Key moments in ICC dispute resolution in 2019

The International Court of Arbitration

In 2019, 869 new arbitration cases were registered with the Secretariat of the ICC International Court of Arbitration (‘Secretariat’ and ‘ICC Court’, respectively), of which 851 cases under the ICC Rules of Arbitration¹ and 18 under the ICC Appointing Authority Rules.² This is the second highest number of newly-registered cases behind the record figure of 966 cases reached in 2016, with 135 related small-claim cases arising from a collective dispute.

As of end 2019, 1,694 pending cases were being administered by the ICC Court, with over 25,000 cases having been administered since it was established in 1923.

Parties

Out of the 2,498 parties involved in cases filed in 2019, 49% were claimants and 51% respondents. Approximately a third of the cases involved multiple parties (31%), of which the majority (59%) involved several respondents, 24% several claimants, and 17% several claimants and respondents. Although most multiparty cases involved three to five parties (87% of multiparty cases), cases involving six to ten parties represented a significant 11% of multiparty cases. Three cases involved 10 to 30 parties while in two cases the number of parties exceeded 100.

Geographical origins

Parties in the 2019 filings came from 147 countries and independent territories worldwide, breaking ICC’s previous record of 142 set in 2017.

See annex – table 01: Most frequent nationalities among parties

See annex – table 02: Nationalities represented by region

Africa

A total of 188 parties from 33 African countries represented 7.5% of all parties to ICC Arbitration.

The most represented nationalities among Sub-Saharan African parties (130 parties) and North African parties (58 parties) were Egypt (20 parties), Nigeria (19 parties), Algeria (17 parties), Ivory Coast (16 parties), South Africa (13 parties), Morocco
(11 parties), and Mauritius (10 parties).

Americas

As in previous years, parties from the Americas in 2019 accounted for roughly 25% of the overall number of parties in ICC Arbitration.

The USA maintains its first position with 196 parties (8% of all parties worldwide).

The Latin America and Caribbean region saw a 14% increase in the number of parties which rose from 339 to 386 (an approximate 15% of all parties, as in previous years).

Brazil, the most represented nationality among parties from Latin America and the Caribbean (35%), maintains third place in the worldwide nationality ranking with 133 parties, following the USA (196 parties) and India (147 parties).³

Asia & the Pacific

Approximately 30% of parties in ICC Arbitration came from Asia and the Pacific.

Chinese parties rose from 59 to 105, moving up from 11th to fifth position of the most frequent nationalities.⁴

2019 saw a significant 57% increase in the number of parties from South and East Asia and the Pacific that reached 484 parties (from 309 in 2018) and now representing approximately 20% of the overall number of parties worldwide.

The number of Indian parties tripled and reached 147 in 2019. Ranked 15th in 2018 with just 47 parties, India now ranks second on the overall number of parties worldwide. Over half of the cases involving Indian parties are being administered by the Secretariat’s case management office in Singapore.⁵

For the first time, one case recorded the involvement of two parties from Myanmar.

South Korea, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia remain within the 15 most represented nationalities among parties in ICC Arbitration, followed by Singapore and Qatar.

Europe

As in previous years, European parties represented close to 40% of the total.

Among the parties originating from North and West Europe (738), France takes the lead with 126 parties in 2019, followed by 97 German parties, 87 Spanish parties, 84 Italian parties, 78 parties from the United Kingdom and 67 Swiss parties.

Parties from Central and East Europe (205) represented 8% of the total number of parties, with Turkey remaining the most represented nationality within the region (47), followed by Russia (25), Poland and Romania (19 each), Cyprus (18), Greece (15) and the Czech Republic (14).

International vs domestic cases

In 2019, disputes between parties of the same region remained steady at 40% of all newly-registered cases while disputes between parties of the same nationality accounted for 25% (i.e. 214 cases involved parties from the same country).

In 2019, ICC Arbitration was particularly selected for domestic disputes between parties coming from Brazil (20 cases), the USA (19), the United Arab Emirates (15), Mexico (13), Saudi Arabia (12) and France (10).

State and state-owned parties

In 2019, 20% of new cases involved a state or state entity. This figure represents an important 67% increase in the number of states and state-owned parties in ICC Arbitrations over the past five years and sets a new all-time ICC record.

