example), such an order is generally considered to be within a tribunal's broad discretion. When selecting a set of rules, consider the exact scope of a tribunal's power to order interim relief under those rules and any limits placed on a party's right to seek such measures from national courts. For example, under the LCIA Rules, once the tribunal is constituted, a party may only apply to a competent state court for interim measures that the tribunal could order in exceptional cases and with the tribunal’s prior authorisation.
It is also commonplace for institutional rules to provide for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator prior to the constitution of an arbitral tribunal. The scope of an emergency arbitrator's powers depends on the particular rules, as does the timeframe in which they are expected to make their decision. For example, the emergency arbitrator's decision must be made within 15 days from the date they accept their appointment, under the CIETAC Rules, or within 15 days of the transmission of the file to them, under the ICC Rules.
Most institutional rules permit applications for emergency or interim relief only with notice to the other party. However, both the SIAC Rules 2025 and the ICC Rules 2026 introduced features allowing parties to apply to an emergency arbitrator without notice to the other side for an order not to frustrate the purpose of the interim relief requested. The Swiss Rules of International Arbitration 2021, issued by the Swiss Arbitration Centre, go further and allow the arbitral tribunal (as opposed to only emergency arbitrators), in exceptional circumstances, to make a preliminary order ex parte, before the request for interim relief has been communicated to any other party.
Comparison of major institutional rules
We compare the rules of the five most preferred arbitral institutions according to the 2025 QMUL International Arbitration Survey: ' The Path Forward: Realities and Opportunities in Arbitration'7 with respect to some of the key factors that parties should consider when choosing an institution.
| International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) | London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) | Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) | Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) | China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rules last updated 2026 | Rules last updated 20208 | Rules last updated 2025 | Rules last updated 2024 | Rules last updated 2024 | |
| Confidentiality & privacy | Arbitrators (and tribunal secretaries) are expressly required to keep confidential all matters relating to the arbitration and make orders concerning the confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings. Will publish unredacted awards after two years, unless the parties object or request anonymisation. | Confidentiality extends to the award and all materials created or produced for the purpose of the arbitration, unless disclosure is required by legal duty, to protect or pursue a legal right, or for enforcement/ challenge purposes. Hearings are held in private, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The LCIA does not publish awards without the consent of all parties and the tribunal. | All matters relating to the proceedings and the award must be kept confidential. The 2025 Rules require the tribunal to discuss with the parties and, if it considers appropriate, give directions for reasonable measures to protect the information that is shared, stored, or processed in relation to the arbitration. The tribunal can sanction a party that does not comply. SIAC may publish redacted decisions and awards but only with the prior consent of all parties. | Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the award, any information relating to the arbitration, and the tribunal's deliberations are confidential. The 2024 Rules introduced requirements that parties and tribunals consider information security when adopting procedures for the conduct of the arbitration. Moreover, the tribunal has the power to make directions and order sanctions for information security breaches. | Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the award, any information relating to the arbitration, and the tribunal's deliberations are confidential. |
| Expedited (fast-track) procedure | The expedited procedure applies automatically to ICC arbitrations where the amount in dispute is below USD 4 million, unless (i) the parties have opted out, (ii) the arbitration agreement pre-dates 1 June 2026 (in which case the threshold is US$ 3 million)10, or (iii) the ICC Court determines the procedure is inappropriate. Parties can choose to use the procedure for higher value cases. In 2026, the ICC also introduced a highly expedited arbitration procedure, which applies where the parties expressly opt in. | No express provisions on expedited procedure. However, it may be available under the tribunal's wider powers to adopt procedural measures to ensure the arbitration is conducted in a fair, efficient and expeditious manner. | An expedited arbitration procedure is available for disputes where the claim or counterclaim does not exceed SG$ 10 million; the parties agree; or the circumstances of the case warrant its application. The 2025 also introduced a Streamlined Procedure, which applies to arbitrations where the parties have agreed to its application before the Tribunal is constituted or where the amount in dispute does not exceed SG$ 1 million. | A party can apply for an expedited procedure the amount in dispute is less than the amount stated on HKIAC's website on the submission date of the Notice of Arbitration (currently HK$ 50 million); the parties agree; or in cases of exceptional urgency. | Whereas previous versions of the CIETAC Rules contained separate provisions for an expedited procedure, in the 2024 Rules this has now been included in the Summary Procedure. It applies to any cases where the amount in dispute does not exceed RMB 5 million, unless otherwise agreed, or where the parties agree. |
