From Star Arbitrators to Available Arbitrators: The Hidden Constraint in Modern Arbitration

For decades, international arbitration has operated on a relatively simple logic: reputation drives appointments. Parties and institutions often rely on a relatively small group of highly visible “star arbitrators” whose expertise, authority, and track records make them natural choices for complex disputes.

This reputation-driven model has long provided comfort to users. Well-known arbitrators bring experience, predictability, and legitimacy to proceedings, particularly in high-value disputes involving states or multinational corporations. Yet as arbitration caseloads continue to grow and procedural expectations evolve, a less visible constraint is beginning to surface within the system: arbitrator availability.

Increasingly, the practical ability of arbitrators to accept appointments and actively manage proceedings may be becoming as important as reputation itself.

The Traditional Reputation Economy of Arbitration

International arbitration has historically been characterised by what might be described as a “reputation economy.” A relatively small circle of highly experienced practitioners—often former partners of major law firms, retired judges, or prominent academics—dominate appointments across major arbitral institutions.

Users frequently gravitate toward arbitrators with established reputations and institutional familiarity. These choices are often motivated by a desire to minimise procedural risk and ensure the credibility of the tribunal, particularly where large commercial interests are at stake.

However, the concentration of appointments within a relatively small pool of arbitrators has been widely discussed within the arbitration community. While this concentration may enhance perceived reliability, it also raises a practical question: what happens when demand begins to exceed the capacity of that pool?

Rising Caseloads and Procedural Acceleration

The issue of arbitrator capacity becomes more visible when considered alongside two parallel developments in modern arbitration.

First, institutional caseloads have steadily increased over the past decade. Major arbitration centres across Asia and beyond continue to report growing numbers of filings, reflecting the continued globalisation of commerce and the increasing acceptance of arbitration as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism.

Second, institutions are increasingly introducing expedited and streamlined procedures designed to improve efficiency and reduce costs. These procedural innovations are now a common feature across leading arbitral institutions.

For example, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre introduced a Streamlined Procedure in its 2025 Rules, providing a fast-track mechanism intended to resolve certain disputes within significantly shortened timelines. Similarly, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre offers an expedited procedure allowing qualifying disputes to proceed under compressed timelines with simplified procedural frameworks.

In Northeast Asia, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board has likewise incorporated mechanisms aimed at improving efficiency and facilitating faster dispute resolution under its international arbitration rules.

These procedural developments inevitably change the expectations placed on arbitrators. Expedited timelines require tribunals that can move decisively, manage proceedings proactively, and remain consistently engaged throughout the life of a case.

In other words, arbitrators are no longer valued solely for their reputation or intellectual authority. Their ability to dedicate time and attention to proceedings is increasingly relevant.

The Emerging Constraint: Arbitrator Capacity

Against this backdrop, the traditional reliance on a relatively small pool of highly sought-after arbitrators may create structural tension within the system.

Highly reputed arbitrators often serve on multiple tribunals simultaneously, while also maintaining academic commitments, institutional responsibilities, or advisory roles. While such experience is undoubtedly valuable, the practical demands of managing numerous concurrent cases inevitably place limits on availability.

Recent discussions within the arbitration community suggest that institutions and parties are becoming more sensitive to this issue. Questions about scheduling availability, responsiveness, and time commitment increasingly arise during the arbitrator selection process.

This shift also aligns with broader findings from the 2025 White & Case / Queen Mary University of London International Arbitration Survey, which highlights efficiency and procedural management among the most important factors influencing user preferences in arbitration.

Although reputation remains a critical consideration, users increasingly expect arbitrators to manage proceedings actively, adhere to procedural timelines, and deliver awards efficiently.

These expectations inevitably draw attention to capacity.

A Gradual Market Adjustment

If capacity constraints continue to become more visible, the arbitration market may gradually adapt in several ways.

One possible outcome is a broader distribution of appointments across a wider pool of arbitrators. Institutions may increasingly consider candidates who, while perhaps less internationally prominent, possess strong subject-matter expertise and the ability to devote sufficient attention to the proceedings.

Another potential development is the continued emergence of newer arbitrators—often younger practitioners or specialists with industry expertise—who are able to demonstrate strong procedural management skills and availability.

In this context, availability may begin to function as a form of professional currency. The ability to accept appointments, manage proceedings efficiently, and deliver timely awards may become an increasingly visible component of arbitrator reputation.

This does not necessarily signal the decline of the “star arbitrator.” Reputation, expertise, and credibility will remain central to the legitimacy of international arbitration. However, the criteria through which reputation is assessed may evolve.

Efficiency, responsiveness, and case management ability may become as visible—and as valued—as academic distinction or institutional prominence.

What This Means for the Arbitration Ecosystem

If the arbitration market is indeed moving toward a greater emphasis on capacity alongside reputation, the implications may extend across the broader arbitration ecosystem.

For institutions, the challenge lies in maintaining the credibility of the arbitrator selection process while responding to users’ growing expectations for efficiency and procedural discipline.

For arbitrators, the shift highlights the importance of practice management: accepting appointments that can realistically be handled within existing commitments and maintaining procedural discipline throughout the life of a case.

For users and counsel, the evolution may encourage a broader view of the arbitrator pool and a greater willingness to consider candidates beyond the most frequently appointed names.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether reputation will remain important—it certainly will. Rather, the question is whether the arbitration community will increasingly recognise that reputation alone cannot sustain a system that continues to grow in scale and procedural complexity.

In a market long defined by star arbitrators, the next phase of international arbitration may place greater value on a different quality: availability.