The group of 212 state and state-owned parties comprised 42 states and 170 state-owned parties from all parts of the world. The proportion of state and state-owned parties varied, however, within regions. While state and state-owned parties represented 20% of the overall Sub-Saharan and North African parties, they represented 10% to 20% of parties originating from Latin America and the Caribbean, Central and East Europe, and Central and West Asia. The proportion of state and state-owned parties was below 5% among parties originating from South and East Asia and the Pacific, North and West Europe, and North America.

See annex – table 03: Number of states and stated-owned parties by region

Investor-state disputes

In 2019, two cases were filed on the basis of bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The proceedings were initiated by European investors against a state within Sub-Saharan Africa in the first case, and a state within Central and East Europe in the second case. Since 1996, when the first BIT case was registered, to date, ICC has administered 42 cases based on BITs.

Arbitral tribunals

2019 saw 1,476 appointments and confirmations of arbitrators, which led to two new ICC records in terms of diversity: first, the 972 individuals appointed or confirmed came from 89 countries; and second, 21% of all arbitrators appointed or confirmed were women.⁶

Constitution of the arbitral tribunal

In principle, arbitrators acting in ICC cases are either (i) nominated by the parties or co-arbitrators, or selected in accordance with a specific mechanism agreed by the parties, and then confirmed by the ICC Court or its Secretary General, or (ii) appointed by the ICC Court either upon proposal of an ICC National Committee or Group, or directly. In the vast majority of cases during 2019, arbitrators were nominated by the parties or the co-arbitrators (73%).

See annex – table 04: Selection of arbitrators

The parties agreed on the number of the arbitrators, either in the arbitration agreement or subsequently, in 86% of the cases. They opted for a three-member tribunal in 65% of the cases and a sole arbitrator in 35% of the cases. The ICC Court fixed the number of arbitrators in the remaining cases and did so by submitting disputes to three-member arbitral tribunals in 18% of the cases and to sole arbitrators in 82% of the cases. Since 2017, the ICC Court has increasingly selected a sole arbitrator over a three-member arbitral tribunal,⁷ which may be explained by the introduction of the Expedited Procedure Provisions (‘EPP’) and the increasing number of cases with an amount in dispute not exceeding US$ 2 million.⁸

As a result, 59% of all cases were submitted to a three-member arbitral tribunal and 41% to a sole arbitrator.

Before being confirmed or appointed, prospective arbitrators are invited to complete a statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence. As in previous years, approximately 32% of arbitrators made disclosures before being confirmed or appointed.

Once an arbitrator has been confirmed or appointed, objections to his or her impartiality, independence or other aspects must be made by way of a challenge. The number of challenges filed in 2019, whether based on an alleged lack of impartiality, independence or otherwise, amounted to 52, of which six were accepted by the ICC Court. In the course of the year, 50 arbitrators resigned. A total of 58 replacements were made, following the resignation or passing of an arbitrator, the filing of a successful challenge, or at the request of the parties. In addition, one sole arbitrator was replaced on the ICC Court’s own initiative pursuant to Article 15(2) of the Rules.

To date, and since 2014 when the practice to communicate reasons for the ICC Court’s decisions to the parties upon their request was first applied, the ICC Court has communicated reasons for 34 decisions, including 25 decisions on the challenge of arbitrators.

In 2019, the ICC Court communicated reasons for 10 decisions, including seven on challenge of arbitrators, two decisions on prima facie jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6(4) and one decision on consolidation pursuant to Article 10. As provided in the Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration, any request for the communication of reasons ‘must be made in advance of the decision in respect of which reasons are sought’.⁹

Geographical origins

Arbitrators confirmed or appointed in 2019 came from 89 jurisdictions – the highest number of jurisdictions to date – reflecting the continuous efforts of the ICC Court towards increasing diversity among ICC arbitral tribunals. New nationalities represented included Azerbaijan, Botswana, Haiti, Malawi, the Palestinian authority, and St Kitts and Nevis.

The top six nationalities of arbitrators acting in ICC Arbitrations as in previous years, are British with 258 arbitrators (17.5%), Swiss with 147 arbitrators (10%), French with 116 arbitrators (7.9%), the USA with 107 arbitrators (7.3%), German with 87 arbitrators (5.9%) and Brazilian with 62 arbitrators (4.2%).

In line with the significant increase of Indian parties (from 47 parties in 2018 to 147 parties in 2019), the number of Indian arbitrators increased from 16 arbitrators in 2018 (ranked 21th of the arbitrators’ top nationalities) to 34 arbitrators in 2019 (ranked 13th of the arbitrators’ top nationalities) and now accounts for 40% of all arbitrators from South and East Asia.

