Delos is an independent arbitration institution that promotes quality with flexibility, and time and cost efficiency in the resolution of disputes.

The ideal way to resolve commercial disputes should be by a quality-driven, quick and cost-effective dispute resolution process that is binding on the disputing parties. It should be fair and even-handed, it should be tailored to the needs of parties and to the size and complexity of disputes, and the final decision should be internationally enforceable.

Delos Dispute Resolution is an effective yet simple process created to meet these needs. For detailed commentary on Delos arbitration, we invite you to read the article Activating Arbitration.
  • Simple procedure to commence proceedings
  • Arbitrators take the lead to determine the issues, reducing legal costs
  • Confidential and flexible process
  • Quick process, with an outcome that is final and binding
  • Cost-effective process with upfront information on the costs of the arbitration
  • Fixed periods for the completion of the process, minimising delays
  • Efficient process: decisions are internationally enforceable
  • Quality process with neutral arbitrators
  • November 2017: Press Release announcing the 68 reputed, leading law firms participating in the Delos Guide to Arbitation Places (GAP).  Press Release announcing the 73 talented experienced young practitioners (EYPs) supporting the editorial review of the GAP.
  • July 2017: Press Release announcing the launch of a global study to develop a practitioner's Guide to Arbitation Places (GAP). Delos is honoured to have Professors David D Caron and Maxi Scherer as Co-Chairs for this study.  
  • March 2017: publication of the first commentary on Delos arbitration. Under the title "Activating Arbitration: Four Delos Principles to Achieve Fair and Efficient International Arbitration", Hafez R Virjee discusses the four related principles that underpin Delos arbitration to promote time and cost efficiency in the resolution of disputes: (i) active engagement of tribunals in the resolution of disputes, supported by (ii) a focus on the choice of safe seats at the contract formation stage; (iii) pragmatism in the formation of tribunals; and (iv) a heavy emphasis on early case preparation.