{"id":398134,"date":"2026-10-08T10:00:02","date_gmt":"2026-10-08T04:30:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=398134"},"modified":"2026-10-08T09:51:29","modified_gmt":"2026-10-08T04:21:29","slug":"queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"What two decades of Queen Mary surveys reveal about arbitration’s rise: Prof. Loukas Mistelis on AI and Asia at CADRA International Arbitration Summer School 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Central Asia Dispute Resolution Association (CADRA) continued its online International Arbitration Summer School 2026 with Session 2, titled “Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey: Global Trends, User Expectations & Path Forward<\/span>”<\/span>, held online on 11 August 2026. The Summer School brought together participants from different jurisdictions for a programme on international arbitration and dispute resolution, with sessions led by academics and practitioners from the international arbitration community.<\/p>\n

The session was delivered by Professor Loukas Mistelis FCIArb<\/span>, Clive M. Schmitthoff Professor of Transnational Commercial Law and Arbitration at Queen Mary University of London and International Arbitration Partner at Steptoe LLP. It was moderated by Chyngyz Sadykov<\/span>, with Bokhodir Dadaev<\/span>, President, CADRA and Usen Tastanbekov<\/span>, Program Advisor at CADRA, also participating in the discussion and audience questions.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

[In Picture: Professor Loukas Mistelis]<\/p>\n

Introducing the discussion, Professor Mistelis noted that he had been associated with Queen Mary for almost three decades and recalled receiving a personal chair in arbitration law in 2005. He explained that the session would trace the evolution of the Queen Mary surveys, including the 2006, 2013, 2015 and 2025 surveys, before drawing out broader trends affecting the future of international arbitration.<\/p>\n

On 20 years of Queen Mary International Arbitration Surveys<\/p>\n

Professor Mistelis began by explaining that the Queen Mary surveys emerged from a desire to understand arbitration not simply from the perspective of lawyers and arbitrators, but from that of businesses and in-house counsel using the process. He traced the idea to discussions with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in 2004, when there was comparatively little empirical research into what businesses actually thought about international arbitration.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Over time, the surveys expanded beyond corporate counsel to include arbitrators, experts and practitioners. Some surveys concentrated on particular sectors, including technology, media and telecommunications, construction and energy, while others examined broader themes such as enforcement, choices in arbitration, innovation, adaptation and investor-State arbitration.<\/p>\n

This evolution, he explained, provided a basis for examining the “sociology of arbitration<\/span>”, including the identity of its stakeholders and the manner in which those stakeholders shape the arbitral process. His own view was that arbitration should not necessarily be regarded as one uniform system because every arbitration is unique and the authority of each tribunal exists for the life of the particular dispute.<\/p>\n

Cost, institutional arbitration and what users actually want<\/p>\n

Turning to the earlier survey findings, Professor Mistelis said that corporations generally preferred arbitration, although support was initially less overwhelming than might have been expected. In the 2006 survey, 29 per cent of respondents preferred arbitration alone, while 44 per cent favoured arbitration in combination with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms. Taken together, 73 per cent therefore preferred arbitration either on its own or together with ADR.<\/p>\n

Cost emerged as a persistent concern. Around half of respondents identified the cost of arbitration as a significant deterrent, with the concern particularly pronounced among users from developing economies and those with limited experience of cross-border disputes.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the surveys showed a clear preference for institutional over ad hoc arbitration. Professor Mistelis connected this development with the substantial growth in institutional caseloads over the past two decades, observing that institutions can provide parties with greater predictability of costs and mechanisms for administering proceedings where a party does not participate.<\/p>\n

Discussing how businesses choose external counsel, he said that past experience with a particular firm or lawyer in a similar matter was particularly important. Personal knowledge and recommendations also mattered, while rankings were not necessarily decisive. Technical knowledge of the relevant sector remained important, but expertise in the arbitration process itself had become increasingly significant.<\/p>\n

Is arbitration really faster and cheaper than litigation?<\/p>\n

During the discussion, a participant challenged the familiar proposition that arbitration saves time and costs when complex proceedings can themselves continue for years and generate substantial legal expenses.<\/p>\n