See annex – table 05: Most frequent nationalities

See annex – table 06 - Breakdown by country of origin and status

Gender diversity

In 2019, the number of appointments and confirmations of women arbitrators further rose to 312 (273 in 2018), now representing 21% (18.4% in 2018) of all appointments/confirmations.

Although the ICC Court generally appoints 25% to 30% of all arbitrators,¹⁰ the ICC Court appointed as many women arbitrators as the parties nominated: 131 women were party-nominated (42% of all women arbitrators), 134 women were appointed by the ICC Court (43% of all women arbitrators) and 45 women were nominated as president by co-arbitrators (14% of all women arbitrators). In addition, two women were nominated by other (arbitral) institutions to act as arbitrators in an ICC Arbitration.

While the number of women acting as co-arbitrators and sole arbitrator remained steady at around 40% and 30% respectively, the number of women acting as president has increased to 30% over the last three years.

Out of all sole arbitrators appointed or confirmed in 2019, 33% were women, whereas 24% of presidents and 15% of co-arbitrators were women.

These figures illustrate the ICC Court’s commitment to implementing gender diversity in arbitration. The ICC Court itself has adopted full gender parity and currently comprises 88 women and 88 men.¹¹

See annex – table 07: Breakdown of men/women arbitrators appointed or confirmed by region (2010-2019)

Age

In 2019, the average age of arbitrators confirmed or appointed by the ICC Court was 56.7 years. In total, 34% of the individuals confirmed or appointed as arbitrators were below the age of 50.

Arbitrators appointed by the Court (directly or following a proposal by an ICC National Committee) were, as in previous years, approximately five years younger (51.5 years).

The average age of women acting as arbitrators in ICC Arbitrations was 50.5 years, and women appointed by the Court were, approximately five years younger (46.7 years).

Places of arbitration

In 2019, ICC Arbitrations were seated in 116 cities¹² in 62 countries.

The most selected place of arbitration was London, United Kingdom with 114 cases. Overall, the United Kingdom was selected in 115 cases (in the arbitration agreement: 90; by subsequent party agreement: 12; fixed by the ICC Court: 13), compared to 72 in 2018. As in previous years the top four ranking is completed by France (108), Switzerland (84) and the USA (49).

Singapore, which was selected in 30 cases by the parties and fixed twice by the ICC Court, remained the most preferred seat in Asia. Singapore ranked fourth among the most frequently selected individual cities, following London (114), Paris (106) and Geneva (53).

Brazil ranked sixth overall and remained the preferred seat within Latin America and the Caribbean with 24 cases. The United Arab Emirates ranked seventh and was the preferred seat within the MENA region with 21 cases.

In 2019, 11 arbitrations were seated in Sub-Saharan Africa, compared to six in 2018: three each in Nigeria and South Africa and one each in Angola, Botswana, Kenya, Mauritius and Rwanda.

Although in the great majority of cases the place of arbitration is chosen by the parties, the ICC Court fixes the place of arbitration where parties fail to do so. In 2019, the Court exercised this function in just 10% of all cases.

See annex – table 08: Ten most selected cities

See annex – table 09: Countries selected as place of arbitration

Choice of law

Choice-of-law clauses were included in the substantive contractual provisions relied upon by parties in 88% of all cases registered in 2019. These covered the laws of 124 nations, states, provinces and territories. As in 2018, English law was the lex contractus in 16% of all cases registered. Swiss law was the second most selected applicable substantive law (12%), followed by the laws of a US state¹³ and French law (10% each). The laws of Brazil, Qatar and Spain ranked fifth, sixth and seventh with 34, 31 and 30 cases respectively.

Only 1% of contracts provided for the application of rules or instruments other than national laws in their arbitration agreement or choice-of-law clause. These included the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, ‘International commercial law’, ‘OHADA Law’ and the ICC Incoterms® rules. Such instruments are however sometimes applied in the course of the arbitration, per automatic application (UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods), contractual terms or parties’ subsequent agreement.

Nature of the disputes

The cases filed in 2019 cover a wide range of sectors divided in more than 20 categories including agribusiness, alimentation, business services, chemicals, construction and engineering, defence and security, education and culture, energy, environmental protection, financing and insurance, general trade and distribution, health/pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, industrial equipment and services, leisure and entertainment, media and publishing, metals and raw materials, packaging, public institutions and organisations, telecommunications/specialised technologies, textiles/clothing, and transportation.

