Compare institutions by the decision your contract and dispute actually require.
This page replaces the old winner-versus-loser framing with a practical institutional selection framework.
Use this page to decide how to use this institutional resource and where to go next.
This layer turns the page into a working decision map. Read the substantive analysis below, use the lenses to frame the issue, move sideways into connected UNIONE™ services, or ask the page-aware assistant to suggest a route through the institution.
What this institutional page is for.
What conditions or next steps apply.
What is live, draft, historical or operational.
Where this page sits in the wider UNIONE system.
Different institutions have different rules, histories, court interfaces, panels, pricing and procedural cultures.
Selection should be transaction-specific rather than based on a marketing scorecard.
What procedure is actually available?
Read the operative rules and effective date.
What matters for this transaction?
Case administration history may matter differently by client.
What support is needed?
Court powers and procedural law matter independently of institution.
What does the business need?
Cost, speed, sector depth, language and enforcement geography.
Compare facts that are current and sourceable.
UNIONE™ should not make unsupported claims about another institution's seat, procedure, capability or outcome.
Define the dispute profile
Value, sector, counterparties and jurisdictions.
Compare operative rules
Use current published material from each institution.
Consider court / enforcement geography
Institution is only one part of the architecture.
Choose and draft carefully
Record the institutional choice in a coherent clause.
The best institution is the one that fits the contract and dispute architecture.
UNIONE™ can explain its own model without misdescribing competitors.
Clear scope. No implied guarantees.
Nothing on this page is a legal opinion on ICC, SIAC, LCIA or any other institution.
Domestic-law advice, court representation, regulatory conclusions and reserved professional or technical work remain with appropriately qualified counsel and specialists where required.
Fellowship, Sector Bench, Council, prior solution work, expert work or neutral participation creates no entitlement to appointment, referral, client work or case allocation.
UNIONE™ Rules & Procedures v4.0 remain Institutional Draft - Adoption Review - Not Yet Effective. Draft procedures are not operative merely because they are described on this website.
Compare institutions by the decision your contract and dispute actually require.
Meet the professionals connected to this subject.
Fellows are surfaced by jurisdiction, sector, industry and relevant dispute experience so the professional community is visible throughout the UNIONE™ universe. Directory visibility supports discovery only. Any appointment is separately determined by the applicable procedure, independence, conflicts, suitability and party choice where relevant.
This issue does not live alone.
Move sideways into the relevant intelligence, upstream into contract and prevention, or downstream into assessment, arbitration and enforcement. This is how the wider UNIONE™ system connects around the decision.
The UNIONE™ System | Before You Sign · Arbitrate · Enforce
See where this decision sits inside the wider UNIONE™ lifecycle.
UNIONE™ Solutions
Continue through the relevant institutional and decision pathways.
Before You Sign™
Connect the issue to contract architecture, clause design and prevention before escalation.
Before You Arbitrate™
Test evidence, exposure and alternatives before committing to formal process.
Before You Enforce™
Carry the decision through jurisdiction, security, assets and recovery.
About UNIONE™ - Cross-Border Dispute Institution
Continue through the relevant institutional and decision pathways.
How to Use UNIONE™ | User Guide
Continue through the relevant institutional and decision pathways.
Contact UNIONE™
Continue through the relevant institutional and decision pathways.