Arbitration rules compared

An arbitration clause rarely fails on the big question; it usually fails on a detail. In one contract, the President of the German Federal Court of Justice was to chair the tribunal; the office holder is not available for that. In another, the parties referred to the rules of a “German Commercial Arbitration Board” that does not exist.¹ Both clauses first lead to a dispute about whether, and before whom, there will be a hearing at all.

The safe route is an institution’s model clause, completed and supplemented by a few details. This comparison of arbitration rules from Europe, Asia, and the US shows which institution suits which contract. Whether you should agree on arbitration at all depends on where you will later have to enforce; I explain that in the article “Arbitration or litigation?”.

The differences that matter for your clause

The table compares the current versions. The references in parentheses name the provision of the respective rules.

Four conclusions for the clause follow from this.

Set the number of arbitrators yourself. Without an agreement, three arbitrators decide under the DIS and CIETAC Rules (under the CIETAC Rules, one in the summary procedure), in principle one under the ICC Rules, the Swiss Rules, and the LCIA, SIAC, and ICDR Rules, and under the VIAC, SCC, and HKIAC Rules the institution decides. Under the ICC Rules, the Court may appoint a sole arbitrator in the expedited procedure even if the clause provides for three.² Three arbitrators cost a multiple; under the ICC Rules, their fees may together normally reach three times those of a sole arbitrator.³ For smaller amounts in dispute, a sole arbitrator fits.

Check whether the expedited procedure applies by itself. Under the ICC Rules, it applies to arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026 up to an amount in dispute of US$ 4 million, without you agreeing to anything; lower thresholds, or none, apply to older agreements.⁴ If you do not want it, exclude it. The expedited procedure also applies by itself under the Swiss Rules up to CHF 1 million, under the SIAC Rules, as the streamlined procedure, up to S$ 1 million, under the CIETAC Rules, as the summary procedure, up to RMB 5 million, and under the ICDR Rules if no claim exceeds US$ 500,000. Under the DIS, VIAC, and SCC Rules, by contrast, you have to agree to it expressly; under the HKIAC Rules, it applies on a party’s application if the institution grants it. An award after three to six months is a real argument when a supply or payment dispute has to be decided quickly.

Clarify who decides in an emergency. It often takes weeks before the tribunal is in place. The ICC, Swiss Rules, SCC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, and ICDR appoint an emergency arbitrator for urgent measures. The CIETAC appoints one only where the applicable law provides for it or the parties agree; if you want to be sure of one there, write it into the clause. The DIS and VIAC do not. With a seat in Germany, the route to the state court remains open (Section 1033 of the German Code of Civil Procedure, Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO).

Provide for confidentiality where the rules do not bind the parties. Under the ICC, VIAC, SCC, and ICDR Rules, the arbitrators and the institution are bound to secrecy, the parties themselves are not; under the ICC Rules, the tribunal orders confidentiality for the parties only on application. The ICDR may also publish awards without the parties’ names unless a party objects within six months of the award. If you have trade secrets to protect, write confidentiality into the clause there.

What arbitration costs

In arbitration, the parties pay the institution’s administrative fee and the arbitrators’ fees, depending on the institution, by amount in dispute or by the hour. An example with an amount in dispute of 1 million euros shows the order of magnitude.

The fees of the arbitration are thus higher than those of all three instances before the state courts.⁵ Attorney’s fees come on top in both cases. Where an institution offers a cost calculator, it works out the amount for your amount in dispute and number of arbitrators; the links are in the table above.

The institutions’ model clauses

Every institution recommends a model clause. Adopt the wording unchanged, fill in the marked gaps, and add any missing details in separate sentences. A reworded clause is the first point the other side attacks if it wants to prevent the arbitration. I checked all wordings on the institutions’ websites and in their rules on 7 October 2026.

Jump to a clause: DIS · ICC · Swiss Rules · VIAC · SCC · LCIA · SIAC · HKIAC · CIETAC · ICDR

DIS

The DIS model clause exists in German and English. It already names the four details that belong in every arbitration clause.

ICC

The ICC model clause consists of one sentence. The ICC itself recommends adding the number of arbitrators, the place of arbitration with city and country, the language, and the governing law.

Swiss Rules

The model clause of the Swiss Arbitration Centre appears at the beginning of the Swiss Rules 2021. Under it, the version of the Swiss Rules in force when the proceedings are commenced applies. The choice of law belongs in a separate clause.

VIAC

The VIAC model clause leaves the number of arbitrators open. VIAC recommends adding the number, the language, the governing law, and, where appropriate, the expedited procedure.

SCC

The SCC model clause exists for the regular and for the expedited procedure. The SCC recommends adding the seat, the language, and the governing law.

LCIA

The LCIA model clause already names the details on arbitrators, seat, language, and law.

SIAC

The SIAC model clause provides for Singapore as the seat of arbitration; another seat can be entered. The sentence in square brackets is optional and concerns court proceedings in Singapore. According to SIAC’s recommendation, the governing law belongs in a separate clause.

HKIAC

The HKIAC model clause also appears at the beginning of its rules. The lines on the law of the arbitration clause, on the number of arbitrators and the language, and on the arbitrators’ fees are optional. The line on the law only governs the arbitration clause, not the contract; HKIAC recommends it particularly where the law of the contract and the law of the seat differ. Without a choice of fee basis, the arbitrators charge by the hour (Article 10.1).

