Arbitrations in Brazil: What Do Numbers Really Say?

The newly released 2025 edition of Prof. Selma Lemes’s influential report on arbitration in Brazil (the "Report") is here, and it paints a detailed picture of the development of arbitration in the country. Drawing on 2024 statistics from the country's eight leading arbitral institutions, the Report indicates a comeback story for high-value and international cases seated in Brazil, sheds light on systemic pressure points—including procedural delays and a concerning surge in arbitrator challenges—and highlights the remarkable strides in gender diversity that bolster Brazil as a modern, credible jurisdiction. Together, these findings reveal an arbitration market that is expanding, modernizing, and confronting the practical implications of rapid growth.

A Comeback Story? The Apparent Resurgence of High-value and International Arbitrations in Brazil

Since 2018, the number of new arbitration cases in Brazil has climbed by nearly 30%, from 292 to 376 cases annually. This caseload is now comparable to arbitration institutions like DIAC (355 cases in 2023), LCIA (318 cases in 2024) and HKIAC (352 cases in 2024). The numbers confirm what many practitioners feel on the ground: arbitration is a trusted and core feature of Brazil’s dispute resolution framework.

While the number of cases expanded steadily, the value of disputes followed a different path. Between 2018 and 2023, the average amount in dispute dropped sharply, from BRL 279 million to BRL 91 million. Similarly, the number of arbitrations arising from international contracts fell from 73 to 49. Together, these parallel trends indicated a structural shift: frequent use of arbitration for mid-sized domestic disputes, while high-value, cross‑border matters migrated to foreign seats.

That movement saw significant signs of reversal in 2024. According to the Report, the average value of new cases surged by 122% to BRL 202 million, and the number of international cases climbed to 64—the highest figure since 2019. This recovery signals renewed confidence in Brazil as a seat for high-stakes matters and marks a comeback for international cases after several years of outflow. Brazil’s growing credibility as an arbitral seat has also been reinforced by pro-arbitration decisions by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (reported here, here and here).

A few key institutions are driving this movement. In 2024, CAM-MERCADO led the administration of international cases (19), followed by the CAM-CCBC (17) and the ICC (13). These three institutions together account for approximately 90% of the total value of all new cases filed in 2024.

Duration of Arbitration Proceedings in Brazil: Is It Time to Rethink the Use of Tribunal-appointed Experts?

Previous reports showed the average arbitration proceeding in Brazil lasted between 18 and 24 months from the terms of reference (or similar point) to the issuance of the final award. The 2025 edition bifurcated this analysis, revealing an important feature of arbitrations seated in Brazil: while arbitrations without expert evidence lasted an average of 21 months, those with expert evidence lasted an average of 49 months—a staggering 28-month difference.

The additional time is largely attributed to a civil‑law‑influenced practice that is prevalent in Brazil: the reliance on tribunal-appointed experts. Of all arbitrations with expert evidence in Brazil in 2024, 71 involved a tribunal-appointed expert, while only 3 relied exclusively on party-appointed experts.

The problem goes beyond the preparation of the expert evidence itself. According to the Report, expert reports required 10 months on average to be prepared, while the remaining 18 months stem from the procedural steps surrounding the expert phase—like selecting the expert, defining the scope of evidence, and handling submissions. In practice, this process has become a central bottleneck in many arbitral proceedings in Brazil.

For the parties, these procedural delays translate directly into higher costs. In 56 cases where the tribunal appointed an expert, parties still retained their own ‘shadow’ experts to review, critique or test the conclusions of the main report.

The impact also extends to the arbitration system as a whole. Since 2018, the total number of pending cases has grown faster than new filings per year, which suggests an incipient, system-wide backlog.

As the Brazilian arbitration market matures, these findings suggest it is time to revisit how expert evidence is used. A more calibrated use of tribunal‑appointed and party‑appointed experts could help streamline proceedings and better align the efficiency that underpins arbitration itself.

Objections and Challenges to Arbitrators’ Appointment: Is Brazil Facing a Guerilla Tactics Problem?

According to the Report, the number of objections and challenges to arbitrators in Brazil has increased substantially in recent years, rising from 23 in 2019 to 71 in 2024. When measured against the number of new cases filed each year—which is more likely to cover the stage when a tribunal is typically constituted—the challenge rate climbs from 8% in 2019 to approximately 20% in 2023 and 2024.

It is not yet possible to break down this rate by individual Brazilian institutions, as most have not released their 2024 statistics reports. As an aggregate, however, the challenge rate in Brazil is significantly higher than those reported by other major arbitration institutions, as illustrated below:

Two main factors may contribute to this higher rate: parties are either appointing arbitrators despite potential conflicts, or filing challenges without sufficient grounds. Considering that about 23% of these objections and challenges succeeded, the data suggests the latter scenario is more likely than the former.

The precise impact of these challenges on overall case duration cannot be determined from the Report. Because the Report measures case duration starting from the execution of the terms of reference, it does not include the prior period when the tribunal is constituted and challenges are typically made.

Diversity as a Mark of Credibility: Brazil’s Upward Trend

The Report confirms that Brazil is making significant progress on gender diversity in arbitration. Since 2022, the proportion of women appointed as arbitrators has increased from 35% to 39%. Even more notably, women now account for 57% of all tribunal chairs and 32% of co-arbitrators, up from 44% of chairs and 30% of co-arbitrators in 2022. Overall, this data demonstrates a clear and sustained upward trajectory in gender diversity in arbitration tribunals in Brazil.

This progress is the result of a conscious effort. Most arbitral institutions covered by the Report have diversity goals and policies encouraging gender balance in arbitrator appointments, and nearly all of them are signatories to the Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge (ERA Pledge), a global initiative created in 2016 to promote fair gender representation in arbitrator appointments.

Brazil’s progress also stands out when compared to global benchmarks. For instance, recent reports show female arbitrator appointments at ICSID were 29%, with the ICC at 28%, and HKIAC at 27%.

Brazil seems to be on the right diversity path. By advancing diversity at a pace that aligns with global benchmarks, Brazil not only strengthens its institutional legitimacy, but also reinforces its reputation as a modern and sophisticated jurisdiction, responsive to the evolving standards of international arbitral practice.

This growing confidence in the Brazilian arbitration community is also reflected in the number of foreign arbitrators in arbitrations seated in Brazil. While the number of international arbitrations has rebounded in 2024, the number of foreign arbitrators appointed has fallen from 296 in 2021 to only 80 in 2024. This signals that international parties are increasingly willing to entrust their disputes to Brazilian arbitrators, which reflects the depth and sophistications of the local talent pool.

Conclusion

The numbers from the 2025 edition tell a story of a jurisdiction at pivotal crossroads in regard to the use of arbitration. On one hand, the data confirms Brazil’s position as a relevant arbitral seat for high-value, international cases, supported by a pro-arbitration judiciary and mature arbitral institutions, and bolstered by notable progress in gender diversity. These developments reinforce Brazil’s profile as an arbitration‑friendly jurisdiction and further consolidate its reputation as a reliable, sophisticated, and globally integrated arbitral seat.

On the other hand, the numbers reveal some internal challenges that might slow down this progress. Procedural habits, particularly concerning expert evidence, are creating serious delays and contributing to a growing case backlog. This is compounded by a worrying trend of tactical arbitrator challenges, which add costs, friction and time to the process. Addressing these issues will be important to sustain Brazil’s progress and ensure that its arbitration system remains efficient, reliable and competitive.