Introduction

 

When former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was asked in 2015 why he appointed a Cabinet comprising 50% women, his response was strikingly simple: “Because it’s 2015.” This quip may have amused the press, but it underscored a powerful principle now resonating in the legal world: that equality in representation is not a novelty or concession, but an overdue necessity.

 

In recent years, international arbitral institutions and commentators have echoed this sentiment, emphasising that true diversity is essential to the legitimacy of arbitration. Despite the growing calls for inclusivity from bodies like the International Chamber of Commerce and the United Nations, women remain significantly under-represented in appointments to arbitral tribunals. Against this backdrop, there is a global recognition that it is time to move beyond good intentions and adopt enforceable measures to ensure gender-inclusive selection.

 

This article therefore posits that, just as Trudeau made gender parity the default in his cabinet, arbitration should embrace mandatory rules, practices, and quotas to secure true equality on its tribunals.

 

 

The State of Play

 

Over the years, the arbitration community has launched numerous diversity initiatives. Landmark efforts such as the 2015 Equal Representation in Arbitration (ERA) Pledge have galvanised practitioners, with thousands signing on to improve gender parity. Despite these initiatives, actual progress has been slow. Recent data from major arbitral institutions paint a stark picture of the gap. Consider some of these statistics.

 

a) International Chamber of Commerce

As of 2019, women comprised only about 21% of all arbitrator appointments worldwide. By 2023, there had been only a slight increase, with women constituting about 30% of all arbitral appointments.

 

 

b) London Court of International Arbitration

In 2023, about 33% of all LCIA-appointed arbitrators were women. However, this statistic masks a significant disparity. While the LCIA Court appointed women in approximately 48% of its appointments, women accounted for only 21% of arbitrators ap pointed directly by the parties.

 

c) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

In investor-state arbitration, the gap is even wider. By 2023, women comprised only about 15% of all arbitrator appointments in ICSID cases.

 

d) Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration

According to the 2022/2023 Annual Casework Report, only 22% of arbitral appointments were women.

 

In sum, these figures confirm that women are still far from achieving parity in tribunal appointments. Moreover, a deeper analysis of the data reveals a troubling concentration, whereby only a handful of women are repeatedly appointed. In the Journal of World Investment & Trade (Vol. 21), the authors present a case showing that two prominent women arbitrators accounted for more than 57% of all female appointments in investor–state disputes up to 2018.

 

Taken together, the figures indicate that reliance on goodwill and voluntary efforts has been insufficient to close or eliminate the gender gap.

 

Practical Best Practices and Actions

 

In view of the foregoing challenges, concrete and measurable practices should be adopted to broaden the pool of arbitrators and ensure that women are considered equally. Some of these practices include:

 

a) Anonymisation of Curricula Vitae (CVs)

Arbitral institutions and party counsel should adopt the practice of blindly vetting arbitral candidates. This would entail omitting gender-identifying details from arbitrators’ CVs so that selections focus solely on skills and experience. Applying blind recruitment practices in arbitration would help mitigate unconscious bias and ensure that qualified women arbitrators are not overlooked.

 

b) Institutional Diversity Commitments

Arbitral institutions should adopt policies that explicitly require balanced appointments. A good example is ICSID’s new “Electronic Arbitrator Roster”, which asks candidates to commit to diversity goals. Similarly, arbitration rules and guidelines, such as the draft UNCITRAL Statute, mandate that tribunal appointments take gen der balance into consideration.

 

c) Diversity Directories and Databases

The Unicorn story behind the Compendium of Unicorns: A Global Guide to Women Arbitrators stems from the persistent myth that qualified women arbitrators are as rare as unicorns, a sentiment once captured by a man who said he would appoint women “if only he could find some”. To dismantle this misconception, the Mute Off Thursdays network, in partnership with the Global Arbitration Review (GAR) and Burford Capital, compiled the Compendium, profiling 176 highly qualified women arbitrators from across the globe. By offering detailed, searchable information on their expertise, backgrounds, and contact details, the Compendium enhances visibility, accessibility, and confidence in appointing women.

 

Following this approach, various local and international institutions should expand and promote directories that would make it easier to identify qualified female candidates.

 

d) Mentoring and Sponsorship

Professional mentorship programmes help prepare and advance women for arbitrator roles. Senior arbitrators and counsel should commit to sponsoring promising female candidates. Over time, this will develop a larger cohort of experienced female arbitrators.