| Summary dismissal / early determination | A party can apply to the tribunal for the early determination of claims or defences that are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. | Under the early determination procedure, the tribunal may determine that any claim or defence is manifestly outside its jurisdiction, inadmissible or manifestly without merit, and can, where appropriate, make an order or award to that effect. | Upon application by a party, the tribunal has power to award summary dismissal for claims which are manifestly either without legal merit or outside its jurisdiction. Separately, and subject to certain criteria, the tribunal may also make a final and binding preliminary determination of any issue that arises for determination in the arbitration. | The tribunal may determine preliminary issues that it considers could dispose of all or part of the case, or otherwise adopt procedures to decide the case efficiently. This is in addition to the Early Determination procedure, where the tribunal has the power to determine one or more points of law or fact by way of early determination on the basis that such points are manifestly without merit, manifestly outside the tribunal's jurisdiction, or where no award could be rendered in favour of the party making the submission. | Upon application by a party, the tribunal has power to award summary dismissal for claims which are manifestly either without legal merit or outside its jurisdiction. |
| Interim measures & emergency arbitrators | The tribunal has a wide-ranging power to grant any interim measures it considers appropriate, only after the file has been transmitted to it. Parties can apply to national courts for relief before the tribunal is constituted and "in appropriate circumstances" thereafter. Provision for appointment of an emergency arbitrator to deal with applications for urgent interim or conservatory measures. The 2026 Rules introduced an option for parties to apply without notice for a so-called "preliminary order" directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of the principal emergency arbitrator application. | The tribunal has a wide-ranging power to grant on an interim basis any measures it would have the power to grant in its award. In addition, the tribunal is expressly empowered to order security for the claim. Provision for both expedited formation of the tribunal and, alternatively, the appointment of an emergency arbitrator. Limited ability of parties to apply to national court. An application for security for costs can be made only to the tribunal. | The tribunal has a wide-ranging power to make orders, including for the inspection of property, and the preservation, storage, or sale of property. A party can apply for interim relief from an emergency arbitrator. The 2025 Rules introduced a novel procedure allowing applications to an emergency arbitrator without notice to the other party, accompanied by an application for a Protective Preliminary Order. Rules do not restrict applications to national courts but such applications and any decisions must be notified to SIAC and the tribunal. | The tribunal has a wide-ranging power to grant interim measures, including ordering appropriate security. The parties have an unfettered right to apply to the court for interim measures. | Under the PRC Arbitration Law and PRC Civil Procedure Law, the power to grant conservatory measures is reserved to the competent Chinese court. The rules provide that the Secretariat of CIETAC must forward any application for conservatory measures to the competent PRC court. The 2024 Rules introduced a new provision which permits CIETAC to forward applications to courts outside mainland PRC. |
Time for making award and review | Award to be issued within six months of the terms of reference being finalised, although this can be extended. The ICC Court will scrutinise the draft award to identify mistakes in form and substance (without interfering with the tribunal's decision making powers). The ICC's Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration (2026)10 states that sole arbitrators must submit their draft awards for scrutiny within two months of the final substantive step in proceedings, three months for three-member tribunals. Typographical or similar errors can be corrected either on the tribunal's own initiative or on application by a party.
| Awards to be made as soon as reasonably possible, and tribunal should endeavour to issue within three months of the final submissions by the parties. No scrutiny of awards by the LCIA. However, typographical or similar errors can be corrected either on the tribunal's own initiative or on application by a party. | The SIAC Registrar will review all awards in draft before they are issued to the parties. The tribunal must submit its draft award within 90 days of the last party submissions in the proceedings (unless the Registrar extends this). | The award should be made no later than three months after the tribunal declares the proceedings closed. The HKIAC does not scrutinise awards. However, typographical or similar errors can be corrected either on the tribunal's own initiative or on application by a party . | An award is to be made within six months of the tribunal being formed, although the tribunal can request that CIETAC extend this. The tribunal will submit the draft award to CIETAC for scrutiny before signature. |
