This report provides detailed statistics on aspects of ICC dispute resolution proceedings in 2011. The first and largest part is devoted to arbitration administered by the ICC International Court of Arbitration and its Secretariat. This section provides information on parties (numbers, nationalities, numbers and origins of state parties), arbitral tribunals (constitution, numbers and nationalities of arbitrators, challenges and other incidents affecting the composition of arbitral tribunals once constituted), places selected as seats of ICC arbitrations, applicable law chosen by the parties, the subject and size of disputes, and awards. It is followed by a short section on services provided by the ICC in ad hoc arbitration proceedings. The report ends with an analysis of the caseload handled by the ICC International Centre for ADR.

The report testifies to the continuing expansion of ICC arbitration. Not only did the numbers of participants increase in 2011 (2,293 parties, 1,341 arbitrators nominated and appointed), but also the diversity of the disputes, substantive laws chosen to govern those disputes and places at which they were resolved. ICC arbitrations were seated in over 100 cities in 63 countries throughout the world, and the range of laws applied was equally varied. That ICC arbitration can accommodate such variety is due to the flexibility of the rules on which it is based, which leave great scope for party autonomy while offering the assurance of an administered procedure. It is also due to the nature of the institution. Composed of over 120 members from more than 80 countries, the ICC Court brings to the cases it administers the combined knowledge and experience of practitioners representing all legal traditions and cultures. Likewise, the Secretariat of the Court, with a staff of over 80 covering some 30 nationalities and an exceptionally broad range of language skills and legal knowledge, is able to treat each case with sensitivity to local and individual needs. During 2011, the Secretariat handled an active caseload of some 1,500 open cases, while the Court met each week to take the decisions necessary to their progression and approved a record 508 awards.

Use of ICC dispute resolution services other than arbitration also expanded in 2011, with the number of requests for amicable dispute resolution (including mediation) and expertise services reaching record figures (29 new ADR cases; 35 new expertise filings (22 for the proposal and 8 for the appointment of an expert; 5 for the administration of entire expertise proceedings). Altogether, the services provided by the International Centre for ADR attracted 174 parties from 54 countries worldwide.

The continuing expansion of ICC dispute resolution has been encouraged by an intensification of educational, training and outreach activities. During the year, the ICC Court organized or participated in some 160 conferences and seminars throughout the world, including a series of events unveiling the revised ICC Rules of Arbitration during the last quarter of the year; 50 students of 24 different nationalities completed internships within the Secretariat of the Court; and print and online publications were disseminated in 12 languages.

ARBITRATION

A total of 796 new cases were filed with the ICC International Court of Arbitration ("the Court") in 2011, bringing the total number of ongoing cases at the end of the year to 1,501. These figures reflect a third successive year of heightened activity and a further rise in the Court's active caseload, which has more than doubled in the last twenty years.

Parties

The total number of parties involved in the cases filed in 2011 was 2,293, surpassing the previous 2010 record by almost 7%. This increase is largely explained by a rise in multiparty cases and by the numbers of parties in those cases. A total of 247 (31%) of all cases filed in 2011 involved more than two parties. Of these cases, 45 (18%) involved over five parties, and one case even involved as many as forty parties. As in previous years, in over half of the multiparty cases the Request for Arbitration was introduced by a single claimant against multiple respondents. Some 28% of multiparty cases were introduced by multiple claimants against a single respondent, and 18% of multiparty cases were introduced by multiple claimants against multiple respondents.

Geographical origins

The parties involved in the 2011 filings came from 139 different countries and independent territories. The breakdown by region reveals an increase in the number of parties from Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Europe.

Africa

The number of African parties involved in ICC arbitrations rose considerably in 2011, owing largely to an increase in parties from North Africa. There were almost twice as many Egyptian parties as in 2010, while the number of Moroccan parties also rose to an unprecedented high. The unusually high figure for Mauritania is explained by a single case involving eight Mauritanian respondents. The changes in Sub-Saharan Africa were smaller and the breakdown much in line with previous years. However, the number of countries represented (25) was greater than in any previous year.

