The ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics are more than an annual scorecard. They show a global, institutionally active arbitration system that is also becoming increasingly regional and efficiency-focused. Questions of diversity, procedure and award quality are also greatly influencing the arbitration system.
Nowadays, the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) represents the interests “of more than 45 million companies in over 170 countries”. Furthermore, its ICC International Court of Arbitration (“ICC Court”) is recognised as “the world’s leading arbitral institution.”[1]
Busy as Ever: The ICC’s 2025 Caseload Reaches New Heights
In 2025, the ICC registered 894 new cases: 881 under the ICC Arbitration Rules and 13 under the Rules of the ICC as Appointing Authority in UNCITRAL or Other Arbitration Proceedings. The year 2025 ranks among the top three years in ICC history for case volume. The ICC ended the year with 1,869 ongoing cases, “a record year in terms of pending caseload” according to the report.[2]
Those numbers suggest not only strong demand for ICC dispute resolution but also a heavy live docket. Since 1923, more than 30,000 arbitrations have been administered by the ICC Court involving multinational companies, small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”), states, state-owned entities and individuals worldwide.[3]
Global Arbitration, but Often Closer to Home
ICC arbitration remains predominantly cross-border, but the statistics challenge the common assumption that ICC cases are always geographically distant disputes.
In 2025, 69.4% of ICC arbitrations involved parties from different countries, while 30.6% concerned parties of the same nationality. The statistics further show that just over half of the new cases, 50.1%, involved parties based in the same region.[4]
Thus, even though ICC arbitration is still international in outlook, parties are gradually using it for domestic or regional disputes. That is likely due to how parties value institutional administration, procedural neutrality and enforceability even where the dispute does not involve parties from different continents. Nevertheless, the ICC underlines that many “domestic” cases still include a foreign element.[5]
Construction and Energy Disputes Still Dominate
With 246 construction and engineering disputes and 128 energy disputes, these two sectors together represented 43% of all new ICC cases in 2025.[6]
Other noticeable sectors included health and pharma, transportation, telecommunications and specialised technologies, industrial equipment and services, financing and insurance, business services, general trade and distribution, and leisure and entertainment. Construction and engineering contracts, goods contracts, services contracts and corporate contracts constitute the most frequent contract types.[7]
This confirms ICC’s continuing strength in complex project disputes. Construction and energy cases often involve long-term contracts, technical evidence, multiple parties, large sums and urgent performance issues, all of which fit naturally with administered arbitration.
Amounts in Dispute Range from Modest to Enormous
The report highlights a major gap between average and median amounts in dispute. In 2025, approximately half of new and pending cases were valued between USD 1 million and USD 30 million, but the average figures were far higher: slightly above USD 50 million for new cases and USD 172 million for pending cases at year-end. The median was much lower: USD 5 million for new cases and USD 14 million for pending cases. The range was extreme, from just below USD 2,500 to USD 31 billion.[8]
These figures suggest that a relatively small number of very large disputes raise the average, while much of the ICC’s caseload remains mid-sized. This undercuts the idea that ICC arbitration is reserved only for mega-disputes.
Expedited Procedure Provisions Are No Longer Marginal
The Expedited Procedure Provisions (“EPP”) have been developed to shorten “procedural timelines” and to “overall lower arbitration costs” compared to ordinary costs in arbitration procedure. In 2025, the Expedited Procedure Provisions were used in 169 new ICC cases: 158 by automatic application and 11 by party agreement or opt-in. Since its introduction in 2017, the EPP framework has been used in 1,034 expedited cases administered by the ICC Court, resulting in 591 awards.[9]
Expedited arbitration has moved beyond its initial experimental character and now forms a substantial part of ICC practice. In 2025, 36% of new cases involved amounts of USD 3 million or less, and 41% involved amounts of USD 4 million or less, placing many disputes within the thresholds for automatic EPP application.[10]
Emergency Arbitration Is Active, but Relief Is Not Easy
Emergency Arbitrator (“EA”) proceedings allow parties to apply for “urgent interim or conservatory measures” when they can no longer wait for the composition of the arbitral tribunal. Within 15 days, a decision is given. Since 2012, when the procedure was established, a total of 287 EA applications have been filed.[11] This suggests that the EA mechanism is actively used.
However, of the 25 EA orders rendered in 2025, the requested relief was dismissed in 15 cases, fully granted in six cases and partially granted in four cases.[12] This is due to the tribunals’ caution regarding the grant of urgent interim relief. The procedure is not a shortcut to emergency relief; it is a fast track to a serious threshold assessment.