Third-party funding | Each party must inform the other and the tribunal of the existence and identity of any non-party which has entered into an arrangement for the funding of claims or defences and under which it has an economic interest in the outcome of the arbitration. | No specific provisions regarding disclosure of third-party funding arrangements. | The parties must disclose any third-party funding agreement and the identity of the funder at the outset of the arbitration or as soon as practicable after entering into a funding arrangement. Once the tribunal is constituted, a party is prohibited from entering into a third-party funding agreement which may give rise to a conflict of interest with any member of the Tribunal. | A funded party must give written notice of the fact of that funding and the identity of the funder to all parties, the tribunal, the emergency arbitrator (if applicable) and HKIAC. | A funded party must disclose to the CIETAC Arbitration Court the existence of the funding arrangement, the financial interest, the name and address of the funder, and any other relevant information. Such information will be forwarded to all other parties and the tribunal. |
Fees & costs | Ad valorem approach to the tribunal and administration fees. Factors such as efficiency, time spent, complexity and timeliness of the award are taken into account. The tribunal will set out the costs of the arbitration in the final award. In awarding costs, the tribunal will take account of factors it considers relevant, including the extent to which each party has conducted the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner. | Tribunal fees are calculated by reference to time spent and hourly rates. Administration fees are time-based. The LCIA Court will determine the arbitration costs and the tribunal will specify an amount, and apportion liability, for costs in the award. | Ad valorem approach to the tribunal and administration fees. The Registrar will determine the arbitration costs and the tribunal will specify amount, and apportion liability, for costs in the award unless agreed otherwise. | Parties to agree whether tribunal fees are determined ad valorem, or based on an hourly rate. Where no agreement is reached, fees are determined on an hourly rate. Administration fee will be ad valorem. The tribunal may apportion costs between the parties. In 2024 an additional option in the HKIAC model clause was introduced, allowing parties to select in their contracts how the tribunal's fees will be calculated (ad valorem or at an hourly rate). | Ad valorem approach to the tribunal and administration fees. Full arbitration fee to be paid on commencement. The tribunal must specify the allocation of costs in the award. |
Other points to note | A distinguishing feature of ICC arbitration was the requirement for the tribunal to draw up Terms of Reference (ToR), which included a summary of claims and issues. However, the ToR were often contentious and criticised by many for unnecessarily delaying proceedings. The 2026 revision to the rules removed the requirement to draw up ToR, although tribunals may still opt to do so in appropriate cases. | The default seat of an LCIA arbitration is London, unless the parties agree otherwise or the tribunal determines otherwise. Moreover, Article 16.5 (2016 Rules) provides that the LCIA Rules are to be interpreted in accordance with English law. The Annex to the LCIA Rules sets out general guidelines to be followed by the parties' counsel. | The SIAC Rules 2025 introduced a number of novel provisions, including in respect of the streamlined procedure and without notice applications to an Emergency Arbitrator for interim measures. They also provide that the parties and tribunal are deemed to have agreed to conduct the arbitration with diligence and professionalism, and further to certain principles, including fairness, and the expeditious and cost-effective conduct of the arbitration proportionate to the complexity and value of the dispute. | The HKIAC Rules were updated in 2024, with the new Rules being effective as of 1 June 2024. HKIAC introduced new provisions on diversity and the environmental impact of proceedings, which it says codify its existing practice. Those provisions include: encouraging parties, arbitrators and HKIAC to take diversity into account during the arbitrator appointment process, and requiring the tribunal and parties to consider environmental impact when adopting procedures for the conduct of the arbitration. The tribunal may also consider adverse environmental impacts when allocating costs. | The 2024 rules contain several provisions facilitating the digitalisation of arbitration proceedings, including in relation to online video hearings, electronic signatures and electronic delivery of awards. Unusually, there is express provision for parties to proceed in good faith. |
- See Queen Mary University of London's (QMUL) 2015 International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration.
- See, for example, QMUL's 2025 International Arbitration Survey: 'The Path Forward: Realities and Opportunities in Arbitration'.
- See QMUL's 2025 International Arbitration Survey: 'The Path Forward: Realities and Opportunities in Arbitration'.
- See QMUL's 2021 International Arbitration Survey: Adapting Arbitration to a Changing World.
- See, for example, the LCIA's Report, Costs and Duration: 2017-2024.
- See 2015 QMUL International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration: 92 per cent of respondents were in favour of the adoption of a simplified "fast track" arbitration procedure for claims under a certain value. This view was also reflected in both the 2018 QMUL International Arbitration Survey: The Evolution of International Arbitration and the 2021 QMUL International Arbitration Survey: Adapting Arbitration to a Changing World, 'provision of expedited procedures' was listed as a key factor that would make other institutions or rules attractive to users. Most recently, 50% of respondents to the 2025 QMUL International Arbitration Survey: 'The Path Forward: Realities and Opportunities in Arbitration' indicated that expedited arbitration procedures was the mechanism most likely to improve efficiency, while 49% also selected summary dismissal or determination procedures for manifestly unmeritorious claims or defences.
- Available on the QMUL website.
- In March 2026, the LCIA launched a public consultation on potential revisions to its 2020 Rules.
- Or US$ 2 million for agreements concluded before 1 January 2021.
- The ICC Note (2026) is available here.
