Choosing an arbitral institution is one of the most consequential decisions parties make when drafting a dispute resolution clause — and one of the least carefully made. Most commercial contracts default to a familiar name without much analysis of how that institution's rules, costs, and procedural mechanics will actually operate when a dispute arises. By then, the choice is locked in.

For cross-border commercial disputes — particularly those between U.S. and Latin American parties — the three institutions that appear most frequently are the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the American Arbitration Association's International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA/ICDR), and JAMS International. Each has real advantages and meaningful limitations depending on the nature of the dispute, the parties involved, and where assets are located.

Why Arbitration in the First Place

Before comparing institutions, the threshold question is why international parties choose arbitration over litigation. The primary driver is enforceability. Under the 1958 New York Convention — ratified by over 170 countries, including every major Latin American jurisdiction — arbitral awards are enforceable abroad in a way that court judgments are not. A Miami federal court judgment against a Brazilian counterparty is worth little if Brazilian courts won't recognize it. An ICC award made in Miami is enforceable in Brazil as a matter of treaty obligation.

Additional advantages include the ability to select arbitrators with industry-specific expertise, confidentiality of proceedings, and a neutral forum that neither party can characterize as home-court advantage. For deals involving parties from different legal systems — common law U.S. and civil law Latin America — arbitration also allows parties to select procedural rules that blend both traditions rather than forcing one side to litigate in a foreign procedural environment.

The ICC: The Gold Standard for Complex International Disputes

The International Chamber of Commerce Court of Arbitration, headquartered in Paris, administers the most globally recognized arbitration proceedings for large commercial disputes. ICC arbitration carries significant institutional prestige and is familiar to sophisticated counterparties worldwide, including in Europe, Latin America, and Asia.

The ICC's defining procedural feature is its scrutiny process. Before an award is rendered, the ICC Court reviews all draft awards for formal and legal issues — not to second-guess the merits, but to ensure the award is enforceable and free of procedural defects. This review adds time and cost but reduces the risk of a defective award that could be challenged at enforcement.

The ICC process also requires the parties and tribunal to sign Terms of Reference early in the proceedings — a document that defines the issues in dispute, the parties' positions, and the procedural calendar. This front-loads clarity and reduces subsequent disputes about scope, but it adds a procedural step unfamiliar to U.S. litigators.

ICC arbitration is expensive. Administrative fees are calculated as a percentage of the amount in dispute, and the ICC's advance on costs — required before proceedings move forward — can be substantial in high-value matters. For disputes below $5 million, ICC costs relative to the amount at stake can make the institution difficult to justify. For disputes above $10 million involving parties from different legal systems, ICC is typically the right choice.

ICC is particularly well-suited to U.S.-Latin America disputes. It has significant experience with Latin American parties, arbitrators throughout the region, and a strong track record of award enforcement in South American jurisdictions.

AAA/ICDR: Efficient and U.S.-Friendly

The American Arbitration Association administers domestic U.S. commercial arbitrations under its Commercial Arbitration Rules, and international proceedings through its International Centre for Dispute Resolution. For disputes with significant U.S. connections — a U.S.-based party, U.S. governing law, or Miami as the seat — ICDR is often the most practical choice.

ICDR proceedings tend to be more efficient than ICC proceedings. There is no scrutiny process and no Terms of Reference requirement. Case management is handled by experienced ICDR administrators in New York and Miami, and the rules allow for considerable flexibility in tailoring procedure to the dispute. The ICDR's emergency arbitrator provisions allow a party to seek emergency relief within days of filing, which can be critical in disputes involving asset dissipation or irreparable harm.

Costs under ICDR are generally lower than ICC for comparable disputes, though administrative fees can still be significant. The ICDR fee schedule is fixed and transparent, which makes cost projection more straightforward at the outset.

ICDR arbitrators are drawn from a pool that skews heavily U.S.-trained, which is an advantage when the dispute involves U.S. law but can be a disadvantage when the other party is from a civil law jurisdiction and wants arbitrators familiar with both systems. The AAA's National Roster and ICDR's International Panel are large, and panel quality varies — the arbitrator selection process requires more active attention than it does at institutions with smaller, more curated panels.

For U.S.-domiciled companies with Latin American counterparties, ICDR with a Miami seat is increasingly common. The Southern District of Florida has a sophisticated bench for New York Convention enforcement, and Miami's geography and legal community make it a practical neutral forum for U.S.-LATAM disputes.

JAMS International: High-Quality Panel, Focused Scope

JAMS is best known in the U.S. as a domestic mediation and arbitration provider, but its JAMS International arm handles international commercial arbitrations under rules designed for cross-border disputes. JAMS's principal advantage is arbitrator quality — its panel is composed largely of former federal judges and highly experienced commercial attorneys, and the selection process is more curated than at larger institutions.

JAMS International proceedings tend to be efficient. The rules are streamlined, case management is attentive, and the institutional overhead that can slow ICC proceedings is largely absent. For disputes involving sophisticated U.S. parties who prioritize arbitrator quality and procedural efficiency over institutional name recognition, JAMS International is a serious option.

The limitation is name recognition outside the United States. While JAMS is well-known to U.S. practitioners, counterparties in Latin America, Europe, or Asia may be unfamiliar with the institution and may resist it in favor of ICC or even ICDR. This practical reality limits JAMS International's utility in disputes where the counterparty has meaningful leverage over forum selection.

JAMS International is best suited to disputes between sophisticated U.S. parties, or where the dispute is primarily U.S.-law governed and the counterparty accepts the forum.

The Seat of Arbitration: More Than a Location

Regardless of which institution administers the proceedings, the seat of arbitration determines the procedural law governing the arbitration (the lex arbitri), the supervisory court with jurisdiction to hear challenges to the tribunal's jurisdiction or applications to set aside the award, and the grounds on which an award can be annulled at the seat.

Miami is an excellent seat for U.S.-Latin America disputes. The Florida International Arbitration Act provides a pro-arbitration framework, the Southern District of Florida has substantial experience with international arbitration matters, and Miami's practical infrastructure — interpreters, experienced practitioners, suitable hearing facilities — supports complex international proceedings. An award made in Miami benefits from enforcement under both the New York Convention and U.S. federal law.

The seat should not be confused with the place of hearings. Parties frequently designate Miami as the seat while conducting hearings in multiple locations or virtually, which is now standard practice.

Drafting the Clause

The arbitration clause should specify: the institution and its rules, the seat, the number of arbitrators, the language of the proceedings, and the governing law. Each of these elements deserves deliberate consideration at the drafting stage. Vague clauses — "disputes shall be resolved by arbitration in Miami" — invite preliminary disputes about which institution applies and whether the agreement is enforceable.

Each institution publishes model clauses that can be adapted to the transaction. ICC, ICDR, and JAMS all provide reliable starting points. The key is ensuring the clause is unambiguous about institution, seat, and governing law before the contract is signed — not after a dispute has already arisen.