2016 has been another busy year for the world’s arbitral institutions. This is reflected by the institutions’ caseload numbers that have been reported for 2016. Just like last year[1], we have compiled the numbers published by the arbitral institutions and analyze them below.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
ICC[2] (International Chamber of Commerce) 759 767 791 801 966
DIS[3] (German Institution of Arbitration) 121 121 132 134 166
SCC[4] (Stockholm Chamber of Commerce) 177 203 183 181 199
VIAC[5] (Vienna International Arbitration Center) 70 56 56 40 60
SCAI[6] (Swiss Chamber’s Arbitration Institution) 92 68 105 100 81
LCIA[7] (London Court of International Arbitration) 277 301 296 326 303
ICDR[8] (International Center for Dispute Resolution) 996 1165 1052 1063 1050
SIAC[9] (Singapore International Arbitration Centre) 235 259 222 271 343
CIETAC[10] (China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission) 1060 1256 1610 1968 2183
HKIAC[11] (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre) 293 260 252 271 262
ICSID[12] (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) 50 40 38 52 48
Total 4130 4496 4737 5207 5661

 

Analyzing the 2016 Numbers

Three points are remarkable:

Firstly, the new cases filed with the ICC in 2016 increased by 20 % after being almost stable for the last four years. According to the ICC, the massive growth by 165 new cases from 801 in 2015 comes from Latin America, Asia and Africa.[13] The ICC is also the forerunner in 2015 as far as transparency is concerned – the names of all arbitrators are published on the ICC’s website.[14] The authors expect other arbitral institutions to follow suit.

Secondly, CIETAC saw another record year with 2,183 new cases. However, this number also includes the purely domestic cases. In 2016, 483 cases were international cases from 57 countries. The cases involved a total amount in dispute of RMB 58.66 billion (USD 8.5 billion).[15] If one limits the focus on international cases, the leading arbitral institution is still the ICDR.

Thirdly, the growth in investment arbitration cases seems to be stable. While we were careful last year[16], whether ICSID’s new record of 52 cases in 2015 would be a one-off or part of a trend, the latter seems to be true: The 48 cases, which were filed with ICSID in 2016, represent only a minor decline compared to 2015.

[1] See https://globalarbitrationnews.com/global-arbitration-cases-still-rise-arbitral-institutions-caseload-statistics-2015/.

[2] Cf. https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/icc-reveals-record-number-new-arbitration-cases-filed-2016/.

[3] Cf. http://www.disarb.org/upload/statistics/DIS%20Statistics%202016.pdf.

[4] Cf. http://www.sccinstitute.com/statistics/.

[5] Cf. http://www.viac.eu/en/service/statistics/89-service/statistiken/327-viac-statistics-2016.

[6] Cf. Wilske/Markert/Bräuninger, German Arbitration Journal (“SchiedsVZ”) 2017, 49 (52).

[7] Cf. http://lcia.org/LCIA/reports.aspx.

[8] Cf. Email C. Alberti to the authors dated 22 June 2017.

[9] Cf. http://www.siac.org.sg/2014-11-03-13-33-43/facts-figures/statistics.

[10] Cf. http://www.cietac.org/index.php?m=Page&a=index&id=24.

[11] Cf. http://hkiac.org/about-us/statistics.

[12] Cf. https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/resources/ICSID-Caseload-Statistics.aspx.

[13] See https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/icc-reveals-record-number-new-arbitration-cases-filed-2016/.

[14] See https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/icc-arbitral-tribunals/.

[15] http://www.cietac.org/index.php?m=Article&a=show&id=14107.

[16] See https://globalarbitrationnews.com/global-arbitration-cases-still-rise-arbitral-institutions-caseload-statistics-2015/.