Disputes within the sectors of construction/engineering (211 cases) and energy (140) generated the largest number of ICC Arbitration cases and, as in previous years, account for approximately 40% of the ICC Arbitration caseload.

Sectors related to general trade and distribution, industrial equipment and services, financing and insurance, health/pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, telecoms and specialised technologies and transportation range between 4% to 7% of the new cases.

Amounts in dispute

Over 50% of the cases filed with ICC in 2019 and 50% of the pending cases at the end of 2019 had an amount in dispute between US$ 1 million and US$ 30 million.

The average amount in dispute in cases filed during 2019 was US$ 52 million, with the median being close to US$ 4 million.

The aggregate value of all pending disputes before the ICC Court at the end of 2019 was US$ 230 billion, with an average value of US$ 140 million and a median value of US$ 10 million.

It is also worth noting that 36% of cases registered in 2019 (and 23% of the total caseload at the end of 2019) involved an amount in dispute not exceeding US$ 2 million, the threshold amount in dispute for the automatic application of the EPP applicable to arbitration agreements concluded after 1 March 2017.

See annex – table 10: Amounts in dispute

Expedited Procedure

The significant proportion of lower-value cases in ICC Arbitration, as noted above, is indicative of the relevance and necessity of the ICC Expedited Procedure Provisions (Article 30 and Appendix VI of the ICC Arbitration Rules; ‘EPP’) which provide for a streamlined arbitration ending with a final award within six months of the case management conference under reduced scales of arbitrator fees.¹⁴

The EPP apply automatically in cases where the arbitration agreement was concluded post 1 March 2017 and the global amount in dispute does not exceed US$ 2 million, unless the parties have explicitly opted out. Parties may also expressly opt in to the EPP regardless of the amount in dispute or date of conclusion of the arbitration agreement. The figures of opt-in requests reflect the need, suitability and success of the procedure. In 2017, of the 46 opt-in requests filed, 12 were agreed to by the other party(ies); in 2018, of the 96 opt-in requests filed, 22 were agreed to by the other party(ies); and in 2019, of the 50 opt in requests filed, 21 were agreed to by the other party(ies).

In 2019, the EPP applied by direct operation of the Rules in 65 cases. Parties agreed to opt out from the EPP in five cases. In 2019, the ICC Court decided whether to apply, or continue to apply, the EPP in 12 cases taking into consideration a party’s objection, the amount in dispute, the date of contract, or the complexity of the case.

As of end 2019, 146 cases had been or were being conducted under the EPP. Of the 50 final awards rendered in expedited proceedings, 37 were rendered within the six-month time limit as from the case management conference pursuant to Article 4(1), Appendix VI to the Rules. Among the delayed cases, the delay for submitting the final award exceeded one month in 10 cases: in three of those cases, the delay was due to justified circumstances; in four cases, the parties agreed to a new procedural timetable; and in three of those cases the delay resulted in a fee reduction for the arbitrator(s)¹⁵ The scrutiny of all 50 awards was made within the two to three weeks prescribed by the Note¹⁶ and within 11 days on average.

Awards

All draft awards are submitted to the ICC Court for scrutiny and approval prior to notification to the parties. The Rules provide the Court with discretion to lay down modifications as to form and draw the tribunal’s attention to points of substance when scrutinising draft awards.

In 2019, the ICC Court approved 586 awards, (145 partial awards, 397 final awards and 44 awards by consent). The figure is slightly lower than the record of 599 awards reached in 2018.

The vast majority of draft awards were approved subject to certain points raised for the consideration of arbitral tribunals. Only five draft awards were approved without any comments at all. A further 72 draft awards were not approved when first scrutinised by the ICC Court and were returned to the arbitral tribunal for further consideration.

In 2019, 80 applications for correction and/or interpretation of awards were filed pursuant to
Article 36 of the Rules, 54 of which led to the subsequent correction or interpretation of the award. When rejecting the other 26 requests, tribunals sometimes added to their original awards an order relating to the costs of the correction/interpretation proceedings.

In 2019, a case was remitted to the arbitral tribunal pursuant to Article 36(4) of the Rules in order to reflect the corrected amount agreed to by the parties, following an order from a UK Court.

