Arbitration annual round-up—trends and hot topics: reviewing 2017 and previewing 2018 [Archived]
Arbitration annual round-up—trends and hot topics: reviewing 2017 and previewing 2018 [Archived]

The following Arbitration guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Arbitration annual round-up—trends and hot topics: reviewing 2017 and previewing 2018 [Archived]
  • Reviewing 2017
  • Diversity on arbitral tribunals
  • Third-party funding in arbitration
  • Transparency—the Mauritius Convention
  • Tribunal secretaries
  • Other developments of interest
  • Previewing 2018
  • One Belt, One Road
  • Brexit
  • more

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.

This year’s Arbitration annual round-up of trends and hot topics in the international arbitration community reviews some significant developments in 2017 and previews what is on the horizon for 2018. Topics which were in the headlines in 2017 included diversity on arbitral tribunals, third-party funding and transparency. We review developments in relation to these topics, including surveys, case law, legislation, rule changes, conventions and guidelines. Also included are updates on LexisNexis®’s content, including news of exciting developments from the past year and what is coming up in the next 12 months.

Reviewing 2017

Diversity on arbitral tribunals

What happened?

In January 2017, Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) released the results of its annual international arbitration survey, which focused on the issue of diversity on arbitral tribunals.

The survey looked at how important issues of gender and ethnicity/national identity were to respondents when selecting an arbitrator, and whether statistics on diversity were useful in selecting an arbitral institution. The survey also explored whether respondents would like more information about new and less well-known arbitrators and if they would welcome the opportunity to provide feedback on an arbitrator at the end of a case. Respondents were also asked where they thought the responsibility for initiating change should rest—with arbitral institutions, with