Selecting the right arbitral seat has long hinged on familiar factors, but as the arbitration landscape evolves, so do user expectations. Today, technology and AI are reshaping the arbitration world and with it, what makes a seat attractive. Jurisdictions that embrace innovation and quickly adapt to meet shifting needs are likely to gain a competitive edge. This article explores traditional criteria but also the new criteria emerging for arbitral seat selection in response to modern demands and how legal and institutional reforms, especially those supporting digital transformation, could redefine the ideal arbitral seat.
Key factors in arbitral seat selection
The choice of arbitral seat is a critical decision in any international arbitration. The seat determines the legal framework governing the arbitration, including the applicable procedural rules, enforceability, court support and supervision, and importantly rights and grounds of appeal. It can have an influence on judicial interference as well as cost and efficiency. Choosing the right seat lays the foundation for an effective and successful arbitration process.
The key factors influencing the selection of an arbitral seat in international arbitration have been widely discussed and are generally well known and understood. In 2015, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators published the CIArb London Centenary Principles, which listed the key characteristics required for an effective and efficient seat in international arbitration. The intention was to provide key criteria for all stakeholders involved when making decisions concerning the provision of effective and safe arbitration facilities.
Traditional factors to consider when selecting a seat include the following:
- Legal framework: An effective arbitral seat must be underpinned by a modern, arbitration-friendly legal regime. The arbitration law should facilitate the fair and efficient resolution of disputes, minimise undue court intervention, and strike a balance between confidentiality and transparency. A supportive legal environment is non-negotiable.
- Judicial quality: A competent, independent, and arbitration-aware judiciary is essential. Courts in the seat should only intervene in arbitration proceedings when absolutely necessary and in ways that support, rather than disrupt, the process.
- Facilities and infrastructure: The seat should offer reliable access to high-quality infrastructure, including hearing rooms, transcription services, document management, and translation support. Well-developed and ideally state-of-the-art, facilities and services contribute significantly to the efficiency and professionalism of proceedings.
- Arbitral institutions: Arbitral institutions are uniquely positioned to be able to provide essential administrative support, help manage the costs of the arbitration, enhance the overall quality of the arbitration, and uphold procedural integrity. Their agility and adaptability to evolving global challenges—as demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic—further enhances their value.
- Legal expertise and education: Access to a pool of experienced, diverse legal professionals is crucial. Just as important is the jurisdiction’s ongoing commitment to professional education and development in arbitration, ensuring practitioners stay aligned with a rapidly evolving field.
- Enforceability: The jurisdiction needs to adhere to the relevant international treaties and agreements impacting the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral agreements, orders and awards such as the New York Convention.
- Accessibility and safety: Practical considerations also matter. The seat should offer safe, stable conditions and ensure free movement for parties, counsel, and witnesses. Participants must be able to enter, work, and leave without undue restrictions, and their documentation and information must be adequately protected.
The enduring appeal—and shifting dynamics—of established seats
Established arbitral seats such as London, Singapore, and Paris continue to dominate global preference. According to the 2025 International Arbitration Survey conducted by Queen Mary University of London in collaboration with White & Case, the five most preferred seats are London, Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing, and Paris. Notably, London and Singapore ranked among the top five choices across all six geographic regions where respondents primarily practise or operate.
Yet, beyond these dominant seats, the survey revealed significant regional variation. Practitioners in Europe and Asia-Pacific, for example, showed a marked preference for seats within their own regions—suggesting that, when it comes to seat selection, the idea that “there’s no place like home” may well apply. A similar trend was also noted among North American respondents, indicating a growing tendency among arbitration users to favour jurisdictions closer to their base of operations.
While established seats still enjoy global prominence, the Survey also recorded a notable decline in the overall percentage of respondents selecting them, compared to previous surveys. This decline has been matched by a rise in popularity of emerging arbitral jurisdictions, pointing to a broader diversification in user preferences and expectations.
The evolving criteria for an ideal arbitral seat
The international arbitration landscape is evolving rapidly and with it, the factors that inform the selection of an arbitral seat. While core requirements such as a robust and arbitration-friendly legal framework remain fundamental, other considerations are becoming increasingly relevant in light of global developments and shifting demands.
For instance, the 2025 Arbitration Survey mentioned above revealed that 30% of respondents had chosen a different arbitral seat due to geopolitical or economic sanctions. This underscores how external political and economic factors are now playing a more prominent role in choosing a seat.
Further reflections on the changing nature of seat selection were shared by Professor Emilia Onyema during her guest lecture at the Asia International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) on 3 February 2025. In her talk titled “Seat of Arbitration at the Crossroads: Sustainability versus Global Appeal,” Professor Onyema explored the 10 Ciarb Centenary Principles that define an effective and efficient arbitral seat. She proposed two additional principles:
- Perception by external parties: How emerging jurisdictions are viewed internationally can significantly influence whether parties are drawn to—or deterred from—selecting them as arbitral seats.
- Taking the long view: Focusing on long-term consistency and excellence in service delivery, underpinned by clear policy direction and stakeholder alignment.