Professor Mistelis accepted that academia can sometimes present an “idealised version of arbitration<\/span>”, but cautioned against attempting a simple like-for-like comparison between arbitration and litigation. He compared the distinction to public and private healthcare, and later to choosing between public transport and a privately selected car. Arbitration permits parties to design the process, select decision-makers and build an adjudicatory framework for the particular dispute, but that degree of choice naturally carries a cost.<\/p>\n

“Arbitration is more expensive because you have to build up the infrastructure for that particular case<\/span>.”<\/p>\n

However, he said the comparison changes when arbitration is measured against complex litigation passing through several levels of appeal and followed by enforcement proceedings. Enforcement of judgments can also be more onerous than enforcement of arbitral awards. On duration, his view was that arbitration remained quicker than most national judicial systems.<\/p>\n

He stressed that neutrality was another central advantage. In a cross-border dispute, a foreign party may reasonably prefer a neutral tribunal rather than litigating against an important local company before that company’s domestic courts. Accordingly, while empirical research had challenged assumptions about the cost of arbitration, it had not necessarily displaced arbitration’s advantages in speed and neutrality.<\/p>\n

Due process paranoia and the responsibility for arbitral efficiency<\/p>\n

Professor Mistelis explained that the problem arises where tribunals become reluctant to take firm procedural decisions because they fear that doing so could later be characterised as depriving a party of a sufficient opportunity to present its case. He recalled situations in which requests for extensions were repeatedly granted because tribunals did not want to appear to have denied a party an adequate opportunity to participate.<\/p>\n

The 2015 survey reflected this concern. Respondents identified cost, the absence of effective sanctions during proceedings and uncertainty about arbitrator efficiency among arbitration’s principal weaknesses. Parties wanted tribunals to sanction dilatory conduct and to exercise greater control over procedural inefficiency.<\/p>\n

When asked whether due process paranoia was more serious in investment arbitration because of annulment risks and reputational pressures, Professor Mistelis was careful not to go beyond the available evidence. He said he had no empirical basis for concluding that the problem was necessarily greater in investment arbitration, although the greater transparency of many investor-State proceedings could affect the dynamics involved.<\/p>\n

He also resisted placing responsibility for inefficiency solely on tribunals. Counsel may contribute through over-lawyering, extensive document production or a failure to narrow issues with opposing counsel. The broader problem, he suggested, required responsibility on both sides of the arbitral process.<\/p>\n

Regulation, institutions and the gradual erosion of party autonomy<\/p>\n

Professor Mistelis then addressed the increasing regulation of arbitration. While only 17 per cent of respondents to the 2015 survey considered arbitration over-regulated, he raised a broader academic concern about what he described as a gradual erosion of party autonomy.<\/p>\n

Earlier institutional rules frequently operated on the basis that parties remained free to agree on procedure, with institutional provisions supplying a default only where no agreement existed. More recent regulation, he observed, increasingly tells parties and tribunals what they must do.<\/p>\n

At the same time, survey respondents themselves supported greater regulation in several areas, particularly in relation to tribunal secretaries and third-party funding, and often looked to arbitral institutions to take the lead. Institutions had responded by developing more detailed rules and guidelines governing the conduct of proceedings.<\/p>\n

The 2025 Survey and the Asian response<\/p>\n

Professor Mistelis devoted particular attention to the 2025 International Arbitration Survey, which he described as the “Asian response<\/span>” because, for the first time, just over half of the responses came from Asia. The survey attracted around 2,400 respondents and was supplemented by 117 interviews, making it the most comprehensive Queen Mary survey conducted to date.<\/p>\n

He considered the geographical distribution consistent with Asia’s growing economic importance and the movement of the global centre of gravity towards the region. The survey nevertheless contained participation from a broad group of arbitration stakeholders, including arbitrators, practitioners, in-house lawyers, academics and institutions.<\/p>\n

The principal finding remained strongly favourable to arbitration. Thirty-nine per cent chose arbitration as a standalone dispute-resolution mechanism and 48 per cent preferred arbitration in combination with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, producing an aggregate figure of 87 per cent.<\/p>\n

“Generally speaking, we can claim now that for cross-border disputes, arbitration is the key jurisdiction, not the national court.<\/span>”<\/p>\n