 

e) Institutional Appointments and Training

Arbitration rules could also empower institutions to appoint co-arbitrators or presiding arbitrators while giving due consideration to gender. Training programmes and speaking opportunities can likewise be targeted at under-represented groups to increase their visibility.

 

f) Monitoring and Accountability

Requiring disclosure of the gender breakdown of arbitrator panels, or even making funding or acceptance of arbitration cases contingent on demonstrable diversity efforts, would pressure parties to consider women. Conversely, this would also facilitate the tracking of gender diversity performance within institutions.

 

g) Creating Awareness

Enhancing training and education on both implicit and explicit gender biases can significantly strengthen methodologies in dispute resolution. Improved awareness helps stakeholders recognise and counteract biased assumptions about women’s availability, expertise, or suitability, thereby ultimately fostering a more equitable environment in which qualified female arbitrators are assessed on merit rather than perception.

 

 

Addressing Counterarguments: Meritocracy and Autonomy

 

Critics of this mandatory approach argue that requirements such as quotas or preset outcomes clash with arbitration’s core principle of party autonomy and merit-based selection. In theory, parties are free to pick whoever they believe is most qualified for their case. However, data suggest that this purely meritocratic model has not worked equitably in practice. In reality, excluding 70–85 percent of qualified arbitrators simply because of gender cannot be justified by skill considerations. The limited representation of women in arbitral appointments is not attributable to a lack of merit, but rather to a lack of opportunity.

 

Critics of this mandatory approach argue that requirements such as quotas or preset outcomes clashes with arbitration’s core principle of party autonomy and merit-based selection. In theory, parties are free to pick whoever they believe is most qualified for their case. However, data suggest that this purely meritocratic model has not worked equitably in practice. In reality, excluding 70–85 percent of qualified arbitrators simply because of gender cannot be justified by skill considerations.

 

Additionally, diverse panels have been shown to enrich deliberations and enhance institutional credibility. Accordingly, gender diversity in and of itself can enhance the legitimacy and credibility of decisions. Such measures do not lower the bar; they simply require that we look beyond habit. This does not mean choosing a less-qualified person based on gender; rather, it means ensuring that women who are qualified receive equal consideration.

 

Notably, mandatory measures already exist in other contexts. National laws often impose gender quotas for elected and appointed positions. For example, Kenya’s Constitution mandates that no more than two-thirds of the members of any public body be of the same gender. This two-thirds gender rule, which is a legally binding quota, is seen as necessary to correct historical imbalances. In corporate law, several countries have imposed board diversity quotas to ensure women’s representation. These precedents show that requiring gender balance can coexist with the core functions of an institution and, in practice, can be crafted to respect autonomy while advancing equality.

 

Therefore, while preserving party autonomy in arbitrator selection is important, it should not override the need for inclusivity. Targeted measures such as CV anonymisation, requiring shortlists to include at least one qualified woman, or requiring appointing bodies to certify that proposed arbitral panels do not comprise exclusively male arbitrators could strike a balance. The key point is that insisting on blind meritocracy ignores systemic bias and the value of diverse perspectives. Well-designed rules and practices can both respect competence and prompt parties to broaden their choices.

 

Conclusion

 

Accelerating women’s advancement in arbitration requires more than goodwill; it demands deliberate, sustained action. The persistent gender imbalance on arbitral tribunals shows that voluntary pledges, while important, are insufficient to drive real change. As arbitral institutions and national leaders increasingly acknowledge the extent of these challenges, proactive reform is essential. Mea sures such as anonymised selection processes, structured mentoring programmes, robust diversity directories, and enforceable diversity guidelines can meaningfully expand the pipeline of qualified women and ensure they are fairly considered for appointments.

 

Championing diversity does not detract from arbitration’s core values. On the contrary, it reinforces them. A field that prides itself on impartiality, legitimacy, and excellence must draw from the full spectrum of available talent. If we heed Trudeau’s call and recognise that promoting diversity is “the smart thing to do”, arbitration can move toward a future where tribunal appointments truly reflect the talents of all practitioners.

 

As Mairée Uran Bidegain concludes in her recent symposium, the field must transition from aspirational targets toward enforceable commitments, making gender diversity the norm rather than the exception.