Unsurprisingly, the data confirms a close relationship between location of arbitration institution, and most prevalent arbitral seat and governing laws – as seen in the HKIAC and SIAC. The ICC and LCIA on the other hand see the bulk of cases from the global west. Although ICC cases are most commonly seated in Paris, London is a very close second seat with 90 cases on average each year. These choices are consistent with a near 60-40 divide between the top five common and civil governing laws observed before the ICC in earlier charts.

​

This localisation of disputes by the content of the underlying contracts – in the choice of seat, governing law and administrative institution – is not surprising.  In our experience, most multi-national corporation clients have similarly moved away from global standard form contracts providing for a uniform specific governing law, seat and tribunal, to localised dispute resolution choices depending on the key operating jurisdiction.

​

The advantage of this: a greater chance of specialised and localised expertise in arbitrators, on-the-ground institutions and external counsel, as well as ease of project management for in-house counsel.  

​

Reach out to us or your Herbert Smith Freehills contact or the authors below for a discussion on how best to make these choices – not an easy task given the many comparable options available and the fundamental oddity in having to predict how and where best to run an arbitration well before it arises.