This represented an increase from the 73 per cent preference identified in 2006 to 87 per cent in 2025.<\/p>\n

London remains strong, but Asian seats and institutions are reshaping the map<\/p>\n

The geographical findings also demonstrated significant changes in the preferred seats of arbitration. London remained the leading global seat, followed by Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing and Paris. London and Singapore appeared among the top five choices across all six surveyed regions.<\/p>\n

Regional preferences, however, were increasingly visible. In the Asia-Pacific results, Hong Kong ranked first, followed by Singapore, Beijing, London and Shenzhen. Professor Mistelis considered it particularly noteworthy that Beijing and Shenzhen ranked highly among Asian respondents while remaining far less prominent among users outside Asia.<\/p>\n

Institutional preferences reflected a similar pattern. The International Chamber of Commerce (<\/span>ICC) remained the leading global institution, while Hong Kong and Singapore performed strongly and Chinese institutions featured prominently in Asia-Pacific responses. He described this as evidence of Asia developing its own arbitration culture through local institutions, with Singapore and Hong Kong functioning as important neutral venues.<\/p>\n

Professor Mistelis nevertheless cautioned against treating institutional development as merely a competition for caseload. In his view, the more important questions were the depth, maturity, reliability and quality of arbitral institutions.<\/p>\n

“If one institution does badly, that affects arbitration badly. So, it’s not a numbers game, but it’s perhaps a depth and maturity element of the institution.<\/span>”<\/p>\n

Confidentiality and transparency are not necessarily contradictory<\/p>\n

A participant drew attention to an apparent tension between the 2015 survey, in which users demanded greater institutional transparency and the 2025 findings, in which 90 per cent of respondents favoured confidentiality.<\/p>\n

Professor Mistelis distinguished confidentiality of individual proceedings from transparency about how arbitration operates. Confidentiality concerns the private process between the parties, whereas transparency can involve access to information about institutional practices, appointments, procedures and anonymised or redacted awards.<\/p>\n

He identified information asymmetry as an important concern because repeat users, including large companies and experienced law firms, naturally possess greater familiarity with arbitration than first-time users. Greater access to information could therefore help reduce the imbalance between experienced and less experienced participants.<\/p>\n

“Yes, confidentiality is key. But public information, access to public information is a new matter.<\/span>”<\/p>\n

He was also critical of useful arbitration information being placed behind expensive paywalls, suggesting that transparency should not simply become the commercialisation of data because doing so could deepen the asymmetry between experienced and inexperienced users.<\/p>\n

Artificial intelligence in arbitration and AI-assisted awards<\/p>\n

AI emerged as another major theme of the 2025 survey. Professor Mistelis noted that arbitral institutions were already using technology for case management, automated correspondence, online hearings, machine translation and transcription. Respondents overwhelmingly expected AI to play some role in future arbitration.<\/p>\n

At the same time, users drew an important distinction between administrative assistance and adjudicative decision-making. Seventy-seven per cent of respondents opposed arbitrators using AI to draft the reasoning portions of awards or decisions. Professor Mistelis said AI could appropriately assist with technical or administrative work, such as preparing chronologies, procedural histories or factual summaries, but should not substitute for the exercise of judgment and discretion.<\/p>\n

When asked whether an arbitral award drafted with AI assistance could breach an arbitrator’s obligations or become vulnerable to challenge, he emphasised disclosure and consent. A tribunal intending to use AI should tell the parties what it proposes to do and obtain their approval.<\/p>\n

He further stressed that arbitration’s confidentiality requirements make the choice of technology important. Closed systems may be suitable, whereas open systems can create risks where confidential documents leave the private sphere or where cybersecurity and control of data are uncertain.<\/p>\n

Later, when asked specifically about the future regulation of AI-assisted awards, Professor Mistelis predicted that such awards would arrive sooner than we think, although AI was more likely initially to assist with procedural history or factual background than with actual decision-making.<\/p>\n

Rather than attempting to regulate rapidly changing technology itself, he suggested regulating arbitrator behaviour. An institutional rule could require any tribunal proposing to use AI to disclose that fact and obtain the parties’ consent.<\/p>\n

