International arbitration is often praised for its efficiency, flexibility, and party autonomy. Yet, these advantages are only realised through effective case management, which orchestrates the procedural journey from the constitution of the tribunal to the rendering of the final award.
Case management in international arbitration refers to the deliberate structuring and supervision of arbitral proceedings to ensure efficiency, fairness, and predictability. Arbitration is often chosen over litigation for its speed and cost-effectiveness, but these advantages can be undermined if proceedings are not actively managed. Surveys repeatedly show that cost and delay remain the biggest sources of user dissatisfaction in arbitration.[1] Effective case management is therefore essential to safeguard arbitration’s comparative advantages and its credibility as an alternative to litigation.
In this note, we explore the roles of arbitrators, counsel, and the influence of arbitration rules and institutions, and the practical tools that underpin successful case management in international arbitration. Drawing on recent commentary and soft law instruments, including the CIArb’s International Arbitration Practice Guideline on Managing Arbitrations and Procedural Orders (the “CIArb Guideline”) and the ICC’s Techniques for Controlling Time and Costs in Arbitration, this analysis also considers suggested tools such as visualisation methods[2] and enhanced use of technology and case management conferences.
Why Case Management Flexibility Matters in International Arbitration
Most arbitration rules and national laws emphasise flexibility. They rarely dictate in detail how proceedings must unfold, but instead recognise that – unless the parties agree otherwise – arbitrators enjoy broad discretion to shape the procedure to the circumstances of the case. This discretion is not unlimited: tribunals must always ensure that both parties are treated fairly and have an opportunity to present their case. At the same time, arbitrators must remain attentive to any mandatory provisions of the applicable law and ensure strict compliance with them.
In exercising this discretion, arbitrators are expected to weigh a range of factors: the arbitration agreement, applicable rules and laws (including the lex arbitri and lex causae), the complexity of the dispute, industry practice, the parties’ specific needs, their legal traditions, the amount in dispute at stake, and any procedural agreements already reached. The procedure chosen must not only be fair but also efficient, cost-effective, and consistent with due process.[3]
How Arbitral Tribunals Shape Case Management
The arbitral tribunal plays a central role, starting with the first case management conference (“CMC”), where procedural rules and a procedural calendar are typically established. Procedural orders (“POs”), while not decisions on the merits, are binding instructions that structure proceedings. PO1 typically sets out deadlines, communication rules, confidentiality, technology, and document formatting. Orders may address document production, bifurcation, or hearing logistics. Increasingly, tribunals are encouraged to adopt proactive managerial styles, reflecting users’ preference for arbitrators with strong organisational and leadership skills.[4]
The Counsel’s Role in Managing Arbitration Procedures
Counsel play a proactive role in shaping the procedure by negotiating fair (and realistic) timelines, raising concerns at case management conferences (such as witness availability or translation needs), and ensuring that procedural orders align with their client’s strategy.
Effective counsel are familiar with international standards, such as the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, and use document production requests strategically – ensuring they are neither too broad nor too narrow. Preparing clear and focused witness and expert testimony is essential for persuasive advocacy. Counsel must also be mindful of preserving the procedural record for potential annulment or enforcement challenges, ensuring that any objections or procedural irregularities are properly documented.
Arbitration Rules and Institutions: Frameworks for Case Management
Arbitration rules (e.g., those of the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, ICSID, and UNCITRAL) provide the procedural skeleton for an arbitration. They outline how proceedings are initiated, how tribunals are formed, and how hearings are conducted. Unlike rigid court rules, arbitration rules are deliberately flexible, allowing for party autonomy and tribunal discretion. Modern rules grant arbitrators broad powers to manage the case, including the authority to decide procedural issues not expressly covered by the rules, issue procedural timetables and orders, limit or permit evidence, and sanction dilatory tactics.
All major rules emphasise the equality of the parties and the right to be heard. This acts as a safeguard, requiring arbitrators to balance efficiency with fairness to avoid annulment or non-enforcement of awards.
Arbitral institutions provide critical administrative and procedural support: managing communications, arbitrators’ fees, providing secure platforms for document exchange and virtual hearings; ensuring compliance with institutional rules and procedural fairness; supervising timelines and monitoring delays, confirming appointments, handling conflicts of interest, deciding on arbitrator challenges; and encouraging or mandating case management conferences and expedited procedures.
