07/10/2025
The School of International Arbitration of the Queen Mary University of London published in 2025 the new edition of its International Arbitration Survey, titled “The Path Forward: Realities and Opportunities in Arbitration”[1]. This is the 14th edition of the study, which aims to map trends, perceptions, and expectations of the international arbitration community, providing valuable insights on the future of arbitration in a global scenario.
The methodological scope of the survey is notable, 2,402 questionnaire responses were received, and 117 interviews were conducted, almost double the number from the previous survey. The pool of participants included in-house counsel from both public and private sectors, arbitrators, private practitioners, representatives of arbitral institutions and interest groups, academics, tribunal secretaries, experts and third-party funders, providing a broad perspective of the international practice.
The survey’s results point to the consolidation of arbitration as the preferred mechanism for resolving cross-border disputes. An overwhelming majority of 87% of respondents chose international arbitration as the method for addressing transnational disputes – 39% chose international arbitration as a standalone method and the remaining 48% opted to use it in conjunction with Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”)[2] – while only 4% opted to use cross-border litigation.
Regarding the choice of seat for arbitration, since the vast majority of respondents focus their activities on Asia and Europe (68%)[3], there was a preference for cities on these continents. London stood out as the most frequently chosen city by respondents (34%), with Singapore and Hong Kong also being frequently chosen (31% each), as well as Beijing and Paris (19% each).
The survey also addressed the impacts of geopolitical and economic sanctions in arbitral proceedings. And even though most respondents had no experience of sanctions affecting their proceedings, those who experienced complications arising from these situations pointed out the following as their main effects: choice of a different seat to ensure that their dispute could be arbitrated (30%), administrative and payment challenges (27%), and difficulties in locating lawyers or arbitrators (25%) – issues that raised concerns among respondents regarding access to justice.
Respondents were also questioned about arbitral proceedings’ efficiency and effectiveness, with the majority of them reporting positive experiences with mechanisms for enhancing efficiency, such as expedited arbitrations embedded in rules of arbitral institutions and paper-only proceedings. On this subject, it is worth noting that, in Brazil, the Center for Arbitration and Mediation of the Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada (“CAM-CCBC”) stands out as the largest and most efficient arbitral institution.
Among the most effective means of ensuring an efficient arbitration, respondents indicated the use of expedited proceedings (50%) – which are particularly useful in less complex cases and tend to reduce the costs involved in the procedure –, and the early determination procedures for manifestly unmeritorious claims or defenses (49%).
As for the main challenges for a timely conduct of arbitral proceedings, respondents highlighted adversarial conduct by counsel (24%), lack of proactivity of arbitral tribunals (23%), and counsel over-lawyering (22%).
Lastly, another noteworthy topic in the survey is the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in arbitration proceedings – respondents expect a significant increase in the use of AI over the next five years, although questions remain about accuracy, ethics, and suitability of these tools for dealing with complex legal arguments. Arbitrators were receptive to its implementation for purely administrative or procedural tasks, but not for activities that require the exercise of discretion and judgment.
The perceived benefits include timesaving, cost reduction, and a lower margin for human error, while the main obstacles were concerns about errors and biases, confidentiality issues, lack of practical experiences and absence of specific regulations. In line with market expectations, CAM-CCBC published Administrative Guidance regulating the use of Artificial Intelligence in the proceedings it administers[4].
Silvia Rodrigues Pachikoski, dispute resolution partner at L.O. Baptista, works strategically to develop arbitration in Brazil and leads a team specialized in conducting complex disputes with focus on agility, technical quality, and consistent results for clients.
[1] Available at https://www.qmul.ac.uk/arbitration/media/arbitration/docs/White-Case-QMUL-2025-International-Arbitration-Survey-report.pdfn
[2] The ADR methods indicated by the survey were mediation, conciliation, adjudication, and dispute boards.
[3] According to the 2025 survey, 47% of respondents concentrate their professional activities in Asia, while 21% work mainly in Europe. As for other locations, 10% of respondents work in North America, 9% in the Middle East, 7% in the Caribbean and Latin America, and 6% in Africa.
[4] Available at: https://www.ccbc.org.br/cam-ccbc-centro-arbitragem-mediacao/en/administrative-guidance-no-06-2025/