“What we need to do with AI-assisted awards is regulate arbitrators’ behaviour.<\/span>”<\/p>\n

He considered arbitral institutions better placed to take the lead and favoured technology-neutral rules focused on arbitrator conduct. If an arbitrator relied on AI and produced an award containing errors or hallucinations, responsibility should remain with the arbitrator rather than being displaced onto the technology.<\/p>\n

What young practitioners should learn from the surveys?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

[In Picture: Usen Tastanbekov]<\/p>\n

Usen Tastanbekov<\/span> combined questions about what young practitioners should expect from future Queen Mary surveys and whether technical expertise is necessary for specialised disputes such as construction arbitration.<\/p>\n

Professor Mistelis said the themes of the 2027 survey had not yet been settled, although he expected questions surrounding unequal resources and the growing democratisation of arbitration to merit attention. As more parties encounter arbitration for the first time, questions arise about how tribunals should address significant disparities in experience and representation.<\/p>\n

On career development, he cautioned younger practitioners against seeking arbitration appointments before developing strong dispute-resolution or subject-matter skills. Drawing on his own practice across construction, engineering, financial services, mining, investment and other areas, he explained that knowledge of arbitral procedure can be complemented by industry expertise.<\/p>\n

Technical backgrounds could provide an important entry point. Construction specialists could bring sector knowledge to construction disputes, while financial expertise could be particularly valuable when dealing with damages and financial disputes.<\/p>\n

His advice to young practitioners was clear:<\/p>\n

“When you are at the start of your career, do not narrow your path too quickly, do not close any doors, keep a couple of doors open.<\/span>”<\/p>\n

Why Asia has emerged as a major arbitration region?<\/p>\n

Bokhodir Dadaev<\/span> asked what had enabled Asian seats to become increasingly prominent in global arbitration.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

[In Picture: Bokhodir Dadaev]<\/p>\n

Professor Mistelis pointed to several factors, including established arbitration cultures in parts of Asia, institutional independence, efficiency and the increasing economic significance of the region. Singapore and Hong Kong had particularly benefited from their position as neutral service-oriented jurisdictions.<\/p>\n

He expected further institutional development across Central Asia, the Middle East and other parts of Asia, although he cautioned that mature arbitration markets take time to develop. Rather than seeking immediate numerical dominance, institutions should focus on reliability, maturity and incremental development.<\/p>\n

In his broader conclusions, Professor Mistelis connected these institutional developments with changes in global investment patterns. Japan, Korea, China and India were playing increasingly important roles in investment across Africa, Latin America and Central and South Asia, contributing to Asia’s expanding importance as both a source of investment and a forum for disputes.<\/p>\n

He encapsulated that shift in a striking conclusion:<\/p>\n

“Asia is becoming a superpower of disputes.<\/span>”<\/p>\n

Flexibility must be used to design arbitration around the dispute<\/p>\n

Towards the close of the session, another participant asked whether arbitration’s perceived flexibility affected the duration of proceedings.<\/p>\n

Professor Mistelis answered yes and no. Arbitration rules are generally far less extensive than national codes of civil procedure, giving tribunals and parties substantial freedom to shape proceedings. Yet institutional procedures may sometimes be designed around a typical range of disputes and become unnecessarily elaborate when applied mechanically to smaller cases. The growth of expedited and super-expedited procedures was partly a response to this problem.<\/p>\n

The real advantage of arbitration, he said, lies in adaptability. Rather than simply reusing a procedural order from previous cases, he described asking parties at the outset what they actually require, including whether they need a hearing, how long it should be and whether expert evidence will be necessary and then designing the procedure accordingly.<\/p>\n

“….an arbitration is adaptable, is the very nature of arbitration to be flexible.<\/span>”<\/p>\n

The path forward for international arbitration<\/p>\n

Drawing together more than two decades of survey findings, Professor Mistelis identified several enduring themes. Arbitration remains the preferred mechanism for resolving cross-border disputes, with the preference rising from 73 per cent in 2006 to 87 per cent in 2025. Efficiency and cost remain recurring concerns, although responsibility for inefficiency is shared among counsel, tribunals and parties. Confidentiality continues to be highly valued even as users demand greater access to institutional information.<\/p>\n