Americas

Parties of US origin continued to be the most numerous in ICC arbitration, accounting for almost 7% of all parties. 2011 saw the number of Canadian parties rise to a record level, representing almost 18% of all North American parties. Brazil remained the leading nationality in Latin America, with almost three times as many parties as the next most frequent nationality, Mexico. Also worth noting is the reappearance of parties from Bolivia and Guyana after several years' absence.

Asia & Pacific

The number of parties from Asia and the Pacific rose by some 13% between 2010 and 2011. Parties from the United Arab Emirates for the first time outnumbered any other nationality in the region, accounting for almost 12% of the regional total, closely followed by Indian parties (11%). The number of UAE parties has increased almost fourfold in the last five years and from single figures prior to 2005. Parties from Mainland China were more numerous than ever before, as were parties from Israel, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam.

* 37 from Mainland China (8 claimants, 29 respondents); 11 from Hong Kong (9 claimants, 2 respondents).

Europe

For the first time ever, Spanish parties were the most numerous of all European nationalities. This was due, in particular, to an exceptional multiparty case involving thirty-eight Spanish parties. There was also a rise in the number of Italian parties, who for the first time also exceeded three figures. Between them, French, German, Italian and Spanish parties made up more than half of all European parties. Developments among Central and East European parties were less spectacular. A record number of Romanian parties was recorded, narrowing the lead taken by Turkish parties since 2009.

In brief: most frequent nationalities worldwide

Cases filed in 2011 involved in excess of 50 parties from each of the countries listed below.

Single-nationality cases

Although predominantly used to resolve international disputes, ICC arbitration has become increasingly popular as a means of resolving domestic disputes, i.e. disputes between parties from one and the same country. In 2011, 147 (18.5%) of all new filings were single-nationality cases. They covered 55 different nationalities-almost twice as many as ten years ago. The countries with the greatest concentration of domestic ICC arbitrations are listed below.

State and state-owned parties

The number of cases involving one or more states or parastatals rose to 81 in 2011, representing 10.2% of all cases filed during the year. A total of 99 states and parastatals were involved in these cases. A breakdown of these parties by region shows that the participation of states and state entities in ICC arbitration grew above all in Africa and Asia. The participation of states and state entities from Europe was confined to Central and East Europe, and in the Americas to Latin America and the Caribbean.

In 2011, one case was received involving an intergovernmental organization.

Arbitral tribunals

Constitution

ICC arbitral tribunals are constituted through the appointment or nomination of arbitrators. Appointments are made by the Court, whereas nominations are made by the parties, co-arbitrators (when required to nominate the president of a three-member tribunal) or in accordance with an alternative selection process agreed between the parties. Nominations are subject to confirmation by the Court or its Secretary General. Appointments are made either on the basis of a proposal from an ICC national committee, or directly by the Court. The total number of appointments and confirmations in 2011 rose to 1,341, from 1,331 in 2010.

Below is a breakdown of these appointments and confirmations by category of arbitrator (sole arbitrators, co-arbitrators, tribunal presidents).

Of the 1,341 appointments and confirmations in 2011, 303 (22.6%) were made notwithstanding the fact that the arbitrator had made a disclosure concerning his or her independence. In the great majority of cases (77.4%), no such disclosures were made.

As can be seen from the above table, most arbitral tribunals are constituted on the basis of the parties' choices, and the Court will endeavour to respect those choices when confirming arbitrators. On only 34 occasions did the Court not confirm a party-nominated arbitrator in 2011. The nominee had disclosed facts or circumstances relating to his or her independence in 29 instances.

Challenges, resignations and replacements of arbitrators

Occasionally, the composition of an arbitral tribunals may change in the course of proceedings as a result of a challenge, a resignation or a replacement for other reasons such as at the request of all parties, on the Court's own motion or upon the death of an arbitrator. Such incidents are rare.