Forward-looking considerations were echoed in discussions at London International Disputes Week (LIDW) 2025, during a panel I attended titled “An Ideal Seat? Perspectives from Established and Emerging Seats.” Moderated by Professor Onyema, the panel featured Stuart Dutson (Simmons & Simmons), Dipen Sabharwal (White & Case), and Catherine Schroeder (Schroeder Arbitration). The conversation reinforced the idea that arbitration operates as a global marketplace—meaning user expectations are shaping what an ideal seat looks like.
It was also discussed that, for many users, the seat is often synonymous with the venue or the arbitral institution based there. As such, the quality of institutional support, services, and infrastructure provided by institutions increasingly influences the selection of a seat in international arbitration. Finally, Professor Onyema suggested that technology should be added as a 13th principle to the Ciarb Centenary Principles, a view shared by the entire panel.
The growing role of technology in seat selection
Technology is indeed becoming an increasingly influential factor in the selection of an arbitral seat. As digital innovation accelerates—particularly with the rise of artificial intelligence—both established and emerging seats have an opportunity to leverage technology as a strategic advantage. For newer or less traditional seats, this is a chance to compete boldly with more established counterparts and gain visibility on the global arbitration map.
A correlation seems to exist between seat attractiveness, the tech-readiness of a seat, and the presence of world-class arbitral institutions. On one hand, established institutions are modernising to maintain their competitive edge. On the other, emerging institutions are adopting innovative technologies to raise their international profiles. Across the board, arbitral institutions are increasingly using technology as a differentiator, and this is also reflected in the respective seat’s attractiveness.
Recent institutional advancements include:
- ICC launched ICC Case Connect Powered by Opus 2, a cutting-edge secure digital platform enhancing case management and collaboration.
- SIAC introduced SIAC Gateway powered by Opus 2, a tech-enabled platform aligned with its updated 2025 rules.
- DIAC announced a technology partnership to deliver innovative technology and solutions for arbitration.
- ICSID adopted electronic filing as the default process.
- CIETAC incorporated tech-focused reforms in its 2024 rules.
- ArbitrateAD (Abu Dhabi International Centre) released modern, tech-friendly arbitration rules.
This growing integration of technology signals a clear trend: Digital capabilities are central to institutional innovation and user expectations.
In addition to the presence of established arbitral institutions, hearing facilities are another tech-driven element influencing seat appeal. Purpose-built centres equipped with cutting-edge technologies are becoming standard features of top arbitration venues. Examples include:
- ADGM Dispute Resolution Hearing Centre in Abu Dhabi
- ICC Hearing Centre in Paris
- Maxwell Chambers in Singapore
- The IDRC in London including the high-tech IDRC Opus 2 Suite
These centres offer state-of-the-art infrastructure, tailored for arbitration, supporting everything from in person to hybrid hearings. Yet another example of how technology is being used as a lever, and again, seats are taking advantage of this to increase their popularity.
The 2025 International Arbitration Survey confirms this momentum saying, “The general consensus is that over the next five years, international arbitration and its users will adopt, and adapt to, AI.” The 2021 International Arbitration Survey had already highlighted users’ desire for seats with the judicial and political agility to adopt new technologies and maintain procedural efficiency and effectiveness.
The message from the market is clear: Technology, and particularly AI, is now a key factor shaping the attractiveness of an arbitral seat. As user expectations evolve, so too must the seats that seek to serve them.
Technology and AI at the forefront
Across the global arbitration landscape, institutions and arbitration hubs are actively embracing technology to create more seamless, efficient, and modernised proceedings. With AI and digital tools reshaping legal practice, arbitration is no exception. Indeed, there are a growing number of AI use cases in arbitration.
The UK Arbitration Act 2025 has sought to improve certainty and efficiency with a more robust legal framework – technology has been evolving with those same aims in mind. A number of arbitral institutions and centres have been explicit in putting technology at the forefront.
In the UAE, the adoption of Federal Law No. 15 of 2023 marked a significant step forward. The law promotes procedural flexibility and emphasises the use of modern electronic communication. Notably, it provides for virtual hearings and imposes a duty on arbitral institutions to offer the necessary technological infrastructure. This goes one step further in reinforcing the UAE’s commitment to tech-enabled arbitration.
Several institutions have revised their rules to explicitly reference the use of technology. Many have also launched state-of-the-art digital case management platforms to streamline processes for all stakeholders.
In 2023, the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center (SVAMC) issued draft guidelines on the use of AI in arbitration, covering confidentiality, disclosure, and potential risks of AI. Similarly, Ciarb released its own Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration in 2025, underscoring the increasing relevance of these tools.
For emerging arbitration hubs, technology represents a strategic opportunity to compete with established ones. The benefits are clear: reduced time and cost, improved procedural efficiency, and a better user experience. Technology enables secure document sharing, digital evidence presentation, real-time transcription, and seamless hybrid or virtual hearings – drastically lowering travel costs and environmental impact.
As arbitration continues to modernise, technological capacity and readiness are quickly becoming defining feature of a competitive and future-ready arbitral seat.