Technology will continue to transform arbitration, but Professor Mistelis emphasised that arbitration has never been inherently resistant to technological change. He noted that video conferencing had been used in arbitral proceedings for decades. At the same time, London, English law and common law remain influential, particularly across insurance, shipping and financial services. For aspiring international arbitration practitioners, he considered an understanding of common law and the ability to draft effectively in English particularly valuable.<\/p>\n

Closing Remarks<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

[In Picture: Chyngyz Sadykov]<\/p>\n

Closing the session, Chyngyz Sadykov<\/span> thanked Professor Mistelis for his insights into global arbitration and the Queen Mary surveys. Bokhodir Dadaev noted that participants had joined from Central Asia and several other regions, including Africa, North America, Latin America and Australia and said the discussion had provided participants with a broader understanding of user expectations, preferences and the development of international commercial arbitration.<\/p>\n

The session ultimately demonstrated that the central questions identified by the Queen Mary surveys have not disappeared. Cost, efficiency, neutrality, confidentiality, institutional quality and procedural fairness remain fundamental concerns. What has changed is the geographic landscape of arbitration and the role of technology in arbitral proceedings. Asia now occupies an increasingly central position, while AI is beginning to reshape how arbitral proceedings are administered. The challenge for arbitration is therefore not simply to remain the preferred mechanism for cross-border disputes, but to preserve its flexibility, legitimacy and party autonomy while adapting to a rapidly changing global dispute-resolution landscape.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At Session 2 of the CADRA International Arbitration Summer School 2026, Professor Loukas Mistelis traced two decades of Queen Mary International Arbitration Surveys, examining the continuing preference for arbitration, cost and efficiency concerns, institutional arbitration, preferred seats, due process paranoia, confidentiality, artificial intelligence and the growing importance of Asia in global dispute resolution.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67537,"featured_media":398144,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112930,97664,107243],"tags":[61364,26333,89543,116482,29543,105965,113734,108889,29578,116481,108888,82897,42854,105948,72191,116483,108890,116484,105857,82903,84778,116479,77325,113665,116485,113878,109274,113474,113727,113736,108857,113728,113731,116478,32843,94311,105822,79744,108882,44329,30032,113737,29576,73938,46971,108881,116476,52209,116480,116477,108854,116475,106788,108846,109690,113733],"class_list":["post-398134","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-cadra-international-arbitration-summer-school","category-events-collaborations","category-international","tag-ad-hoc-arbitration","tag-adr","tag-ai-in-arbitration","tag-ai-assisted-awards","tag-alternative-dispute-resolution","tag-arbitral-procedure","tag-arbitration-career","tag-arbitration-confidentiality","tag-arbitration-costs","tag-arbitration-culture","tag-arbitration-efficiency","tag-arbitration-institutions","tag-arbitration-law","tag-arbitration-practice","tag-arbitration-practitioners","tag-arbitration-regulation","tag-arbitration-seats","tag-arbitration-surveys","tag-arbitration-technology","tag-arbitration-transparency","tag-arbitration-trends","tag-arbitration-user-expectations","tag-artificial-intelligence-in-arbitration","tag-asia-arbitration","tag-asia-dispute-resolution","tag-asian-arbitration","tag-bokhodir-dadaev","tag-cadra","tag-cadra-international-arbitration-summer-school-2026","tag-central-asia-adr","tag-central-asia-arbitration","tag-central-asia-dispute-resolution-association","tag-central-asian-arbitration","tag-chyngyz-sadykov","tag-commercial-arbitration","tag-cross-border-dispute-resolution","tag-due-process-paranoia","tag-global-arbitration-trends","tag-hong-kong-arbitration","tag-institutional-arbitration","tag-international-arbitration","tag-international-arbitration-community","tag-international-commercial-arbitration","tag-international-dispute-resolution","tag-investment-arbitration","tag-london-arbitration","tag-loukas-mistelis","tag-party-autonomy","tag-preferred-seats-of-arbitration","tag-professor-loukas-mistelis","tag-queen-mary-international-arbitration-survey","tag-queen-mary-international-arbitration-surveys","tag-queen-mary-university-of-london","tag-singapore-arbitration","tag-usen-tastanbekov","tag-young-arbitration-lawyers"],"yoast_head":"\nQueen Mary arbitration surveys, AI and Asia at CADRA 2026 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Prof. Loukas Mistelis explores two decades of Queen Mary arbitration surveys, AI, costs, efficiency, confidentiality and Asia's growing role at CADRA 2026.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"What two decades of Queen Mary surveys reveal about arbitration's rise: Prof. Loukas Mistelis on AI and Asia at CADRA International Arbitration Summer School 2026\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Prof. Loukas Mistelis explores two decades of Queen Mary arbitration surveys, AI, costs, efficiency, confidentiality and Asia's growing role at CADRA 2026.