Languages of awards

Awards approved in 2019 were drafted in a total of 12 languages. English remains the predominant language (79% of awards). The other languages were French (42 awards), Spanish (32), Portuguese (20), German (seven), followed by Romanian (five), two each in Italian, Greek and Chinese, and one each in Hebrew, Turkish and Korean. In addition, bilingual awards were rendered in English/Romanian (two awards), English/Portuguese (two) and English/Greek (one).

Awards rendered by majority/dissenting opinions

Pursuant to Article 32(1) of the Rules, ‘when the arbitral tribunal is composed of more than one arbitrator, an award is made by a majority decision’. Of the 311 partial and final awards rendered by three-member tribunals, 29 awards (9%) were rendered by majority.
Of these, 28 were accompanied by a dissenting opinion, incorporated in the award itself in nine cases and made by way of a separate document in 19 cases.

The dissenting arbitrator was a co-arbitrator nominated by a party in 24 awards and remained unidentified in five cases. In two cases, two separate dissenting opinions were submitted on different issues (by each of the co-arbitrators in one case, and by one co-arbitrator and one unidentified arbitrator in the other).

Length of proceedings

The average duration of proceedings in cases that reached a final award was 26 months, compared to 28 months in 2018, and is calculated on the basis of all said cases, including those where the proceedings were suspended by the parties for any length of time. The median duration of proceedings was 22 months, compared to 24 months in 2018.

Delays

The Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration provides that (i) sole arbitrators are expected to submit draft awards within two months, and (ii) three-member arbitral tribunals within three months after the last substantive hearing on matters to be decided in the award or the filing of the last written submissions concerning such matters (excluding cost submissions), whichever is later.¹⁷ Under the expedited procedure, draft awards are expected within five months from the case management conference.¹⁸

Untimely submission of draft awards may cause a reduction of arbitrators’ fees unless the delay is attributable to factors beyond the arbitrators’ control.¹⁹ In 2019, of the 162 draft final awards submitted to the ICC Court for scrutiny beyond the above timeframe, a fee reduction was applied in 68 cases (i.e., where the delay was considered significant and the Court was not satisfied that the delay was attributable to factors beyond the arbitrators’ control or to exceptional circumstances).

Since 2016, when this practice aiming at more efficiency in the submission of draft awards was implemented, the rate of untimely submission of draft awards has decreased from 54% in 2016 to 40% in 2019. Figures also show a reduction of the most important delays. The number of draft awards delayed by three to six months decreased from 52 (in 2016) to 33 (in 2019), and instances where awards reached a delay of seven months or more went from 18 (in 2016) to five (in 2019). Accordingly, most delays in the submission of draft awards ranged from just a few days to less than three months.

Emergency Arbitrator proceedings

Since their introduction in 2012 until 1 March 2020, the ICC Emergency Arbitrator Rules have enabled parties to apply 120 times for ‘Emergency Measures’ and receive a decision within a 15-day time limit and prior to the constitution of an arbitral tribunal (Article 29 and Appendix V to the Rules).

While half of the Emergency Arbitrator (‘EA’) applications were in the construction/engineering and energy sectors, other disputes related to chemical industry, general trade and distribution, health and pharmaceuticals, industrial equipment, telecommunications/specialised technologies, transportation, and leisure and entertainment.

In the course of 2019, 23 EA applications were filed, involving parties of 29 nationalities and six multi-party cases (with as many as eight responding parties in one case). Five cases involved states or state entities as respondents in commercial disputes.

The recently published ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR Report ‘Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings’ provides an analysis of the first 80 ICC EA cases, with contributions from ICC National Committees on the status of EA proceedings under local law and contributions from other arbitral institutions on their respective EA mechanisms.²⁰

ICC as Appointing Authority

Under the Rules of ICC as Appointing Authority in UNCITRAL or Other Arbitration Proceedings (the ‘Appointing Authority Rules’), the ICC Court may decide on requests for appointment or challenges in UNCITRAL, other institutional and ad hoc arbitration proceedings, and provide a range of administrative services as requested by interested parties. Such services include maintaining the file, assisting the parties with logistical arrangements for meetings and hearings, assisting with the notification of documents and correspondence, administering funds, proofreading draft documents and acting as repository.²¹

In 2019, the ICC Court was called upon to act as appointing authority on 18 occasions. Of these, 11 requests were for the appointment of an arbitrator in ad hoc proceedings under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and five requests were for appointments in other ad hoc proceedings. The ICC Court was requested to administer funds in two other ad hoc arbitration proceedings.