Party Geography Shows ICC’s Broad Reach
ICC arbitration remained mainly international in 2025. Cases filed under the ICC Arbitration Rules involved 2,531 parties from 147 countries and independent territories, equalling the previous record set in 2019. The largest regional group was North and West Europe, representing 28.8% of parties, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean at 19.5%, East and South Asia and the Pacific at 13.9%, North America at 12.6%, the Middle East and Central Asia at 10.6%, Central and South-East Europe at 8.8%, Sub-Saharan Africa at 4.2% and North Africa at 1.6%.[13]
The United States remained the most represented nationality, with 284 parties, while Brazil ranked second with a record of 212 parties. Spain and France followed with 141 and 122 parties, respectively. China, including Mainland China and Hong Kong SAR, reached a record of 102 parties.[14]
14% of new cases implicated a state or state entity. In total, there were 150 state and state-owned parties, comprising 42 states and 108 state-owned parties.[15] This confirms ICC arbitration’s continuing role in public-sector and state-linked disputes. It is far from only concerning private commercial disputes.
Investor-State Work Remains Present but Limited
In 1996, the first dispute around a bilateral investment treaty (“BIT”) arose. Since then, the ICC Court has regulated 48 investor-state disputes and has served as appointing authority in 16 BIT ad hoc arbitrations.[16] Only one new BIT case was filed in 2025 under the ICC Appointing Authority Rules for the nomination of a co-arbitrator.
Overall, five BIT cases were part of the ICC’s 2025 caseload.[17] Investor-state work may not be the centre of ICC’s caseload; however, it remains a recurring part of its institutional activity.
Tribunal Formation: Party Autonomy Meets Institutional Control
In 2025, 998 arbitrators from 93 jurisdictions worked in ICC cases, across 1,386 confirmations and appointments. Parties agreed on the number of arbitrators in 86% of cases. Overall, 58% of cases were submitted to a three-member arbitral tribunal and 42% to a sole arbitrator.[18]
Most arbitrators were selected by the parties or co-arbitrators, accounting for 73% of confirmations and appointments, while the ICC Court considered the remaining 27%.[19]
These figures show that party autonomy remains crucial, but the institution continues to play an important role in determining the tribunal’s composition.
ICC Court Appointments Help Promote Arbitrator Diversity
Gender diversity represents one of the key parts of the report. In 2025, women arbitrators accounted for 29.6% of all confirmations and appointments. Women represented 23% of party nominations, 30% of co-arbitrator nominations and 44.6% of ICC Court appointments.[20]
The ICC Court appointed women at nearly twice the rate seen in party nominations, suggesting that institutional appointment practices are doing more than party selection alone to improve gender diversity. Institutional appointments, therefore, help address the glass ceiling in international arbitration, especially when compared with 2015, when women accounted for only 7% of party nominations, 6% of co-arbitrator nominations and 20% of ICC Court appointments.[21]
Generational diversity is also slowly improving. Last year, 34% of confirmed or appointed arbitrators were under 50, when the average age was around 56 years. Arbitrators nominated by the ICC Court were found to be six years younger than the global standard.[22]
Disclosures and Challenges Show a System Under Scrutiny
Before confirmation or appointment, prospective arbitrators are required to declare that they accept the role, are available, and meet the requirements of impartiality and independence. In 2025, 41% of confirmed or appointed arbitrators made disclosures before confirmation or appointment.[23]
Challenges were comparatively rare. 38 challenges in 2025 were classified in 29 cases, and only two were accepted by the ICC Court.[24] The high disclosure rate and low success rate of challenges suggest a system that encourages transparency early, while reserving successful challenges for serious cases.
Seats Stay Familiar, but the Map Is Wide
In 2025, ICC arbitrations were seated across a wide range of locations, covering 123 cities in 70 countries or independent territories. In most cases, the parties chose the seat themselves: the ICC Court fixed the seat in only 10% of cases.[25]
The most frequently selected jurisdictions were France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Switzerland, Singapore, Brazil, Spain, Germany, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates.[26] This shows that ICC arbitration remains anchored in traditional arbitral hubs, while also reaching far beyond them.
Governing Law: English Law and US State Law Still Lead
Choice-of-law clauses were included in 95% of cases registered in 2025 and referred to the laws of 121 nations, states, provinces and territories. English law and the laws of US states were the most frequently selected, with 113 cases each. Brazilian, Swiss, German, French and Spanish law followed.[27]
The report also notes that 1.7% of contracts referred to rules or instruments other than national laws, including “the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the ICC Incoterms Rules [a set of standards recognised internationally and mostly used in domestic contracts for the transportation of goods], the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and ‘international laws and principles’”.[28]
Parties overwhelmingly choose national law, but they still may supplement or replace it with transnational commercial instruments.