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-10-08T04:30:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Queen-Mary-arbitration-surveys.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Soumya Yadav\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"What two decades of Queen Mary surveys reveal about arbitration's rise: Prof. Loukas Mistelis on AI and Asia at CADRA International Arbitration Summer School 2026\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Soumya Yadav\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/08\\\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/08\\\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Soumya Yadav\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7\"},\"headline\":\"What two decades of Queen Mary surveys reveal about arbitration’s rise: Prof. Loukas Mistelis on AI and Asia at CADRA International Arbitration Summer School 2026\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-08T04:30:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/08\\\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2934,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/08\\\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/Queen-Mary-arbitration-surveys.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Ad hoc arbitration\",\"ADR\",\"AI in Arbitration\",\"AI-Assisted Awards\",\"Alternative Dispute Resolution\",\"Arbitral Procedure\",\"Arbitration Career\",\"Arbitration Confidentiality\",\"arbitration costs\",\"Arbitration Culture\",\"Arbitration Efficiency\",\"Arbitration Institutions\",\"Arbitration Law\",\"Arbitration Practice\",\"arbitration practitioners\",\"Arbitration Regulation\",\"Arbitration Seats\",\"Arbitration Surveys\",\"Arbitration Technology\",\"Arbitration Transparency\",\"arbitration trends\",\"Arbitration User Expectations\",\"Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration\",\"Asia arbitration\",\"Asia Dispute Resolution\",\"Asian Arbitration\",\"Bokhodir Dadaev\",\"CADRA\",\"CADRA International Arbitration Summer School 2026\",\"Central Asia ADR\",\"Central Asia arbitration\",\"Central Asia Dispute Resolution Association\",\"Central Asian Arbitration\",\"Chyngyz Sadykov\",\"Commercial arbitration\",\"Cross-Border Dispute Resolution\",\"Due Process Paranoia\",\"global arbitration trends\",\"Hong Kong Arbitration\",\"Institutional Arbitration\",\"International arbitration\",\"International Arbitration Community\",\"international commercial arbitration\",\"international dispute resolution\",\"Investment Arbitration\",\"London Arbitration\",\"Loukas Mistelis\",\"Party Autonomy\",\"Preferred Seats Of Arbitration\",\"Professor Loukas Mistelis\",\"Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey\",\"Queen Mary International Arbitration Surveys\",\"Queen Mary University of London\",\"Singapore arbitration\",\"Usen Tastanbekov\",\"Young Arbitration Lawyers\"],\"articleSection\":[\"CADRA International Arbitration Summer School\",\"Events & Collaborations\",\"International\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/08\\\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/08\\\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/08\\\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\\\/\",\"name\":\"Queen Mary arbitration surveys, AI and Asia at CADRA 2026 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/08\\\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/08\\\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/Queen-Mary-arbitration-surveys.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-08T04:30:02+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7\"},\"description\":\"Prof. Loukas Mistelis explores two decades of Queen Mary arbitration surveys, AI, costs, efficiency, confidentiality and Asia's growing role at CADRA 2026.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/08\\\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/08\\\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/08\\\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/Queen-Mary-arbitration-surveys.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/Queen-Mary-arbitration-surveys.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"What two decades of Queen Mary surveys reveal about arbitration's rise: Prof. Loukas Mistelis on AI and Asia at CADRA International Arbitration Summer School 2026\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/08\\\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"What two decades of Queen Mary surveys reveal about arbitration’s rise: Prof. Loukas Mistelis on AI and Asia at CADRA International Arbitration Summer School 2026\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7\",\"name\":\"Soumya Yadav\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Soumya Yadav\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/soumya\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Queen Mary arbitration surveys, AI and Asia at CADRA 2026 | SCC Times","description":"Prof. Loukas Mistelis explores two decades of Queen Mary arbitration surveys, AI, costs, efficiency, confidentiality and Asia's growing role at CADRA 2026.