In 2011, of the 39 challenges made during the year, only 3 were accepted by the Court. A total of 30 resignations were accepted by the Court. In addition to replacements made following a challenge or a resignation, 4 arbitrators were replaced at the request of all parties, 4 replacements were made following an arbitrator's death, and a further 2 replacements were made at the Court's initiative due to the arbitrators' failure to fulfil their functions.

Geographical origins

The diversity of nationalities represented among arbitrators appointed and confirmed in 2011 was wider than ever before: the arbitrators appointed or confirmed during the year came from 78 different countries and territories in all parts of the world. 66% of arbitrators were from Europe, 19.2% from the Americas, 12.3% from Asia and the Pacific, and 2.5% from Africa. The table below gives a breakdown country by country.

Arbitrators: top 15 nationalities

Places of arbitration

The number of different cities selected as the place of arbitration in ICC proceedings rose to 113 in 2011, from 98 in 2010. These cities were situated in 63 different countries. Never before have ICC proceedings been so widely spread. The two regions in which the number of cities selected expanded most were Central and East Europe (14 cities, as compared with an average of 9 over the previous four years) and North America (21 cities, as compared with an average of 16 over the previous four years) .

The place of arbitration was chosen by the parties in 87% of cases, usually in the dispute resolution clause of the contract giving rise to the dispute. In the remaining 13% of cases, the place of arbitration was fixed by the Court, sometimes within a country for which the parties had already expressed a preference.

The frequency with which places were chosen followed a similar pattern in 2011 to previous years. The regional breakdown was as follows: Africa 2.2%, the Americas 14.3%, Asia/Pacific 13.2%, Europe 70.3%.

Country-by-country breakdown: number of arbitrations seated in each country

* Of the 9 cases seated in China, 1 was seated in Mainland China and the other 8 in Hong Kong. Of the 48 cases seated in the USA, 20 were seated in the State of New York, 8 in California, 8 in Texas, 2 in Florida, 2 in Pennsylvania, and 1 in each of the states of Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Minnesota, Ohio and Washington, and 1 in Washington D.C.

Places of arbitration: top ten cities selected

Choice of law

In 84% of the cases registered in 2011 the parties had included a choice-of-law clause in the contract that gave rise to their dispute. 98% of those clauses specified a state law. The parties' choices covered the laws of 96 different nations and independent territories. The most popular choices were as follows:

Where US laws had been chosen, the most common choice was New York law (51.2%), followed by the laws of the states of Texas (15.9%), California (8.5%), Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Minnesota and Ohio (3.7% each), Florida (2.4%), and Hawaii and New Jersey (1.2% each).

The above figures reflect the positive choices made by parties when drafting their contracts. They do not take account of the decisions on the applicable law made by arbitrators after the proceedings have begun. Nor do they include negative choices, whereby parties exclude the application of certain rules of law.

Parties had chosen anational rules or principles in 2% of contracts. 5 of these contracts referred to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 4 to the ICC's Incoterms® rules, 2 to the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, and the remaining contracts contained isolated references to amiable composition, EEC law, private international law, lex mercatoria, and international usages for distribution.

Nature of the disputes

As in previous years, the disputes referred to ICC arbitration during 2011 were highly diverse. They covered a very broad spectrum of economic sectors, ranging from the production of raw materials to manufacturing industries and trading activities. Disputes relating to construction and engineering grew in number to represent an unprecedented 18.5% of the Court's total caseload, six points ahead of energy disputes, the second most common category. The number of disputes from the telecommunications and information technology sector also continued to rise, reaching 9% of the total caseload in 2011.

The value of the disputes was also very varied, ranging from less than US$ 50,000 to more than US$ 500 million. Some 23% of cases involved amounts less than US$ one million, while the number of disputes involving amounts over US$ 500 million doubled to represent 1% of the total caseload. The average amount in dispute in cases filed in 2011 was US$ 31.5 million. The aggregate value of all disputes pending before the Court at the end of the year was almost US$ 87 billion.