Essential Procedural Tools for Efficient Arbitration
Designing Effective Procedural Timetables in Arbitration
A procedural timetable is a schedule set by the tribunal, often after consultation with the parties at or right after the first case management conference. It sets out the sequence and deadlines for the written submissions, submission of evidence, and hearings. Parties can comment on or negotiate the timetable before the tribunal issues the final, binding version. Typical deadlines that are included in procedural timetables include the submission of statements of claim and defence, document production requests and responses, the exchange of witness and expert statements, hearings and procedural conferences, post-hearing briefs and the timeline for the final award. According to the CIArb Guideline, the deadlines set out should be achievable and realistic. They should take into account the arbitration agreement, including any arbitration rules and/or the lex arbitri.[5]
Using Procedural Orders to Streamline Arbitration
Procedural orders are the tribunal’s main tool for managing the arbitration efficiently. They are not decisions on the merits but binding directions that set the framework for the case. According to the CIArb Guideline, well-crafted orders should be clear, numbered, signed, and allow for adjustments as the case evolves.[6]
Typical issues addressed in procedural orders include:
- Timetables for pleadings, evidence, expert reports, document production, and hearings.
- Communication protocols (service by email, copying all parties, deadlines).
- Document production rules, including e-disclosure and Redfern or Stern schedules.
- Language, translation, and confidentiality requirements.
- Witness and expert evidence: timing, format, and consequences of nonattendance.
- Hearing logistics: schedules, order of presentations, transcription, and interpretation.
Importantly, procedural orders should also warn of consequences for non-compliance, ranging from costs, sanctions and exclusion of evidence to adverse inferences. The CIArb’s Guideline emphasises that tribunals should give clear warnings before imposing sanctions, ensuring proportionality and fairness.[7]
Well-designed procedural orders provide structure and predictability while preserving the flexibility that distinguishes arbitration from litigation. They are, therefore, an extremely relevant tool for the efficient management of the arbitral proceedings.
The ICC Terms of Reference: Structuring ICC Arbitrations
In ICC arbitrations, the Terms of Reference (ToR) are a mandatory document that frames the dispute at an early stage. Drafted jointly by the parties and the tribunal, and approved by the ICC Court, the ToR sets out the parties’ claims and relief sought, the issues to be determined, the applicable law and rules, the seat, and sometimes a provisional timetable. They must be completed within 30 days of the case file being transmitted, and once signed, they trigger the (theoretical) six-month time limit for the award.[8]
The ToR’s main function is to prevent “scope creep” by crystallising the issues in dispute. No new claims may be introduced afterwards without tribunal approval,[9] which is granted only if the tribunal considers them appropriate given the stage of proceedings. This ensures fairness, transparency, and efficiency in line with ICC practice.
Practically, the ToR is more than a formality: it is an opportunity for parties to clarify positions, record reservations, and address procedural matters such as language, timetable, or arbitrator powers. For tribunals, it provides an early tool to set expectations and build consensus. Well-drafted ToRs not only guide the arbitration but also protect the enforceability of the eventual award. They are a unique feature of the ICC Rules (although they have been incorporated into more recent rules of regional centres, such as the OAC Rules). Most other arbitration rules do not contain a requirement for a ToR. Instead, they typically rely on the tribunal to issue a first procedural order or procedural timetable after consulting with the parties at a case management conference. These serve some of the same functions as the ToR (establishing procedural expectations and recording agreements), but they are more flexible and less formalised.
Maximising Case Management Conferences for Efficiency
The first case management conference is sometimes dismissed as a procedural formality, but in reality, it is one of the most important opportunities to set the tone of the arbitration. It is the first structured meeting between the tribunal and the parties, and it allows the procedure to be tailored to the case rather than defaulting to “boilerplate” solutions that often increase time and costs.[10] Best practice is for the tribunal (or parties) to circulate draft procedural documents and agendas in advance, encouraging conferral between counsel so that only outstanding issues are debated at the CMC.[11] This not only increases efficiency but also helps bridge differences across legal traditions, languages, and advocacy styles. Parties should ideally come prepared with a consolidated set of proposals, leaving the CMC to resolve a small number of well-defined matters.[12]
Tools that can be adopted at or after a CMC include frontloading submissions, page limits, early document production, alternative procedural calendars (for example, different timetables depending on whether bifurcation is granted), early appointment of experts, “Kaplan” Openings,[13] and midstream CMCs to keep cases on track. The tribunal should also revisit the procedure as the case progresses, scheduling additional CMCs after the first exchange of submissions or document production to ensure the process remains fit for purpose.
Managing Document Production in International Arbitration
Document production in international arbitration is another common feature of most arbitration proceedings (but not always mandatory). As we explained previously (see Document Production in International Arbitration), since many arbitration decisions rest on documentary evidence rather than oral testimony, the ability to compel an opponent to produce relevant documents can make or break a case.[14]
Unlike broad discovery in common law jurisdictions, document production in arbitration is more limited. The IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence are widely used as a benchmark: requests must be relevant and material, narrowly tailored, and not duplicative. A party must specify the documents, the reasons they are needed, and how they relate to the issues. The opposing party can object (e.g., on grounds of confidentiality, privilege, or the requests being overly broad), and the tribunal must decide.