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"What two decades of Queen Mary surveys reveal about arbitration's rise: Prof. Loukas Mistelis on AI and Asia at CADRA International Arbitration Summer School 2026","og_description":"Prof. Loukas Mistelis explores two decades of Queen Mary arbitration surveys, AI, costs, efficiency, confidentiality and Asia's growing role at CADRA 2026.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-10-08T04:30:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Queen-Mary-arbitration-surveys.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Soumya Yadav","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"What two decades of Queen Mary surveys reveal about arbitration's rise: Prof. Loukas Mistelis on AI and Asia at CADRA International Arbitration Summer School 2026","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Soumya Yadav","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/"},"author":{"name":"Soumya Yadav","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7"},"headline":"What two decades of Queen Mary surveys reveal about arbitration’s rise: Prof. Loukas Mistelis on AI and Asia at CADRA International Arbitration Summer School 2026","datePublished":"2026-10-08T04:30:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/"},"wordCount":2934,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Queen-Mary-arbitration-surveys.webp","keywords":["Ad hoc arbitration","ADR","AI in Arbitration","AI-Assisted Awards","Alternative Dispute Resolution","Arbitral Procedure","Arbitration Career","Arbitration Confidentiality","arbitration costs","Arbitration Culture","Arbitration Efficiency","Arbitration Institutions","Arbitration Law","Arbitration Practice","arbitration practitioners","Arbitration Regulation","Arbitration Seats","Arbitration Surveys","Arbitration Technology","Arbitration Transparency","arbitration trends","Arbitration User Expectations","Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration","Asia arbitration","Asia Dispute Resolution","Asian Arbitration","Bokhodir Dadaev","CADRA","CADRA International Arbitration Summer School 2026","Central Asia ADR","Central Asia arbitration","Central Asia Dispute Resolution Association","Central Asian Arbitration","Chyngyz Sadykov","Commercial arbitration","Cross-Border Dispute Resolution","Due Process Paranoia","global arbitration trends","Hong Kong Arbitration","Institutional Arbitration","International arbitration","International Arbitration Community","international commercial arbitration","international dispute resolution","Investment Arbitration","London Arbitration","Loukas Mistelis","Party Autonomy","Preferred Seats Of Arbitration","Professor Loukas Mistelis","Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey","Queen Mary International Arbitration Surveys","Queen Mary University of London","Singapore arbitration","Usen Tastanbekov","Young Arbitration Lawyers"],"articleSection":["CADRA International Arbitration Summer School","Events & Collaborations","International"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/","name":"Queen Mary arbitration surveys, AI and Asia at CADRA 2026 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Queen-Mary-arbitration-surveys.webp","datePublished":"2026-10-08T04:30:02+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7"},"description":"Prof. Loukas Mistelis explores two decades of Queen Mary arbitration surveys, AI, costs, efficiency, confidentiality and Asia's growing role at CADRA 2026.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Queen-Mary-arbitration-surveys.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Queen-Mary-arbitration-surveys.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"What two decades of Queen Mary surveys reveal about arbitration's rise: Prof. Loukas Mistelis on AI and Asia at CADRA International Arbitration Summer School 2026"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/08\/queen-mary-arbitration-surveys-ai-asia-cadra-2026\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"What two decades of Queen Mary surveys reveal about arbitration’s rise: Prof. Loukas Mistelis on AI and Asia at CADRA International Arbitration Summer School 2026"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7","name":"Soumya Yadav","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Soumya Yadav"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/soumya\/"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Queen-Mary-arbitration-surveys.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/398134","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67537"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=398134"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/398134\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":398143,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/398134\/revisions\/398143"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/398144"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=398134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=398134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=398134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}