Institutional International Arbitration: ICC, SIAC, LCIA and IIAC

In an institutional arbitration a permanent body administers the reference under its own published rules, which the parties adopt by naming it in their contract. The institution does not decide the dispute. It appoints or confirms the tribunal, fixes and collects the fees, monitors the timetable, provides the secretariat and, in some systems, scrutinises the draft award before it is released. For a cross-border contract the choice of institution is often the most consequential drafting decision after the seat, because the institution supplies the machinery that keeps the reference moving when one party has decided not to cooperate.

What the institution does at each stage, and the two things naming it does not achieve

1. What Institutional Administration Adds

1. Constitution of the tribunal without the court. Where a party refuses to nominate, or the co-arbitrators cannot agree on a chairman, the institution appoints. In an ad hoc reference the same impasse means an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which adds months at the threshold.
2. Challenges decided by a neutral body. An application to remove an arbitrator is decided by the institution rather than by the tribunal itself or by a court.
3. A published fee schedule. Fees are calculated by a known method and collected by the institution, which removes the awkwardness of a tribunal negotiating its own remuneration and the risk of a dispute about fees derailing the reference.
4. Case management and infrastructure. A case manager, hearing facilities, transcription, translation and a maintained record.
5. Emergency and expedited routes. Relief before the tribunal exists, and a shortened procedure for smaller claims, both of which an ad hoc clause must improvise.
6. Quality control over the award. Scrutiny of the draft for internal inconsistency, omitted issues and arithmetical error, where the rules provide for it, which reduces the risk of a successful challenge.

2. The Four Institutions

The supervising body, fee model, scrutiny, emergency and expedited routes, and the distinctive feature of each

2.1 The International Chamber of Commerce

The ICC administers arbitration through its International Court of Arbitration in Paris, assisted by a Secretariat. The Court does not decide disputes; it confirms or appoints arbitrators, decides challenges, fixes fees and scrutinises draft awards. Three features are distinctive.

• Terms of Reference. Early in the reference the tribunal draws up a document recording the parties, their claims, the issues to be determined and the procedural particulars, signed by the parties and the tribunal. It fixes the scope of the reference at the outset and reduces later disputes about what was referred.
• Scrutiny of the award. The tribunal submits its draft award to the Court, which may lay down modifications as to form and draw attention to points of substance without affecting the tribunal's liberty of decision. No award is issued until approved.
• Ad valorem fees. Both the administrative charge and the tribunal's fees are calculated by reference to the amount in dispute, so the cost is predictable from the outset.

The ICC Rules also contain an emergency arbitrator procedure and an expedited procedure that applies automatically below a stated value unless the parties opt out.

2.2 The Singapore International Arbitration Centre

SIAC is the institution most used by Indian parties in cross-border references, partly because of the speed of the Singapore courts in arbitration matters and partly because of the cost. Administration is by a Registrar under the supervision of the SIAC Court of Arbitration. The seventh edition of the SIAC Rules came into force on 1 January 2025 and made significant changes.

• A streamlined procedure for low-value disputes, applying by default where the amount in dispute does not exceed one million Singapore dollars unless the President of the Court decides otherwise. A sole arbitrator decides on written submissions without a hearing, document production or witness statements, the award is to be made within three months of the constitution of the tribunal, and the fees of the tribunal and the institution are capped at half the scheduled maximum.
• An expanded expedited procedure, with the threshold raised from six million to ten million Singapore dollars, and an award ordinarily within six months.
• An enhanced emergency arbitrator procedure. An application may now be made even before the notice of arbitration is filed, provided the notice follows within seven days, and a party may seek a protective preliminary order on an ex parte basis, on which the emergency arbitrator acts within twenty-four hours. This is unusual among the leading institutions.
• Preliminary determination and coordinated proceedings. The tribunal's power to determine an issue finally at a preliminary stage is made explicit, with a decision required within ninety days of the application, and related arbitrations may be coordinated.

2.3 The London Court of International Arbitration

The LCIA administers references through the LCIA Court and a Registrar. Its rules, in their current edition, provide for expedited formation of the tribunal in cases of exceptional urgency, for an emergency arbitrator, for consolidation and composite requests where related contracts are involved, and for early determination of a claim or defence that is manifestly without merit. The distinctive feature is the fee model: the tribunal and the institution charge on the basis of hourly rates rather than by reference to the amount in dispute. For a large claim that turns on a narrow point this is cheaper than an ad valorem schedule; for a small claim that generates heavy procedural work it may be dearer. The LCIA does not scrutinise draft awards.

2.4 The India International Arbitration Centre

The Centre was established by the New Delhi International Arbitration Centre Act, 2019, later renamed, and is declared by that Act to be an institution of national importance. It took over the undertaking of the former International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution. Its object is to provide a domestic institution capable of administering international commercial references on terms comparable with those offered abroad, and so to reduce the practice of Indian parties choosing foreign seats and foreign institutions.

The governing structure consists of a Chairperson and members appointed under the Act, with a Chamber of Arbitration to maintain a panel of arbitrators and examine their applications, and an Arbitration Academy for training. Its conduct of arbitration regulations provide for appointment, emergency relief and expedited procedures on the model of the international institutions. The Centre is separate from the Arbitration Council of India under Part IA of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: the Centre administers arbitrations, while the Council, which has still not been constituted, was to regulate institutions generally.

3. Choosing between Them

4. Drafting the Clause

• Name the institution accurately and adopt its rules by reference, using the model clause the institution publishes wherever possible.
• State the seat separately and expressly; the institution's headquarters is not the seat.
• State the number of arbitrators, the language and the governing law of the contract.
• Consider whether to adopt or exclude the expedited or streamlined procedure, since several rules now apply it automatically below a threshold.
• Preserve, or deliberately exclude, the right to apply to a court for interim relief; for a foreign seated reference the proviso to Section 2(2) keeps Section 9 available unless the parties agree otherwise.
• Avoid any appointment mechanism that gives one party control, which is invalid where the seat is in India.

5. The Indian Position

Indian practice remains predominantly ad hoc, and the reform effort since the Srikrishna Committee reported in 2017 has been directed at changing that. Two lines of legislation followed: the Amendment Act of 2019, which contemplated appointment under Section 11 by arbitral institutions designated by the Supreme Court and the High Courts and created the Arbitration Council of India to grade them, and the statute establishing the India International Arbitration Centre. The first has not become operative, because the Council has not been constituted and no grading exists. Alongside these, the Guidelines for Arbitration and Mediation in Contracts of Domestic Public Procurement issued by the Department of Expenditure in June 2024 direct that where arbitration is adopted in a government contract it should ordinarily be institutional rather than ad hoc.

6. Related Topics and Provisions