As international arbitration continues to evolve in response to changing user expectations, increasing competition among institutions and the emergence of new arbitral centres, some of the most influential voices in the field came together during London International Disputes Week 2026 (LIDW26) for a candid discussion on the future of institutional arbitration.

Hosted by Stewarts and JSA Advocates & Solicitors as part of LIDW26, the session, titled “Whose Rule Is It Anyway?”, brought together representatives of leading arbitral institutions alongside senior arbitration practitioners for a wide-ranging discussion on institutional credibility, award scrutiny, cost structures, emergency relief and the growing prominence of regional arbitration centres. The panel featured:

• Sherina Petit – Head of International Arbitration and India Practice, Stewarts
• Dheeraj Nair – Partner, JSA
• David Joseph KC – Barrister, Essex Court Chambers
• Gourab Banerji – Barrister, Essex Court Chambers
• Kevin Nash – Director General, LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration)
• Colleen Parker Bacquet – Counsel, ICC (International Chamber of Commerce)
• Shwetha Biduri – Director and Head, South Asia, SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre)
• Neeti Sachdeva – Secretary General and Registrar, MCIA (Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration)
• Robert Stephen – Secretary General and Registrar, DIAC (Dubai International Arbitration Centre)

Moderated by Ms Sherina Petit and Mr Dheeraj Nair, the discussion was intentionally unscripted, allowing panellists to engage openly on some of the most debated issues in international dispute resolution.

The conversation began with a deceptively simple question: what makes parties choose one arbitral institution over another? While each institution naturally highlighted its own strengths, a striking degree of consensus emerged around the factors that matter most to users. Credibility, quality of administration, procedural efficiency and confidence in the institution’s case management capabilities consistently outweighed simplistic comparisons of fee schedules.

Mr Kevin Nash observed that users often focus on headline costs without appreciating the relationship between efficient administration and the overall cost of a dispute. A well-run arbitration, he noted, will often prove more cost-effective than a proceeding that appears cheaper on paper but suffers from delays and procedural inefficiencies. Increasingly, parties are looking not merely for lower fees, but for value.

Representatives from the institutions addressed common misconceptions that continue to shape perceptions in the market. Ms Colleen Parker Bacquet noted that while the ICC is often associated with large international disputes, a significant proportion of its caseload involves disputes valued below USD 4 million. Ms Shwetha Bidhuri highlighted that SIAC cases are not confined to Singapore-seated arbitrations, with parties regularly choosing SIAC rules for disputes seated elsewhere. Ms Neeti Sachdeva emphasised that MCIA is neither government-run nor limited to India-seated disputes, while Mr Robert Stephen explained that DIAC’s caseload increasingly involves parties, arbitrators and disputes with no direct connection to the UAE, reflecting its growing international reach.

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was whether institutions continue to add value where parties have already appointed highly experienced tribunals. Drawing on their extensive experience as counsel and arbitrators, Mr David Joseph KC and Mr Gourab Banerji argued that institutional involvement remains fundamental to the success of modern arbitration.

Mr David Joseph KC observed that while parties naturally seek tribunals capable of delivering thoughtful and well-reasoned decisions, they also want a process that is both cost-efficient and time-efficient. In his view, institutions play an important role in helping achieve those objectives by ensuring that proceedings remain on track and by addressing procedural issues before they become costly problems.

Mr Banerji similarly emphasised that institutional support continues to matter even where tribunals are highly experienced and proactive. Institutions, he noted, provide critical support in situations involving appointments, challenges, defaults and procedural disputes. More broadly, they serve as an important safeguard throughout the life of an arbitration. Reflecting on the debate surrounding award review and procedural oversight, Mr Banerji remarked that whether an institution adopts extensive scrutiny or a more flexible review process, institutional oversight today is “not merely desirable—it is necessary.” The comment resonated throughout the discussion and reflected a broader recognition that institutions have become an integral component of the modern arbitral process.

The panel’s discussion on award scrutiny provided a vivid illustration of that point. Ms Colleen Parker Bacquet described the ICC’s scrutiny process as an “insurance policy” designed to maximise enforceability and minimise the risk of successful challenges. Through a multi-layered review involving counsel, management and members of the ICC Court, awards are examined for issues relating to jurisdiction, due process, public policy, completeness of reasoning and compliance with seat-specific requirements.

