Originally from The Law and Practice of International Arbitration: Essays in Honor of John Fellas – Preview Page

1. INTRODUCTION 

Efficiency has historically been one of the primary appeals of arbitration relative to litigation. What constitutes “efficiency” inevitably introduces elements of subjectivity and can vary from case to case, but it is most often assessed in terms of cost and duration. Arbitrators are generally encouraged by arbitral institutions to promote efficiency, and institutions frequently publish reports on how to increase the efficiency of proceedings.2  Despite these efforts, concerns have mounted in recent years regarding rising inefficiency in international arbitration.3 

Most arbitral institutions do not regularly publish detailed statistics regarding the costs and duration of arbitrations, but both the limited available data and anecdotal evidence indicate that these figures are steadily increasing.  The mean length of ISDS proceedings between 2017 and 2021 increased by more than one-and-a-half years, to five years and six months.4 The London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) stated in a 2024 report that the median cost of its arbitrations is now up to USD 117,653, with a median duration of 20 months—both of which are increases from a prior LCIA report.5 In light of these trends, it is more important than ever to prioritize the efficient resolution of disputes.  

Arguably, the greatest obstacle to the efficiency of arbitration is a collective failure to address conduct aimed at delaying or frustrating the proceedings. These so called “guerilla tactics” require collective and effective attention from tribunals, institutions and participants. Such tactics not only threaten to undermine some of the core perceived advantages of arbitration but also the integrity and predictability of the process.