Amounts in dispute (US dollars)

Awards

For the first time in the Court's history, the total number of awards approved during a year surpassed the landmark figure of 500 in 2011, reaching 508 at the year-end. Of these awards, 347 were final, 120 partial and 41 by consent. The 15% rise in the number of final awards, compared with 2010, shows that incentives and efforts to conduct cases with greater expediency are paying off.

While the majority of awards were drafted in English (77%), the use of other languages grew both in number and frequency. During the year, awards were rendered in 13 additional languages, including French (7.3%); Spanish (5.9%); German (3.5%); Portuguese (3%); Turkish (0.6%); Arabic, Chinese, Greek, Italian and Serbian (0.4% each); Hebrew, Romanian and Russian (0.2% each). The year also saw a bilingual award rendered in English and Portuguese.

All awards drafted by ICC arbitral tribunals are submitted to the Court for approval before being issued to the parties. On such occasion, the Court may lay down modifications as to the form of the award and/or draw the attention of the arbitral tribunal to points of substance. The Court's scrutiny of awards enables improvements to be made to enhance their enforceability. The Court used its power to lay down modifications as to form and draw attention to points of substance when scrutinizing 496 (97.6%) of the awards approved in 2011. On a further 37 occasions, the Court requested that the arbitral tribunal resubmit its award for approval.

During the year, a total of 285 partial and final awards were rendered by three-member tribunals. In these cases, 244 awards (85.6%) were rendered unanimously and 41 (14.4%) by a majority of the arbitrators comprising the tribunal. Majority awards are sometimes accompanied by dissenting opinions expressed by the member in the minority, either in the award itself or in a separate document. In 2011, the minority arbitrator expressed a dissenting opinion in the award in 14 cases and in a separate document in 23 cases. In the remaining 4 cases, there was no dissenting opinion, but the award was described as being rendered by a majority of the tribunal. On no occasion was it necessary for the president of an arbitral tribunal to make an award alone, for want of a majority among the tribunal members.

In the event that an award needs correcting or interpreting, the arbitral tribunal may issue an addendum either on its own initiative or upon a party's request. 45 addenda were issued in 2011 and 33 such requests from parties were rejected.

SERVICES IN AD HOC ARBITRATIONS

In addition to administering entire arbitrations, the ICC also offers a service for the constitution of arbitral tribunals in ad hoc proceedings conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules or pursuant to other rules. This service is provided in accordance with a special set of ICC rules entitled Rules of ICC as Appointing Authority in UNCITRAL or Other Ad Hoc Arbitration Proceedings. The ICC International Court of Arbitration is the sole body empowered to carry out the functions of appointing authority under these Rules.

In 2011, 9 requests were received for the appointment of arbitrators in ad hoc arbitration proceedings conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and 7 requests for the appointment of arbitrators in non-UNCITRAL proceedings. In addition, the ICC Court was requested to decide on 1 challenge in proceedings under the UNCITRAL Rules and 2 challenges in non-UNCITRAL proceedings.

The 39 parties in the arbitrations to which these requests related came from 21 countries. 6 of the 7 non-UNCITRAL ad hoc arbitrations involved a state or a state entity and the seventh case involved an intergovernmental organization. 2 of the arbitrations conducted under the UNCITRAL Rules involved a state or state entity. 5 arbitrations were single-nationality cases, each involving parties from the same country.

ADR

A total of 27 new cases were filed under the ICC ADR Rules in 2011, which was the highest number in a single year since the Rules were introduced in 2001.

The ADR Rules provide for the settlement of disputes amicably by such means as mediation, conciliation, neutral evaluation or combinations of these and other techniques. Parties are free to choose the settlement technique they wish to use. If they fail to do so, their dispute will be resolved by mediation as the fallback technique. Mediation was by far the preferred technique in 2011, with 15 of the 27 disputes referred to the ICC during the year being settled by mediation, 1 by conciliation and 1 by a combination of mediation and neutral evaluation. The other disputes were either resolved or withdrawn before the settlement technique had been fixed. However, the requesting parties recommended the use of mediation in 7 of those cases and in 1 case a combination of mediation and neutral evaluation was suggested.

