Still got it 💅
A global survey of lawyers and arbitrators has found that London remains the top choice of location for international arbitrations, followed by Hong Kong and Singapore, solidifying the capital’s place at the centre of the legal world.
The research, led by US law firm White & Case in collaboration with the School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary University of London, surveyed 2,402 individuals involved in arbitration and conducted 117 in-depth interviews. Respondents were based around the globe, with 47% working in the Asia-Pacific region, 21% in Europe and 10% in North America — other respondents hailed from the Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa.
34% of those surveyed named London as their preferred seat for international arbitration, making it the overall top choice, followed by Hong Kong and Singapore, with 31%, Beijing with 20% and Paris with 19%. London was also among the top five preferred seats for respondents in each of the six regions in which respondents were based, revealing its appeal around the globe.
Respondents cited support for arbitration by local courts, neutrality and impartiality of the local legal system and national arbitration law, and a strong enforcement track record as the main factors influencing their preference.
Clare Connellan, international arbitration partner at White & Case, commented on the research findings:
“The sustained appeal of London and Singapore underscores the importance arbitration users place on judicial reliability and proactive legislative support. Both jurisdictions have made significant legislative advances in recent months, demonstrating a clear political commitment to maintaining their positions as pre-eminent global arbitration hubs.”
The report also covered AI innovation in the international arbitration space. 90% of those surveyed said that they expect to use AI tools for research, data analytics, and document review. However, researchers found “strong resistance” to using AI for tasks requiring the exercise of discretion and judgment, with respondents citing concerns over errors and bias as the major obstacle to adopting these tools.
