The following report presents statistical information on arbitration cases filed in 2003, and the arbitral tribunals constituted and awards rendered during the same period. The year was marked in particular by the record number of arbitrators from more countries than ever before who took up their duties in ICC proceedings. The report also includes data on ICC's other dispute resolution services: the constitution of arbitral tribunals in ad hoc proceedings (appointing authority), pre-arbitral referee proceedings, amicable dispute resolution (ADR) and expertise.

The ICC International Court of Arbitration, currently composed of 114 members from 78 countries, met on 60 occasions during 2003, 12 times in plenary session and 48 times in committee form. The Court is supported by a permanent Secretariat which manages ongoing cases on a day-to-day basis. The Secretariat has a full-time staff of over 50 persons, including some 30 lawyers of more than 20 nationalities, whose combined linguistic skills cover 20 languages. It is equipped with a modern technological infrastructure that enables it to communicate with the various actors in the proceedings throughout the world. The Court has permanent local representatives coordinating and promoting its activities in North and South America, Asia and the United Kingdom. In addition, members of the Court and its Secretariat participate regularly in seminars and conferences in all parts of the world and thereby help to increase awareness of ICC dispute resolution services.

In 2003, the ICC Court maintained the high level of activity it had achieved in 2002, with over 1,100 cases pending at the end of the year. Requests for arbitration were filed from all sectors of the economy. Construction and engineering, energy, and information technology together accounted for over a third of cases. Other sectors to the fore in 2003 were finance and insurance, pharmaceuticals and healthcare, industrial equipment, and transport.

Note: The above data do not take into account joinder of cases. [Page8:]

Parties to ICC arbitration

A total of 1,584 parties were involved in the 580 new cases filed with the ICC Court in 2003. Although the most common configuration is still one claimant/one respondent, multiparty cases continue to represent almost a third of the Court's caseload. Of the cases registered in 2003, 174 (or 30%) involved more than two parties: 92 cases were between a claimant and two or more respondents; 53 cases between two or more claimants and one respondent; and 29 cases between two or more claimants and two or more respondents. The greatest number of parties in any one case was 27 (one claimant and 26 respondents). The greatest number of claimants in any single case was 12. The average number of parties per case in multiparty cases was approximately five.

Geographical origins of parties

The parties in the cases registered in 2003 came from 123 different countries or independent territories throughout the world.

The breakdown of parties according to region is broadly similar to previous years. It may be noted that the percentage of Latin American and Caribbean parties rose to a record 12.1%. Parties from Africa, South and East Asia and Oceania were also more present than in 2002.

The country-by-country breakdown shows the US to be the most frequent nationality amongst ICC arbitration users, as has been the case for the last six years.

For the first time in the history of ICC Court statistics, there were parties from the Comoros, Eritrea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Tajikistan.

[Page9:]

[Page10:]

Public and semi-public entities

11% of the cases registered in 2003 involved a public or semi-public entity as one or more of the parties. The total number of such parties in these cases was 78. 40% of these parties were states and the remaining 60% other forms of public and semi-public entities. As the table [below] shows, such parties come predominantly from regions with centralized economies.

The arbitral tribunal

The ICC Rules of Arbitration allow parties to choose the arbitrators who will decide their dispute, or to determine the way in which such arbitrators shall be appointed, failing which appointments are made by the Court. Arbitrators chosen by the parties are always subject to confirmation by the Court or its Secretary General.

In 2003, an unprecedented 988 arbitrators were appointed or confirmed. 201 served as sole arbitrators and 787 as members of a tribunal comprising three arbitrators.

38 (18.9%) of the <i>sole arbitrators</i> were nominated by the parties and subsequently confirmed by the Secretary General or the Court; 158 (78.6%) were appointed by the Court upon a proposal from an ICC national committee; and five (2.5%) were appointed directly by the Court.

514 (95%) of the <i>co-arbitrators</i> were nominated by the parties and subsequently confirmed by the Secretary General or the Court; 14 (2.6%) were appointed by the Court upon a proposal from an ICC national committee; and 13 (2.4%) were appointed directly by the Court.

24 (9.8%) of the <i>chairmen</i> were nominated by the parties and subsequently confirmed by the Secretary General or the Court; 113 (45.9%) were nominated by the two co-arbitrators already appointed or confirmed; 99 (40.2%) were appointed by the Court upon a proposal from an ICC national committee; and 10 (4.1%) were appointed directly by the Court.

