International arbitration has entered a fully digital phase. What began as contingency tools, including e-filings, online hearings and electronic awards, has become baseline infrastructure. In 2025 the practical question is not whether to use digital processes, but how to design them so that due process, confidentiality and enforceability travel across borders. The latest data point in the same direction: volumes are rising, dockets are increasingly international, and users expect technology to enhance quality as much as speed. The 2025 International Arbitration Survey by Queen Mary University of London and White & Case underscores this shift, both in user preferences and in attitudes to responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) by tribunals and counsel.1
Institutional statistics reinforce the need for robust digital rails. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Dispute Resolution Statistics 2024, released in 2025, recorded 831 new arbitration cases under the ICC Rules, 841 total referrals, 1789 cases pending at year end and a record US$354 billion total value of cases pending. The Secretariat approved 577 draft awards in eleven languages and the average amount in dispute in new cases was US$130 million. These figures demand reliable identity controls, defensible chains of custody for electronic evidence and clear protocols for issuing and dispatching e-awards that will withstand recognition and enforcement.
The picture is similar in London. The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Annual Casework Report 2024 notes 362 referrals, 318 of them arbitrations under the LCIA Rules, with 95 per cent of the caseload international and parties from 101 jurisdictions. This breadth reminds us that electronic procedure must be legible across legal cultures; a digitally sound record, together with sensible rules for remote evidence and secure communications, reduces friction when an award meets document-formalist court systems.
Against this backdrop, e-awards are no novelty. Properly built, they are legally significant artefacts: Final texts fixed with qualified timestamps, executed with recognised electronic signatures, stored for integrity and dispatched through agreed and auditable channels that confirm receipt. What courts require, consistent with the New York Convention‘s functional approach to “agreement in writing” and “duly authenticated” documents, is proof of identity, integrity and accessibility rather than a preference for paper. Recent survey commentary supports the view that enforceability concerns relate more to predictable procedure and clear seat of arbitration rules than to the digital medium itself.2
Designing a defensible digital chain of custody starts on day one. Parties and tribunals should agree early on standard file formats, hash verification for large datasets and methods for collecting and presenting messages, server logs and platform exports to enable authenticity checks. The same logic applies to online hearings: Pre-hearing connectivity tests, neutral technical moderation, secure breakout rooms for attorney, client consultations, clear witness-identification steps and a short protocol for handling disruptions. When tribunals record these safeguards contemporaneously and note material incidents in the procedural history, due process challenges lose oxygen. These practices reflect the direction of institutional case management and user expectations in 2025.3
Volume and multilingualism also reframe quality control. The ICC Secretariat’s 577 draft awards in 2024 illustrate how standardised digital templates and citation-consistency tools can make reasons cleaner, with stable cross-references, synchronised defined terms and quick checks for internal contradictions. This is not about machines writing reasons; it is about technology supporting clarity and enforceability.4
Fresh 2025 developments also align with this trajectory. The Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, 2025 (SIAC Rules, 2025) entered into force on 1-1-2025, alongside a revised schedule of fees and the “SIAC Gateway”, signalling rule-level support for digital case management. Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) reported 625 new cases in 2024, 91 per cent international, with parties from 72 jurisdictions. In Hong Kong, Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) recorded a record caseload in 2024 with 503 new matters and 352 arbitrations, and reported 40 interim-measures applications to Mainland Chinese Courts, up from 19 in 2023, highlighting the growing use of this cross-border enforcement tool. The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) registered 204 new cases in 2024, with 51 per cent international.