ICC Award Scrutiny Remains Vital
According to the report, the ICC’s scrutiny process consists of the ICC Court reviewing draft awards to help ensure their “quality, validity and enforceability”. In 2025, the ICC Court approved 607 draft awards, its second-highest annual total. These included 444 final awards, 118 partial awards and 45 awards by consent.[29]
The figures show how active the ICC Court’s scrutiny process is in practice. Out of 607 draft awards approved in 2025, 595 were approved only after the ICC Court had raised points for the tribunal to consider. In addition, 67 draft awards had to be sent back to tribunals for further review before they could be approved.[30] One can observe that ICC scrutiny is more than just a procedural step: it operates as a real institutional check on the quality and enforceability of awards.
English remained the dominant award language, accounting for 460 awards, or 76%. The remaining 147 awards were drafted in 10 other languages, including Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Italian and Arabic.[31]
Duration and Delay: Efficiency Still Poses a Challenge
Timeliness remains an important issue in ICC arbitration. In 2025, ICC cases that ended with a final award took 27 months on average, slightly more than two years. The median duration was 23 months, including any agreed pauses in the proceedings.[32]
In ordinary cases, only 51% of draft final awards were submitted to the ICC Court for scrutiny within the expected timeframe. Where delays were significant and unjustified, the ICC reduced arbitrators’ fees in 47 cases.[33]
For expedited cases, in 2025, 130 final awards were provided under the EPP, and 84 of them (65%), were rendered in accordance with the six-month time limit. Fee reductions were applied in only six expedited cases.[34]
ICC arbitration is not always fast. Nevertheless, different measures such as procedural expectations and fee consequences have been put in place to address delay.
Withdrawals Suggest Many Cases Settle or Resolve Early
The year 2025 has registered the withdrawal of 346 cases before a final award was delivered. Most withdrawals, 89%, followed either a joint request by the parties or a request by one party without objection from the others. Only 11% followed a lack of payment.[35]
More than half of withdrawals, 53%, occurred before the appointment of the arbitral tribunal. Another 11% happened between the constitution of the tribunal and the preparation of the Terms of Reference, while 30% occurred after the Terms of Reference or Case Management Conference.[36] Thus, ICC filings often create enough procedural pressure or structure for disputes to resolve before a final award.
ADR Is Smaller, but Strategically Important
Regarding the ICC International Centre for ADR, 65 requests were filed: 36 under the Mediation Rules, 25 under the Expert Rules, three under the DOCDEX Rules and one under the Dispute Board Rules.[37]
ADR services involved 156 parties from 46 jurisdictions across all regions.[38] The ADR caseload is much smaller than the arbitration caseload, but it remains important through its mechanisms that can be used before, alongside or instead of arbitration.
Key Takeaways
Overall, the 2025 statistics show an ICC arbitration system that remains highly active, widely international and strongly shaped by institutional oversight. The ICC is operating at near-record levels, with a record number of pending cases, while its caseload continues to reflect a wide geographic spread, including regional and domestic disputes. The figures also show that expedited arbitration is now an established part of ICC practice, although emergency relief remains difficult to obtain. Finally, the statistics confirm the continuing importance of institutional oversight, both in promoting diversity and in ensuring the quality of awards through the ICC Court’s scrutiny process.
In conclusion, ICC arbitration continues to be one of the central forums for complex commercial disputes, but the way parties use it is changing.
[1] ICC, ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, 2026, https://iccwbo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2026/06/2025-Statistics_ICC_Dispute-Resolution_EN.pdf (last accessed 30 June 2026), p. 2.
[2] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 4.
[3] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 4.
[4] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 5.
[5] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 5.
[6] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 5.
[7] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 5.
[8] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, pp. 5-6.
[9] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 6.
[10] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 5.
[11] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 6.
[12] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 6.
[13] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 7.
[14] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, pp. 8-9.
[15] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 9.
[16] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 9.
[17] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 9.
[18] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, pp. 9-10.
[19] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 10.
[20] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 12.
[21] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 12.
[22] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 12.
[23] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 10.
[24] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 11.
[25] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 14.
[26] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 14.
[27] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 15.
[28] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 15.
[29] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 16.
[30] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 16.
[31] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 16.
[32] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 17.
[33] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 17.
[34] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 17.
[35] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 18.
[36] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 18.
[37] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, pp. 19-22.
[38] ICC Dispute Resolution 2025 Statistics, p. 19.