The International Centre for ADR

In 2019, the ICC International Centre for ADR (‘Centre’) received a total of 61 new cases registered under the Mediation Rules, Expert Rules, Dispute Board Rules and DOCDEX Rules.

Mediation

In 2019, the Centre registered 35 new requests filed under the ICC Mediation Rules. The term ‘mediation’ as used in the Mediation Rules includes not only mediation but any other amicable settlement technique or combination of techniques that the parties may prefer. In 2019, apart from one request for conciliation, parties consistently opted for mediation.

Cases in 2019 involved 97 parties from 34 countries and independent territories. European parties were predominant in 2019, representing 51% of all parties. Countries accounting for the highest number of parties were France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Germany.

Four parties were states or state entities and originated from the MENA region.

Origin of the parties in ICC Mediation

In 2019, a total of 17 neutrals were either nominated by the parties or appointed by the Centre. The neutrals, comprising seven women, came from Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom), the Americas (Brazil, Mexico, United States) and Asia (India, Singapore).

Disputes were generated from a wide range of business sectors. Construction and engineering disputes were the most frequent, accounting for almost 20% of cases, followed by disputes relating to energy and telecommunication. In 2019, the value of disputes ranged from US$ 326,000 to US$ 216 million, thus confirming the suitability of mediation for a wide range of disputes, including highvalue disputes. The costs of proceedings in which mediators were appointed (covering ICC administrative expenses and the fees and expenses of the neutral) were US$ 14,504 on average.

Expertise

A total of 16 requests for services related to experts were filed with the Centre in 2019. Of these, seven concerned the proposal of experts, seven the appointment of experts, and two the administration of expert proceedings. One request for the proposal of an expert was made by an ICC arbitral tribunal (for which the service is provided free of charge); all other requests were filed by parties.

Three of the requests for expert appointment were made for the appointment of dispute board members.²²

The 41 parties involved in the 2019 filings came from 20 countries. As in previous years, the largest demand for the Centre’s expert services came from European parties.

Five states or state entities from different continents requested the services of the Centre in relation to experts.

Geographical origins of parties in ICC Expertise

The 2019 filings led to the proposal or appointment of 14 experts originating from Argentina, Belgium, Chile, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkmenistan and the United Kingdom.

Requests related to expert services under the ICC Expert Rules covered various business sectors. The majority of the requests filed in 2019 related to technical expertise (often overlapping with financial expertise), and in the remaining cases, parties sought financial and/or legal expertise. As in other areas of ICC dispute resolution, the highest demand came from the construction and energy sectors.

Dispute Boards

Under the 2015 ICC Dispute Board Rules and upon the parties’ request, the Centre may appoint dispute board ('DB') members, decide on challenges filed against DB members, review their decisions and fix their fees. Since October 2018, ICC also acts as the dispute settlement body to decide on challenges filed against a Dispute Adjudication/Avoidance Boards ('DAAB') member under the FIDIC 2017 suite of contracts.²³

The ICC Dispute Board Rules, which provide for a ‘Model Dispute Board Member Agreement’, may be applied without recourse to ICC. However, the administrative services listed above to facilitate the application of the Rules are provided exclusively by the ICC ADR Centre. In 2019, four requests were filed for the appointment of DB members on the basis of an agreement referring to the ICC Rules.

DOCDEX

ICC DOCDEX is a rapid, document-based dispute resolution service for trade finance. It was initially designed for letters of credit, but has since been extended to include other instruments, undertakings and agreements related to trade finance.²⁴ For proceedings under the DOCDEX Rules, the Centre appoints experts in documentary credits, collections and demand guarantees.

In 2019, six requests, involving a total of 12 parties, were filed with the Centre for a DOCDEX decision. Traditionally, the use of the service has been stronger in Asia, which was confirmed in 2019 where a majority of the parties came from Asia, and 25% of the parties from Europe.

Disputes are decided by a panel of three experts, usually of different nationalities, appointed by the Centre under the DOCDEX Rules. As an illustration of ICC’s broad expert network, among the 15 experts appointed in 2019, eight originated from Europe (Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland), three from Asia (Chinese Taipei, Singapore), three from the Americas (Canada, United States) and one from Africa (South Africa).

Annex – Tables

Parties

Places of arbitration

Places of arbitration

Amounts in dispute

---

---