Enforcement remains the real-world test of Arbitration 4.0. The 2025 survey highlights steady voluntary compliance and continued caution around enforcing awards annulled at the seat, which shows that digital polish cannot cure foundational defects. Two practical lessons follow. Tribunals should document the digital steps that go directly to due process, including notice, the opportunity to be heard and equality of arms, in ways that national courts can readily parse. Institutions can reduce evidentiary disputes by supplying certified electronic originals and, where jurisdictionally useful, coordinated hard copy companions that mirror the e-award’s content and metadata. Taken together, this two-track architecture is not a retreat from digitalisation; it is a pragmatic adapter for uneven statutory landscapes.5
Seats and rulebooks matter more than ever. Users favour tech-ready jurisdictions and trusted administrative frameworks. For drafters in data-heavy sectors, this means specifying a seat with modern e-signature and e-evidence regimes, choosing rules that accommodate digital service and filings and spelling out how notices, signature methods and the form of the final award will operate. Low-cost choices at contracting save months at recognition. The 2025 survey and institutional reports point in the same direction.6
Arbitration’s digital turn is not a break with tradition; it is a translation of tradition into logs, hashes and timestamps. The figures for 2024 and 2025, including the ICC’s US$354 billion pending value, hundreds of awards scrutinised across eleven languages, the LCIA’s 95 per cent international caseload from 101 jurisdictions and a survey base of 2402 voices, tell a consistent story. Scale and diversity are rising, and so is the premium on processes that are transparent, auditable and portable. Tribunals that build those qualities into e-awards from the first procedural order will find that enforcement follows as a consequence of good digital housekeeping.7
*CEO Business Soft and ICLOUD (IT Woman) MCIArb, International Arbitrator, Central Asian Association for AI Resident, IT Park Uzbekistan Resident, LCIA, ABA, IBA, ArbitralWomen. Author can be reached at: begaimkaibyldaeva@gmail.com.
1. Queen Mary University of London and White & Case, 2025 International Arbitration Survey (Overview, Methodology and Results: 2402 questionnaire responses; 117 interviews; 87% preference for international arbitration; attitudes to AI and procedure).
2. Queen Mary University of London and White & Case, 2025 International Arbitration Survey (Overview, Methodology and Results: 2402 questionnaire responses; 117 interviews; 87% preference for international arbitration; attitudes to AI and procedure).
3. Queen Mary University of London and White & Case, 2025 International Arbitration Survey (Overview, Methodology and Results: 2402 questionnaire responses; 117 interviews; 87% preference for international arbitration; attitudes to AI and procedure).
4. Queen Mary University of London and White & Case, 2025 International Arbitration Survey (Overview, Methodology and Results: 2402 questionnaire responses; 117 interviews; 87% preference for international arbitration; attitudes to AI and procedure).
5. Queen Mary University of London and White & Case, 2025 International Arbitration Survey (Overview, Methodology and Results: 2402 questionnaire responses; 117 interviews; 87% preference for international arbitration; attitudes to AI and procedure).
6. Queen Mary University of London and White & Case, 2025 International Arbitration Survey (Overview, Methodology and Results: 2402 questionnaire responses; 117 interviews; 87% preference for international arbitration; attitudes to AI and procedure). International Chamber of Commerce, ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics 2024 (published 2025): 831 new ICC Rules cases; 841 total referrals; 1789 cases pending at year end; total value pending US$354 billion; 577 draft awards in eleven languages; average amount in dispute in new cases US$130 million. London Court of International Arbitration, LCIA Annual Casework Report 2024: 362 referrals; 318 arbitrations under the LCIA Rules; 95% international caseload; parties from 101 jurisdictions.
7. International Chamber of Commerce, ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics 2024 (published 2025): 831 new ICC Rules cases; 841 total referrals; 1789 cases pending at year end; total value pending US$354 billion; 577 draft awards in eleven languages; average amount in dispute in new cases US$130 million. London Court of International Arbitration, LCIA Annual Casework Report 2024: 362 referrals; 318 arbitrations under the LCIA Rules; 95% international caseload; parties from 101 jurisdictions. Queen Mary University of London and White & Case, 2025 International Arbitration Survey (Overview, Methodology and Results: 2402 questionnaire responses; 117 interviews; 87% preference for international arbitration; attitudes to AI and procedure).