CIETAC

The CIETAC model clause appears at the beginning of its rules; a second version also names a CIETAC sub-commission or arbitration center. The clause names neither the place of arbitration nor the language. Add both: without an agreement, Chinese is the language of the arbitration and the domicile of the CIETAC or of its sub-commission is the place of arbitration, in each case unless the CIETAC determines otherwise (Articles 7(2) and 84(2)).

ICDR

The ICDR model clause consists of one sentence. In its rules, the ICDR recommends adding the number of arbitrators, the place of arbitration, and the language, and provides the three lines below. If a clause provides for an international arbitration by the American Arbitration Association without naming any rules, these rules apply as well (Article 1(1)).

Three additions I recommend

Three additions make the model clause better in practice.

No publication at the ICC. The ICC publishes awards made since 2019 in pseudonymized form unless a party objects.⁶ In every case involving trade secrets, the ICC’s addition therefore belongs in the clause.

No US-style discovery. No party should be able to search the other’s records, whichever institution administers the case. The ICDR, too, allows requests for the production of specific documents (Article 24(4)). The following sentence excludes such requests altogether, including your own: if the evidence lies with your contract partner, you cannot obtain its documents either. I describe how document production otherwise works in arbitration in the article “Evidence gathering in the USA for international arbitration”.

German documents without translation. If both parties are German-speaking and English is the language of the arbitration, agree that German documents may be submitted without translation. That saves translation costs.

The seat matters more than the institution

The seat of arbitration is not the place where the tribunal meets. It can meet at any place it considers appropriate, unless the parties agree otherwise (Section 1043(2) ZPO). The seat is a legal place. It determines which arbitration law applies (Section 1025(1) ZPO) and which state court can set the award aside (Section 1062(1) No. 4 ZPO). If the award has been set aside at the seat, any other contracting state of the New York Convention may refuse enforcement (Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention).

Choose the seat in a state with arbitration-friendly law and reliable courts, and enter it with city and country. You choose the institution and the seat separately; an ICC clause can, for example, name Frankfurt as the seat. With Swiss law, by contrast, I recommend the Swiss Rules with the seat of arbitration in Switzerland, so that the law and the procedure sit in the same place. I show how the seat affects the review of liability clauses in the article “Why your limitation of liability in B2B contracts fails”.

Frequently asked questions

Which arbitral institution suits a German company?

With German law and a seat in Germany, the DIS. With Swiss law, the Swiss Rules with the seat of arbitration in Switzerland, so that the law and the procedure sit in the same place. If the contract partner insists on an internationally known institution, the ICC is the obvious choice. With a contract partner in China, HKIAC with a seat in Hong Kong is a good choice, because the courts in mainland China will then also order interim measures while the arbitration is pending. If the contract partner insists on the CIETAC, agree on the seat and the language; otherwise the arbitration takes place in China and in Chinese. With a contract partner in the US, the ICDR is the obvious choice; you can still agree on a seat outside the US.

How many arbitrators should I agree on?

Set the number in the clause instead of leaving it to the institution. Without an agreement, three arbitrators decide under the DIS and CIETAC Rules (under the CIETAC Rules, one in the summary procedure), and in principle one under the ICC Rules, the Swiss Rules, and the LCIA, SIAC, and ICDR Rules. Under the ICC Rules, the Court may appoint a sole arbitrator in the expedited procedure even if the clause provides for three. A sole arbitrator is cheaper; three are worth it if the amount in dispute and the complexity justify them.

What is an emergency arbitrator?

An arbitrator whom the institution appoints for urgent interim measures before the actual tribunal is in place. The ICC, Swiss Rules, SCC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, and ICDR provide for one. The CIETAC provides for one only where the applicable law does or the parties agree; the DIS and VIAC do not. With a seat in Germany, interim relief from a state court remains available.

Does the expedited procedure apply automatically?

Under the ICC Rules, up to an amount in dispute of US$ 4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026; under the Swiss Rules, up to CHF 1 million; under the SIAC Rules, as the streamlined procedure up to S$ 1 million; under the CIETAC Rules, as the summary procedure up to RMB 5 million; under the ICDR Rules, if no claim exceeds US$ 500,000. Under the DIS, VIAC, and SCC Rules, it applies only if the parties agree; under the HKIAC Rules, on a party’s application if the institution grants it. The LCIA has no expedited procedure.

Notes

1. Menz/Marenkov, Dos and Don’ts bei der Gestaltung von Schiedsklauseln in internationalen Verträgen, webinar of Germany Trade & Invest, 9 June 2020, slides 58 and 61. ↩

2. Article 32 and Appendix V Article 2(1) of the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules. ↩

3. Appendix III Article 6(3) of the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules. ↩

4. Appendix V Article 1(2)(a) and (3) of the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules: US$ 2 million for arbitration agreements from 1 March 2017 to 31 December 2020, US$ 3 million from 1 January 2021 to 31 May 2026; for arbitration agreements concluded before 1 March 2017, the expedited procedure does not apply (Appendix V Article 1(4)(a)). ↩

5. DIS cost calculator, status March 2026, retrieved on 7 October 2026, two parties; court fees under Section 34(1) of the German Court Fees Act (Gerichtskostengesetz, GKG) with the fee rates 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 under Nos. 1210, 1220, and 1230 of the schedule of costs. ↩

6. ICC, Publication of ICC Arbitral Awards with Jus Mundi, retrieved on 7 October 2026: awards made from 1 January 2019 are published, personal data pseudonymized or anonymized, and any party can object at any time. ↩

Reference: Poleacov, P. (2026). Arbitration rules compared. INN.LAW. https://inn.law/en/perspectives/arbitration-rules-compared/

---