The Kluwer Arbitration Blog has launched a seven-part series examining how arbitral tribunals work, from appointment to award. Written by Russell Thirgood and Marieke Witkamp of Arbitra International and published on 23 July 2026, the opening instalment sets out to explain the decision-making and reasoning process behind the arbitral award, on the premise that counsel represent clients better when they understand how arbitrators think.
According to the source, the series draws on a recent empirical study by Professor SI Strong of legal reasoning across commercial disputes, covering both domestic and international arbitration. The blog details the study's methodology so readers can weigh its findings.
The research methodology
The source describes three components to Professor Strong's research:
- A survey of 465 practising judges and arbitrators from 41 countries, comprising 73 questions on how decision-makers reason, use legal and factual authorities, apply fact to law, weigh policy and fairness, draft decisions, and develop their craft.
- Twenty hour-long semi-structured interviews with judges and arbitrators worldwide, spanning 27 questions on the same themes.
- An analysis of judgments and awards, including 28 first-instance decisions from Quebec, 92 from the English Commercial Courts and 7 US state and federal trial-level decisions, together with 22 awards from domestic commercial arbitrations seated in the US and 32 awards from international commercial arbitrations seated in 8 countries.
All three parts compare arbitrators with judges, international with domestic decision-makers, and common law with civil law practitioners.
First conclusion: a shared approach
The source reports that Professor Strong's research concluded, with what the authors describe as compelling evidence, that judges and arbitrators approach commercial dispute resolution in a very similar way, treating legal authority, evidence and the application of fact to law as the foundation of their decisions.
Three points follow, according to the blog. First, the research refutes the notion that arbitral justice is inferior—that arbitrators simply "split the baby", favour repeat users, rely on facts at the expense of applicable law, or decide vaguely on "fairness and equity". Second, international commercial arbitration appears to have blended common law and civil law traditions in both reasoning and drafting, with the traditional divide between oral and documentary evidence, and inductive and deductive reasoning, proving less pronounced than assumed. Third, decision-makers generally do not change their reasoning approach with experience—suggesting, as the authors put it, that grey hair is not a precondition for selection by parties or institutions.
Second conclusion: the facts matter
The source notes that earlier research focused largely on the treatment of legal authorities rather than how decision-makers handle factual matters. Professor Strong's analysis addressed how trial judges and arbitrators approach the evidence, and many interviewees stressed how central the facts were to the outcome. The research confirmed that ascertaining and determining the relevant facts is regarded as a paramount task.
Drawing on this, the authors argue that counsel must master the case—especially the facts—at an early stage and mirror the tribunal's own thought process. Thorough preparation, including interviewing and testing witnesses, engaging experts and reviewing contemporaneous documents, exposes weaknesses and supports objective decisions on whether to pursue or defend a position.
In the authors' experience, arbitrators review submissions and evidence closely within a short window—typically a few weeks before the hearing and after final closing submissions—so inconsistencies are readily detected. The prevailing party, they observe, is generally the one whose case theory remains accurate, coherent and consistent across the proceedings, since a weak case does not improve with time and its costs only accumulate.