21 of the cases registered in 2011 were filed pursuant to a clause providing for ICC ADR contained in the contract giving rise to the dispute. 17 of those clauses provided for a two-tiered dispute resolution process, with arbitration as a second step if the ADR proceedings were unsuccessful. Although preferable, a dispute resolution clause is not indispensable: ADR proceedings can also be commenced simply upon a request from one or more of the parties, subject of course to the consent of the other party or parties to participate in the proceedings.

A total of 69 parties were involved in the cases filed in 2011. Of the 7 multiparty cases, 4 involved three parties, 2 four parties, and 1 case nine parties. The 69 parties came from 27 countries, as listed below.

The 21 neutrals who acted in the cases filed in 2011 were nationals of Argentina, Belgium, France, Germany, Israel, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the USA. The neutral was jointly designated by the parties in 5 cases and appointed by the ICC in 15 cases. The other cases were settled or withdrawn prior to the designation or appointment of a neutral. In 1 case the ICC was asked to appoint two neutrals.

The disputes referred to ICC ADR in 2011 varied in both their size and subject matter. The amounts claimed ranged from some US$ 150,000 to US$ 230 million and averaged US$ 20 million. 33% of the disputes concerned general trade, 15% the energy sector, 11% telecommunications, 11% finance and insurance, 7% construction and 7% industrial equipment. The remainder related to business and industrial services, entertainment and pharmaceuticals.

EXPERTISE

A record number of requests (35) were received under the ICC Expertise Rules in 2011. These Rules permit requests to be made for the proposal or appointment of an expert or the administration of expertise proceedings. The ICC was asked to propose an expert in 22 cases, to appoint an expert in 8 cases and to administer expertise proceedings in 5 cases. 11 of the requests for the proposal of an expert were made by arbitral tribunals acting under the ICC Rules of Arbitration; in such cases, the proposal is made free of charge.

The 35 requests involved a total of 90 parties from 36 countries as listed below.

The above-listed parties included 6 state entities.

8 of the cases for which ICC expertise services were requested in 2011 were multiparty cases. All but one of these cases involved three parties. The exception was a case involving a receiver and 18 national affiliates of a multinational group.

The requests registered in 2011 led to the proposal or appointment of 52 experts of 18 nationalities (Austrian, British, Canadian, Danish, Dutch, Egyptian, French, German, Greek, Jordanian, Lebanese, Moroccan, New Zealand, Palestinian, Polish, South African, Swiss and US). The experts were required to provide technical expertise in 19 cases, financial expertise in 4 cases, legal expertise in 2 cases, and combinations of legal and technical expertise in 4 cases, financial and technical expertise in 1 case and legal and financial expertise in 1 case. They applied their expertise to a diverse range of economic activities, including agriculture and food, finance and insurance, construction and engineering, defence and security, energy, chemicals, industrial manufacturing, leisure and tourism, and transport.

DOCDEX

In 2011, as in 2010, 6 cases were filed under the ICC DOCDEX Rules. DOCDEX is a rapid procedure, conducted entirely in writing, in which a panel of three independent experts decide on a dispute relating to a letter of credit, bank-to-bank reimbursement, collection or guarantee. The parties in the 2011 cases came from Austria, China, France, Indonesia, Iran, Russia, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, the USA and Vietnam.

DISPUTE BOARDS

Unlike the ICC's other dispute resolution rules, the ICC Dispute Board Rules do not provide for the administration of cases by the ICC but simply for the provision of specific services if and when required by parties that have set up or are wishing to set up dispute boards. Those services consist of the appointment of dispute board members, the resolution of challenges against dispute board members and the review of decisions issued by the dispute board. No parties establishing or operating dispute boards under the ICC Dispute Board Rules felt the need to call upon the ICC for any of these services in 2011.