International arbitration helps underpin global trade, foreign investment and the rule of law. But outside specialist legal circles, it is too often understood through a small number of high-profile and controversial cases.
Byfield Consultancy’s new report argues that this has created a growing communications problem for the arbitration community. While arbitration is widely valued by those who use it, many of the audiences that shape public opinion and regulatory policy do not have a clear understanding of what it does, how it works, or why it matters.
Drawing on interviews with leading practitioners, academics and institutional figures, the report finds that arbitration is vulnerable to criticism because its case is not being made clearly or collectively enough. Arbitrators, institutions and professional bodies often engage with policymakers, the media and the public separately, rather than as part of a more coordinated effort. That leaves space for others to define the narrative.
The report calls for a stronger network of credible voices across the arbitration community – able to explain the system in clear, accessible language, respond to criticism more effectively, and speak more confidently about arbitration’s wider value.
Gus Sellitto, Founder of Byfield Consultancy, said,
“Arbitration plays a critical role in enabling cross-border trade and investment, yet much of what it does well happens out of public view, and its reputation can be shaped by a small number of controversial cases. Our report highlights that, as arbitration attracts greater political and media scrutiny, it cannot afford to be passive in how it is perceived. Practitioners and arbitral institutions need to engage more openly with the public and the media and have a more effective communications approach. This means not only responding to criticism in a coordinated way, but also proactively promoting the many cases where disputes are resolved efficiently and commercial relationships are maintained. If these stories are not being told, the narrative around international arbitration risks being defined by its critics.”
Artem Doudko, Partner at Osborne Clarke who contributed to the report, added:
“Arbitration lawyers don’t speak enough about arbitration to those outside of that community, which is important, because the whole arbitration ecosystem depends on clients as the end users. Clients, in particular, need to know about it, understand how it works, and be familiar and comfortable with using it as one of the tools in their dispute resolution toolkit.”
The report is based on interviews with leading figures in the arbitration community, including Martina Polasek (Secretary-General of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes), Paula Hodges KC (former president of the London Court of International Arbitration), Ben Giaretta (Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators), Artem Doudko (Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and partner in Osborne Clarke’s Dispute Resolution practice), Professor Loukas Mistelis (Partner at Clyde & Co and member of Queen Mary University’s School of International Arbitration), Peter Ashford (Chair of London Arbitration Week and independent arbitrator), Peter Rees KC (independent arbitrator at 39 Essex Chambers), Damian Honey (Partner in Holman Fenwick Willan’s Commodities team), and Alexandre Vagenheim (Vice President of Institutional and Legal Affairs at Jus Mundi).
Read the full report: Who Speaks for Arbitration? – A Strategic Report on Arbitration and Public Discourse
