The latest International Arbitration Survey, jointly released by White & Case and Queen Mary University of London, shows that Asian regions have dominated the list of most preferred arbitration seats, challenging the traditional Eurocentric dominance and revealing a shift in the global arbitration landscape.
According to the survey, published on 9 April 2025, London retains its top spot as the world’s most preferred arbitration seat, followed by Singapore and Hong Kong in joint second place as they continue to consolidate their positions as Asia-Pacific arbitration hubs.
Beijing, meanwhile, entered the top four for the first time, while Paris slipped to fifth from fourth place in the 2021 survey.
White & Case’s Hong Kong-based partner, Wilfred Ho, along with Singapore-based partners Aditya Singh and Matthew Secomb, told China Business Law Journal that Beijing’s growing popularity was driven by Chinese companies’ accelerated overseas expansion and investment, coupled with the government’s supportive policies to bolster arbitration.
They said: “[Beijing’s] reputation has increased in recent years through the presence of major arbitration institutions (the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission as the primary arbitral institution in China) and representative offices of [international] arbitral institutions in mainland China.”
The report states that Hong Kong has emerged as the most preferred seat for Asia-Pacific respondents, with Singapore and Beijing ranking second and third, respectively. London and Shenzhen also made the top five.
This is the sixth survey conducted by White & Case and Queen Mary University of London. The survey collected 2,402 questionnaire responses and conducted 117 interviews. Of the respondents, 47% were based in Asia, while 21% were from Europe.
The three main factors influencing interviewees’ preference for seats include the support for arbitration by local courts, neutrality of the legal system and a strong enforcement track record. “Respondents, especially those in the Asia-Pacific and Europe, show strong preferences for seats in their respective regions,” the report said.
Regarding arbitration rules, the International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Rules remain the most favoured, followed by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre rules.
The three White & Case partners interviewed by CBLJ suggested that, aside from costs and reputation, in-house counsel should consider an arbitration centre’s rules when selecting the right place to resolve disputes, in particular the rules’ restriction on time limits and the availability of procedural streamlining functions.
They also advised counsel to examine whether the arbitration centre permits parties to appoint arbitrators from outside of its panel, and whether the arbitration centre scrutinises the arbitral award, “which would add additional time, but also improve the robustness of the award”.
The survey also explored the transparency of arbitration proceedings, in which 90% of respondents opposed making hearings public in commercial arbitration, while 59% supported publishing redacted awards, especially those involving states or state entities.