From the above, it can be seen that a total of 576 arbitrators were nominated by parties and 113 by co-arbitrators (in the case of three-member tribunals) and subsequently confirmed by the Secretary General or the Court. During the year, 27 arbitrators nominated by the parties were not confirmed.

A total of 299 arbitrators were appointed by the Court. Of these appointments, 271 were made upon the proposal of an ICC national committee. Proposals were taken from 37 national committees.

The ICC Rules of Arbitration allow parties to challenge arbitrators, once they have been appointed or confirmed, for an alleged lack of independence or otherwise. The Court rules on the admissibility and the merits of any challenge submitted. In 2003, 20 challenges were introduced, all but one of which were rejected by the Court.[Page11:]

In 2003, the Court accepted the resignations tendered by 21 arbitrators and decided to replace five arbitrators.

The 988 arbitrators who took up their duties in 2003 came from a record 69 different countries, including, for the first time in the history of ICC Court statistics, Albania, Bermuda, Bolivia, El Salvador and Malta. The proportion of arbitrators from Europe and the USA receded slightly, and there was a rise in arbitrators from other regions, especially Latin America. Argentina, Brazil and Mexico are now amongst the top twelve suppliers of arbitrators in ICC proceedings.

[Page12:]

Place of arbitration

The ICC Rules of Arbitration allow the parties to choose the place of the arbitration, failing which it is fixed by the Court. The parties exercised their choice in 87% of the cases filed in 2003, specifying the place of arbitration in the arbitration clause of their contract in 76% of cases and through subsequent agreement in 11% of cases. In the remaining 13% of cases the place of arbitration was fixed by the Court.

The places of arbitration chosen or fixed in these cases were situated in 47 different countries, including, for the first time in the history of ICC Court statistics, Mauritius, Morocco and the Slovak Republic. 2003 saw a significant increase in the number of cases in which the place of arbitration was in the Americas. This figure reached an all-time high of 82 and included nine different countries. Of the 53 US cases, the place of arbitration was in New York in 33 cases, in Texas in six cases, in Florida in four cases, in Massachusetts in three cases, in California in three cases, in Minnesota in two cases, and in Maryland and Washington DC in one case each. The most frequently selected cities, in order of decreasing frequency, were Paris (112 cases-chosen by the parties in 97 cases and fixed by the Court in 15 cases), London (48 cases-chosen by the parties in 42 cases and fixed by the Court in six cases), Geneva (38 cases - chosen by the parties in 35 cases and fixed by the Court in three cases), New York (33 cases-chosen by the parties in 31 cases and fixed by the Court in two cases), and Zurich (26 cases-chosen by the parties in 25 cases and fixed by the Court in one case).

[Page13:]

Applicable rules of law

82% of the contracts underlying the disputes referred to ICC arbitration in 2003 contained a choice-of-law clause specifying the applicable law. In the great majority of contracts (80.4%), the parties opted for a national law (see pie chart below). The range of national laws chosen in these contracts was wider than ever before.

The most frequently chosen US state law was that of New York (26 contracts), followed by California (13 contracts) and Texas (6 contracts).

Other rules or principles occasionally chosen included EC law (one contract), general principles of equity (two contracts), international law (one contract), international commercial law (one contract) and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (three contracts).

It should be noted that the above analysis is limited to the choices made by the parties in their contracts. It does not take account of the decisions made by arbitral tribunals pursuant to Article 17(1) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration when the arbitration clause does not state the parties' choice of law. [Page14:]

Amounts in dispute

The amounts in dispute in the cases filed with the ICC International Court of Arbitration in 2003 ranged from less than 50,000 US dollars to over one billion US dollars. The breakdown [above] shows the percentages of cases in which the amount in dispute fell within the ranges indicated. The far right-hand column indicates the percentages when the cases involving unquantified amounts are disregarded.

Dates of contracts

The table [above] shows that over 90% of the contracts giving rise to disputes referred to ICC arbitration in 2003 were less than ten years old. Disputes tend most commonly to occur in the second or third year of a contract.

[Page15:]

Awards

All awards drawn up by ICC arbitral tribunals are submitted to the Court in draft form for approval before being signed by the arbitrator(s) and notified to the parties. During 2003, the Court approved a total of 369 awards, comprising 99 partial or interim awards, 36 awards by consent and 234 final awards. The Court's increasing activity is reflected in the fact that the number of awards approved annually has doubled in ten years. Under the powers of scrutiny vested in it by Article 27 of the ICC Rules of Arbitration, the Court laid down modifications as to form and/or drew attention to points of substance when approving 243 of the awards submitted to it in 2003. All types of awards were concerned: partial and interim, final, and awards by consent. On a further 32 occasions, in order for the award to be approved, it was referred back to the arbitrators for resubmission at a later date after certain aspects had been reworked.

