Partner, Ontier
Director, Middle East, Ontier
On 2 June 2025, the first day of the 2025 edition of London International Disputes Week (LIDW), CEPANI participated in an arbitration event gathering prominent international arbitration practitioners from London and beyond. The panel hosted at the Residence of the Belgian Ambassador to the United Kingdom featured representatives of some of the most active and well-regarded regional institutions. Gerard Meijer, Partner at Linklaters in Amsterdam and President of the Netherlands Arbitration Institute (NAI) moderated the discussion on “Arbitral Institutions: Fortresses or Guest Houses”. Benoît Kohl, President of the CEPANI, Niamh Leinwather, Secretary General of the Vienna International Arbitration Center (VIAC), Tomas Vaal, Secretary General of NAI and Ulrike Gantenberg, Arbitrator and Founder of “Gantenberg Dispute Experts” contributed to the discussion as panelists.
The panel discussion started with an introduction of the topic of the debate by Gerard Meijer. Using words such as “accessibility” and “impermeability”, he explained that these concepts are measured through different stakeholders in the arbitration process including arbitration users, counsel, arbitrators and public authorities. According to him, accessibility and impermeability are measured against a number of criteria that structure interactions with arbitral institutions. These criteria include the nature of dialogue, transparency, and governance.
The first topic addressed was the nature of the dialogue between each of the arbitral institutions and their arbitration users. The panellists answered questions about who the contacts within the institutions are, whether they use special communication tools such as FAQs or hotlines and whether arbitration users (parties and counsel) can have direct communication with members of the secretariat or other members of the relevant institutions. One of the interesting points raised related to the nature of the information that members of the secretariat are willing to share with arbitration users. There seemed to be a consensus among the panelists that sharing information about arbitration rules and practices must not be conflated with advising the parties on what they should or should not do. Arbitral institutions have a duty to remain impartial, and they may not act as legal advisor to the users. The panelists agreed that, on some occasions, there may be just a fine line between sharing information and giving legal advice.
Another topic discussed was institutions’ dialogue with the public through conferences, publications, newsletters and in some limited instances the publication of awards and other decisions, which is probably the most controversial issue when it comes to transparency in arbitration. In relation to that issue, the panelists expressed interesting views on the tension between benefits to be drawn from the publication of awards and other decisions (for example in terms of the development of the law and arbitration practices) and the confidentiality of the arbitral process.
The panelists also discussed their respective institution’s approach towards communication with arbitrators. Here again a balance needs to be struck to ensure the preservation of the role of the tribunal on the one hand and the arbitral institution on the other hand, as well as the integrity of the process in general. The panelists warned that the line not to be crossed was the involvement – albeit indirect – of the institution in the deliberations.
As regards any dialogue with public authorities, arbitral institutions may assist with arbitration-related law-making projects or public consultations on issues relating to the administration of justice and ADR. Some institutions do include judges within their governing bodies, and the question of whether an active judge of a national court may act as an arbitrator depends on certain jurisdictions. In any case, the panel stressed that the independence of arbitral institutions from public authorities is very important and should always be preserved.
A topic that generated interesting comments was whether arbitral institutions should be transparent about decisions they make, including when it comes to the appointment or challenge of arbitrators. The panelists discussed different methods they use to constitute tribunals. These methods include the “list procedure”. Some comments were made about arbitrator lists or “rosters” and the potential benefits of a vetting or certification process. The issue of diversity in arbitration was raised as part of that discussion and some of the panelists expressed an interest (on the part of institutions) in expanding their pool of arbitrators to include more female arbitrators and younger arbitrators.
The last topic discussed was governance in terms of their own governance and the role in regulating certain aspects of the arbitral process, including with respect to ethics. The panelists exchanged views on the composition of their respective institutions’ governing bodies. Some expressed the need to include more arbitration users in certain committees to ensure that the arbitral process and the institutions continue to meet the users’ needs.
The end of the panel included a lively Q&A session, in which a variety of different and often opposing views were shared. The theme of arbitral institutions as fortresses or guest houses flourished during this Q&A. Some participants voiced concerns over arbitral institutions becoming overly transparent, inviting or relaxed, such that the integrity and standards of those institutions (and thus arbitral proceedings conducted under the aegis of those institutions) might be compromised. Others took the opposing view, arguing that increased transparency and participation by arbitration users and other stakeholders are important when it comes to the representation of the international business community at large within institutions and tribunals, and ultimately the legitimacy of international arbitration. The framing of arbitral institutions as fortresses vs. guest houses proved insightful as it recurred in each of these fascinating debates.