To manage cost and risk, parties and tribunals may agree on upfront limits (such as caps on the number of requests), integrate production into the exchange of pleadings (to avoid a separate phase), or even exclude document production except in exceptional cases. White papers and recent practice urge a “less is more” philosophy – trimming excessive disclosure without undermining fairness.[15]
Bifurcation and Sequencing
Tribunals may bifurcate proceedings to address discrete issues (such as jurisdiction, liability, or quantum) in stages. This can save time and costs if early resolution of certain issues is possible, and is a strategic tool for focusing the proceedings.
However, while bifurcation is often proposed as a cost-saving device, in practice it carries significant risks. As previously noted (see The Case Against the Bifurcation of Arbitration Proceedings), bifurcation may increase time and cost when the preliminary issue is not dispositive, because separate hearings, repeated evidence, and duplicative preparation often follow.[16] Moreover, arbitrators may struggle to cleanly disentangle preliminary issues from the merits – many jurisdictional or liability questions are inherently linked with factual or legal elements of the main dispute. There is also a perception problem: if the same tribunal rules first on jurisdiction, then proceeds to the merits, questions may arise about objectivity.[17]
For these reasons, parties and tribunals should carefully weigh the pros and cons of bifurcation in each case. It may be appropriate where a preliminary issue is truly dispositive, but in other circumstances, it can lead to duplication and delay. Thoughtful case-specific evaluation is therefore essential. Arbitrators should certainly be wary that requests for bifurcation can sometimes be used by parties as a tactic to delay or obstruct the arbitration. Before deciding to bifurcate, tribunals should carefully consider the specific circumstances of the case, including:
(1) whether issues are significantly different or substantially the same for the phases;
(2) whether the evidence overlaps or can be clearly separated;
(3) whether bifurcation will increase costs through multiple phases or reduce them;
(4) whether it will expedite or delay the proceedings;
(5) whether it risks prejudice or unfair advantage or instead benefits both parties equally; and
(6) any other relevant factors.[18]
The Role of Technology in Modern Arbitration Case Management
Technology is increasingly integral to modern arbitration, facilitating virtual hearings, electronic filings, and efficient document management. Its use enhances transparency, speed, and cost-effectiveness, and has become essential in the post-pandemic era. Key applications include virtual hearings (via Zoom or Microsoft Teams), electronic document production managed through Redfern or Stern schedules, e-discovery and secure data rooms, and online case management platforms. These tools make cross-border proceedings more accessible and affordable.
The CIArb Protocol on E-Disclosure provides useful guidance for tailoring electronic disclosure to the needs of a particular case. It encourages early discussion of the scope of disclosure, proportionality in the use of search terms and custodians, and agreement on the format of production (such as native files, PDFs, or metadata). The CIArb Protocol on E-Disclosure emphasises efficiency while protecting fairness, with the aim to prevent “fishing expeditions” and control costs in increasingly data-heavy disputes.
A recent proposal in arbitral practice is the so-called Tribunal Visualised Approach (“Trivis”), where arbitrators present visual summaries of the case using timelines, decision trees, and colour-coded charts. Demonstratives and visuals are, of course, already widely used in international arbitration, both in written submissions and at hearings, to simplify complex facts and arguments. The “Trivis” method goes a step further: it not only demonstrates that the tribunal has carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions but also in theory streamlines arguments and reduces duplication. By addressing the root causes of inefficiency – parties’ fear that their case will not be fully understood – the “Trivis” offers a potential innovation in case management that complements more traditional tools like procedural timetables and orders.[19]
ICC Techniques for Controlling Time and Costs in Arbitration
The ICC’s Techniques for Controlling Time and Costs in Arbitration (2018) provides a comprehensive checklist of 88 practical recommendations spanning every stage of arbitration – from the drafting of arbitration clauses to the rendering of the award. (In truth, however, the most fundamental step is to retain experienced and cost-effective arbitration counsel.) These techniques are expressly referenced in Appendix IV of the ICC Rules. They are designed to operationalise the tribunal’s and parties’ duty under Article 22(1) to conduct proceedings in an expeditious and cost-effective manner.[20]
Key measures proposed by the ICC Taskforce include:
- At the outset: using simple, clear arbitration clauses to avoid jurisdictional skirmishes, considering a sole arbitrator where appropriate, and ensuring arbitrators have availability and strong case management skills.
- Early procedure setting: convening case management conferences soon after Terms of Reference, with clients actively involved to make cost-benefit decisions (e.g., limiting briefs, document requests, or witness evidence).
- During the arbitration: adopting short and realistic timelines, limiting the number and length of submissions, using Redfern Schedules to manage document production, curtailing unnecessary witness and expert evidence, and encouraging electronic filings over paper.
