This Oxford Union-style debate will consider two motions. For each motion, one panellist will argue in favour and another against.

The first motion will be: ‘This house believes that leading arbitral institutions should establish a shared cross-institutional disciplinary mechanism for arbitrators.’ 

International arbitration’s ethical framework rests primarily on soft-law instruments — guidelines, codes of conduct and reputational sanction. However, influence is not enforcement, and a regime that depends on reputation invites the opacity it purports to cure. This motion puts to the vote whether leading institutions should go further and establish a shared mechanism with reciprocal recognition of disciplinary outcomes for serious breaches, such as undisclosed conflicts, discovery abuse or conduct undermining the integrity of proceedings, administered by an independent panel and binding across platforms.

The second motion will be: ‘This house believes that arbitral institutions should impose mandatory enforceable time limits for the rendering of final awards.’

Delay in the delivery of awards is one of the most persistent and widely documented failures in international arbitration. Soft targets (for example, the ICC’s six-month guideline) are routinely missed, and users consistently flag time-to-award as a top concern. This motion asks whether institutions should go beyond exhortation and impose binding deadlines with real consequences for non-compliance. Expect issues such as the impact on user confidence, the risk that rigid deadlines compromise deliberative quality and due process, party conduct in delay and institutional resource constraints to be discussed.