Arbitration Institution Digest (Part 4): ICDR, JAMS, SCC and HKIAC Release Caseload Statistics for 2023

Correction: A prior version of this alert incorrectly referred to the ICDR’s 2023 caseload figures as the “AAA’s case load.” Because the figure did not include non-ICDR cases, it erroneously underrepresented the volume of the AAA’s general 2023 caseload. The error has been corrected.

At a Glance

• The American Arbitration Association–International Centre for Dispute Resolution saw an increase in its international case load in 2023 — the second double-digit year-over-year increase in a row.
• JAMS remains the world’s largest private alternative dispute resolution services provider, though its international case load flatlined compared to 2022.
• Additionally, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce saw an increase in its case load, and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre saw a small decrease.
• International arbitration remains the go-to means of resolving cross-border business-to-business disputes.
• Carefully selecting an appropriate international arbitration institution and forum continues to be pivotal in any contractual relationship between two businesses with different countries of residence.

Two U.S.-based arbitral institutions and two international institutions recently released global caseload data from 2023. The American Arbitration Association–International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) experienced an increase in its international business-to-business filings while JAMS’s international cases remained steady with the prior year. Outside the United States, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Institute (SCC) saw a marked increase in cases from last year, and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) recorded a slight decrease.

AAA-ICDR

• A total of 848 new cases were filed in 2023, representing a 12% increase over 2022. This is the second year in a row that the ICDR has experienced double-digit growth in its international case load and just slightly behind the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
• In the cases filed with the ICDR, 93 countries were represented, with China, Canada, the U.K. and Ukraine accounting for the vast majority of non-U.S. nationalities.
• The ICDR’s caseload comes from a variety of industries. Technology, construction and financial services led the way in 2023.
• New York and Miami were the most frequent U.S. venues, and the vast majority of cases were adjudicated under the AAA’s Commercial Rules, which were favored more than 3-to-1 over the ICDR Rules.
• The ICDR also administered 100 international mediations.

JAMS

• JAMS saw a 7% increase in its total case load in 2023, with nearly 20,000 cases
• However, JAMS’s global caseload included only 241 new international cases, which was identical to its international caseload in 2022 and less than 30% of the ICDR’s.
• Of JAMS’s international cases, 54% were handled as arbitrations and 42% were mediations.
• Over 80% of the JAMS international caseload was handled under JAMS rules.

SCC

• The SCC recorded 175 new cases in 2023, up from 143 in 2022. Of these 55% were international disputes and 45% were Swedish disputes.
• Around €3.05 billion is the total amount currently in dispute.
• Parties came from 42 different countries. Nationalities represented most often were European, with the vast majority being Swedish. However, Thai parties had 28 pending cases in the SCC and American companies had eight.
• 55% of cases used the SCC Arbitration Rules, and 38% used the SCC Expedited Arbitration Rules.
• Most disputes arose from service agreements, business acquisitions and delivery agreements.

HKIAC

• A total of 500 cases were submitted to the HKIAC in 2023, of which 281 were arbitrations, 10 were mediations and 209 were domain name disputes.
• Of the arbitrations, 75% were international in nature, 38% of all arbitrations involved no Hong Kong parties at all, and almost 10% involved no Asian parties at all.
• The total amount in dispute was approximately US$12.5 billion.
• Parties came from 45 different jurisdictions, with many coming from Hong Kong, Mainland China, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Singapore and the United States.
• The disputes arose from mainly the corporate, construction, commercial, banking and maritime sectors.

In Conclusion

After two consecutive years of 12% caseload growth, the ICDR rivals the ICC as the most widely used arbitration forum for cross-border disputes. While JAMS’s overall caseload is nearly double that of the AAA, its international docket is more than three times smaller than that of the ICDR as it remains a mostly domestic-focused institution. In Europe, the SCC remains one of the smaller institutions, but its expedited procedure appears to be gaining in popularity, and the value of the disputes has almost doubled since last year. Finally, over in Asia the HKIAC remains steady as a go-to institution for many international disputes, whether they involve Hong Kong or Mainland Chinese parties or not. However, the slight decrease in arbitrations for HKIAC year-over-year is potentially reflective of the arbitration industry’s migrating preference towards Singapore in the eastern regions. 

The overall growth or stability in all of these institutions’ dockets indicates that arbitration remains a key method of handling disputes, including the preferred choice of business-to-business disputes. As a result, any company conducting cross-border business should carefully consider its dispute resolution and arbitration selections when negotiating any international contract.