- Hearing and award phases: minimising hearing length, using videoconferencing, adopting “chess clock” techniques to allocate time fairly, and fixing cut-off dates for evidence. Tribunals are also encouraged to anticipate award-writing time and sanction dilatory behaviour through costs orders.
Ultimately, the ICC’s Techniques are flexible, not prescriptive. Their effectiveness depends on whether tribunals and counsel embrace them in good faith, tailoring the process to the dispute’s complexity and value. By embedding these practices early – especially through the first case management conference – arbitrations can be streamlined without undermining fairness.
Best Practices for Case Management in International Arbitration
Effective case management is the backbone of successful international arbitration. By leveraging procedural timetables, orders, Terms of Reference, case management conferences, and modern technology, tribunals and counsel can ensure that proceedings are efficient, fair, and predictable. The flexible frameworks provided by arbitration rules and the support of arbitral institutions further empower parties and tribunals to tailor procedures to the needs of each dispute. Mastery of these tools and principles is essential for practitioners and academics seeking to navigate the complexities of international arbitration.
[1] White & Case & Queen Mary University of London, 2025 International Arbitration Survey: The Path Forward (2025); see also R. Bodenheimer, The Tribunal Visualized Approach: Improving Proceedings by Visualized Case Introduction, in Maxi Scherer (ed.), Journal of International Arbitration (August 2024), pp. 461–462.
[2] R. Bodenheimer, The Tribunal Visualized Approach: Improving Proceedings by Visualized Case Introduction, in Maxi Scherer (ed.), Journal of International Arbitration (August 2024), pp. 461–486.
[3] CIArb’s Managing Arbitrations and Procedural Orders 2015, Article 1 – General Principles. CIArb’s International Arbitration Practice Guideline on Managing Arbitrations and Procedural Orders is a practice guideline published by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. It offers a structured framework and commentary on best practices for arbitrators in organising proceedings, issuing procedural orders, and applying sanctions for non-compliance. It is especially useful because it distils widely accepted procedural standards and e-disclosure protocols into a practical tool for tribunals and practitioners striving for efficiency and fairness.
[4] R. Bodenheimer, The Tribunal Visualized Approach: Improving Proceedings by Visualized Case Introduction, in Maxi Scherer (ed.), Journal of International Arbitration (Aug 2024), pp. 466, 471-472.
[5] CIArb’s Managing Arbitrations and Procedural Orders Guideline, Commentary on Article 2.1.
[6] CIArb’s Managing Arbitrations and Procedural Orders Guideline, Commentary on Article 3.3.
[7] CIArb’s Managing Arbitrations and Procedural Orders Guideline, Commentary on Article 3.2.
[8] 2021 ICC Rules, Article 23(2).
[9] 2021 ICC Rules, Article 23(4).
[10] D. Schramm and J. Banks, Chapter 13: Case Management Conferences and Early Meetings, in C. Lotfi and A. Zielińska-Eisen (eds.), International Arbitration in Practice (3 April 2025), pp. 157-159.
[11] CIArb’s Managing Arbitrations and Procedural Orders Guideline, Commentary on Article 2.
[12] D. Schramm and J. Banks, Chapter 13: Case Management Conferences and Early Meetings, in C. Lotfi and A. Zielińska-Eisen (eds.), International Arbitration in Practice (3 April 2025), pp. 161-162.
[13] Keynote Speech Mauritius Conference December 2014, Neil Kaplan CBE QC SBS, The Mauritius International Arbitration Conference 2014, pp. 9-10; see also D. Schramm and J. Banks, Chapter 13: Case Management Conferences and Early Meetings, in C. Lotfi and A. Zielińska-Eisen (eds.), International Arbitration in Practice (3 April 2025), p. 160.
[14] Aceris Law, Document Production in International Arbitration, 19 March 2023.
[15] Swiss Arbitration Association, “Taming the Beast” A Whitepaper on Document Production, 12 September 2025.
[16] Aceris Law, The Case Against the Bifurcation of Arbitration Proceedings, 17 September 2023.
[17] Aceris Law, The Case Against the Bifurcation of Arbitration Proceedings, 17 September 2023.
[18] CIArb’s Managing Arbitrations and Procedural Orders Guideline, Commentary on Article 2, para. 11.
[19] R. Bodenheimer, The Tribunal Visualized Approach: Improving Proceedings by Visualized Case Introduction, in Maxi Scherer (ed.), Journal of International Arbitration (August 2024), pp. 471-485.
[20] 2021 ICC Rules, Article 22(1): “The arbitral tribunal and the parties shall make every effort to conduct the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner, having regard to the complexity and value of the dispute.”
