Velimir Živković, an Associate Professor at Warwick and newly appointed Arbitrator at the court of international commercial arbitration, opened the International Arbitration Session alongside co-moderators Matej Pustay (Arbitration Practitioner), and Michail Risvas (arbitration specialist), welcoming special guest Nobumichi Teramura, Associate Professor at Keio University.

Teramura presented his empirical research on an often-overlooked dimension of diversity in international arbitration: professional background. While progress has been made on gender, race and age, he argued that the field remains heavily dominated by full-time legal practitioners, raising concerns about the range of perspectives shaping the field.

The Missing Dimension of Diversity

Teramura’s central thesis is that “professional diversity”, the inclusion of academics and non-legal experts, has received little attention in arbitration discourse. His research, co-authored with Luke Nottage and James Tanner, systematically analysed leadership roles, institutional participation, and authorship of publications across the arbitration ecosystem.

The findings were stark. Across major arbitration bodies such as ICCA and the IBA, lawyers consistently dominate:

• ICCA board members: 84% lawyers
• IBA task forces: 95% lawyers
• Arbitration institution leadership: 76% lawyers
• Conference speakers and journal contributors: typically 70–80% lawyers

Non-legal professionals and full-time academics occupy only a marginal share. Teramura described this as an “entrenchment” of legal practitioners, with a corresponding decline in broader professional perspectives.

Why Professional Diversity Matters

The discussion explored why this imbalance matters. Teramura suggested that reliance on lawyers risks narrowing perspectives and reinforcing procedural formalism. He highlighted the influence of “billable hours culture”, arguing that it may incentivise inefficiencies and discourage early settlement in some cases.

In contrast, academics and non-legal professionals, less embedded in commercial billing structures, could bring different incentives and analytical approaches. More importantly, their inclusion could enhance “perspective diversity”, improving decision-making and broadening how disputes are understood.

Challenging the Premise

This framing prompted robust debate. Matej (co-moderator and practitioner) questioned whether academics would necessarily behave differently in practice, noting that financial incentives apply broadly across professions. He also emphasised the need to clarify where diversity is being sought: counsel roles, arbitrator appointments, or institutional leadership.

Teramura clarified that the primary focus is on arbitrator appointments and institutional participation, not representation of parties. He argued that arbitration was originally conceived as a flexible system where individuals with subject-matter expertise, not only lawyers, could act as arbitrators.

Practice Perspectives: Is There Really a Gap?

Several speakers challenged whether the problem is as pronounced in practice as the data suggests.

Knud Jacob Knudsen (Arbitrator) highlighted the Norwegian model, where tribunals often include a mix of a judge, a lawyer, and an academic. He also stressed the value of non-legal experts, such as engineers, in improving the effectiveness of tribunals in construction disputes.

Nina Jankovic (International Arbitration Counsel) noted that, in her experience across international arbitration, academics are already frequently appointed as arbitrators. She suggested the issue may vary by jurisdiction, institution, or type of arbitration, rather than reflecting a universal deficit.

Moderator Michail Risvas’ closing remarks added further nuance, emphasising that:

• Different types of arbitration (commercial vs investment) may exhibit different patterns
• Legal traditions (civil vs common law) influence arbitrator selection
• Not all academics bring the same level of practical experience

Expanding the Scope of Diversity

A key theme that emerged was the distinction between “legal academics” and truly “non-legal professionals”. While academics may already be reasonably represented in some contexts, participants broadly agreed that technical experts, engineers, accountants, and architects remain underutilised despite their potential value.

Teramura acknowledged this, reinforcing that the ideal model would include both legal and non-legal expertise, aligned with the subject matter of the dispute.

A Complex, Context-Dependent Picture

The session ultimately revealed that professional diversity in arbitration is not a uniform problem but a complex, context-dependent issue. Empirical data suggests a strong dominance of lawyers in formal structures and discourse, yet practical experience indicates more variation in arbitrator appointments.

What remains clear is that the conversation itself is underdeveloped. Whether or not the imbalance is as severe as suggested, there is broad agreement that professional diversity in its fullest sense deserves greater attention.

Core Discussion Points

• Professional diversity is an overlooked dimension of arbitration diversity debates
• Empirical data show strong dominance of lawyers across institutions and publications
• The value of non-legal expertise is widely recognised, particularly in technical disputes
• Real-world practice may be more diverse than formal data suggests
• The issue varies significantly by jurisdiction, institution and type of arbitration
• Further research and discussion are needed to fully understand the landscape