Most of the awards rendered by three-member tribunals in 2003 were unanimous. In 30 cases, however, the tribunal rendered a majority award. Twenty-five of these awards were final awards and five partial awards. The dissenting arbitrator was the co-arbitrator nominated by the claimant in 16 cases and the co-arbitrator nominated by the respondent in 11 cases. In a further case both the co-arbitrator nominated by the claimant and the chairman of the arbitral tribunal dissented, but on different points. In the two remaining cases the dissenting arbitrator was not identified. None of the awards rendered in 2003 was made by the chairman of a tribunal alone in the absence of a majority.

As far as the languages in which the awards were rendered are concerned, 2003 showed a similar pattern to previous years. Approximately three out of every four awards rendered were in English. French was the second most frequent language used, followed by Spanish, German, Portuguese and, on one occasion each, Hungarian and Russian.

A total of 25 addenda correcting and/or interpreting an award were issued in 2003. Three of these were upon the initiative of the arbitral tribunal pursuant to Article 29(1) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration and the remaining 22 were requested by the parties. Twenty-two applications for the correction and/or interpretation of an award were rejected.

Pre-arbitral referee procedure

In 2003, one request was received for the application of ICC's pre-arbitral referee procedure. The case involved US parties and led to the appointment of a US referee by the Chairman of the ICC Court on the basis of indications given by the parties.

ICC as appointing authority

2003 saw an increase in the number of requests for ICC to assist in the constitution of arbitral tribunals in ad hoc cases. A total of 15 requests were received: seven for the appointment of arbitrators in proceedings conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, two for decisions on challenges of arbitrators in proceedings conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and six for the appointment of arbitrators in non-UNCITRAL ad hoc proceedings.

In 2003, ICC adopted new rules governing its role as appointing authority. These rules, entitled Rules of ICC as Appointing Authority in UNCITRAL or Other Ad Hoc Arbitration Proceedings, broaden the scope of the previous rules, unify the treatment of requests, and introduce greater clarity into ICC's role in the constitution of arbitral tribunals in ad hoc arbitrations. [Page16:]

ADR

Eight requests were filed under the ICC ADR Rules in 2003. They concerned disputes relating to various economic sectors and claims ranging from 45,000 euros to 60 million US dollars. The 18 parties involved came from 13 different countries: Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Serbia and Montenegro, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uganda, the United Kingdom and the USA.

ICC ADR proceedings only go forward if all parties agree to submit to the ICC ADR Rules. ADR proceedings were set in motion in five of the eight cases registered in 2003. In two cases, the request for ADR did not elicit a response from the other side, and in one case proceedings were suspended.

Of the Neutrals selected in the five cases that proceeded, two came from the United Kingdom and the other three from France, Germany and Switzerland. In one case, the Neutral was designated by the parties and in the other four cases appointed by ICC.

Expertise

The year 2003 saw 17 new requests filed under the ICC Rules for Expertise, 13 for the proposal of an expert and four for the appointment of an expert. Companies filed eight requests, arbitral tribunals eight requests, and the remaining request was from a private individual. The cases involved a total of 40 parties of 22 different nationalities. The experts proposed or appointed were of 10 different nationalities.

The matters for which an expert opinion was required included design and construction projects, the performance of industrial and mechanical installations, share values, the legal and economic status of companies, the impact of political events on damages suffered, conditions of contract termination, and the reliability of documents.

DOCDEX

During 2003, 11 new cases were commenced under the ICC Rules for Documentary Instruments Dispute Resolution Expertise. These cases involved a total of 23 parties from 11 different countries, including 13 from South and East Asia (China, Chinese Taipei, India, Korea). The remaining ten parties came from Australia, the Czech Republic, Egypt, France (2), Hungary, Switzerland (2) and the USA (2). The 33 experts appointed in these cases (three par case) came from 20 different countries: Argentina, Canada (2), Croatia, Denmark (2), Finland, France (3), Germany (4), Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Mexico (3), Morocco, Singapore, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom (4) and the USA (2). The letters of credit at issue in these cases ranged in value from just under 100,000 US dollars to almost 2,500,000 US dollars.