Mr Kevin Nash explained that while the LCIA adopts a different model, all awards nevertheless undergo review. Characterising the LCIA’s approach as a flexible review rather than a light-touch process, he noted that institutions are increasingly focused on identifying enforceability concerns while preserving efficiency. Mr Robert Stephen added that DIAC similarly reviews awards before issuance under its rules.

Both Mr David Joseph KC and Mr Gourab Banerji welcomed institutional review mechanisms, observing that an additional layer of scrutiny frequently identifies issues that might otherwise be overlooked. Mr Banerji noted that one of the most important distinctions between institutional and ad hoc arbitration is precisely this additional level of procedural oversight and quality control.

The discussion then turned to one of arbitration’s most enduring debates: the relative merits of hourly-rate and ad valorem fee structures. Representatives from SIAC, DIAC and MCIA defended ad valorem models on the basis that they provide users with a degree of certainty and predictability at the outset of a dispute. Ms Shwetha Bidhuri explained that institutional discretion remains an important component of these systems, allowing fees to reflect the actual complexity and work involved in a case. Mr Robert Stephen described ad valorem systems as a practical compromise that balances predictability with efficiency, while Neeti Sachdeva highlighted the flexibility built into MCIA’s approach.

Drawing on a practitioner’s perspective, Mr David Joseph KC observed that comparative analyses of institutional costs suggest that differences are often less dramatic than users assume. Ultimately, he suggested, clients are focused less on the mechanics of institutional fee structures and more on obtaining a process that delivers efficient, enforceable outcomes.

Mr Banerji added an important commercial perspective to the debate. Institutions, he observed, are typically chosen years before a dispute arises, at the contract negotiation stage. For that reason, discussions about whether a particular institution proves more or less expensive in a specific dispute must be viewed in the broader context of the commercial choices parties make when drafting arbitration agreements. The real question, he suggested, is whether parties have confidence in the institution they selected when the dispute eventually materialises.

The rise of regional arbitral institutions formed another major theme of the discussion. Asked whether the growing prominence of institutions such as MCIA and DIAC could diminish the role of more established institutions, the panel overwhelmingly rejected the notion that arbitration operates as a zero-sum market.

Ms Colleen Parker Bacquet stated that the growth of regional institutions strengthens arbitration generally by increasing awareness and confidence in institutional dispute resolution. Ms Shwetha Bidhuri pointed to jurisdictions such as China, where multiple institutions coexist successfully and contribute to a sophisticated arbitration ecosystem. Mr Kevin Nash described the emergence of institutions such as MCIA as evidence of India’s growing maturity as an arbitration marketplace and a reflection of the increasing sophistication of parties negotiating dispute resolution clauses.

Ms Neeti Sachdeva acknowledged that newer institutions continue to face the challenge of persuading international parties to seat disputes in jurisdictions that are still building their reputations as arbitral centres. Mr Robert Stephen echoed that observation, emphasising that the principal challenge for emerging institutions is not infrastructure, facilities or cost competitiveness but trust. Long-term confidence in courts, legal systems, governance structures and institutional continuity remains fundamental to the decisions made by international businesses when selecting arbitral seats and institutions.

The discussion concluded with a review of emergency arbitration and interim relief mechanisms. Mr Robert Stephen shared DIAC’s experience since introducing emergency arbitrator provisions under its 2022 Rules, highlighting the institution’s ability to appoint emergency arbitrators within exceptionally short timelines and the increasing use of emergency procedures by parties seeking urgent relief before the constitution of a tribunal.

Although the panel represented institutions that frequently compete for appointments, the discussion revealed a remarkable degree of consensus. Whether the topic was costs, scrutiny, emergency relief, institutional competition or the future of arbitration in emerging jurisdictions, the conversation repeatedly returned to the same themes: efficiency, credibility, enforceability and trust.

The session ultimately demonstrated that while institutional arbitration continues to evolve, the role of institutions themselves has become more—not less—important. As users demand greater efficiency, greater accountability and greater certainty, institutions will continue to play a central role in ensuring that international arbitration remains a trusted mechanism for resolving complex cross-border disputes.