There is a peculiar assumption in cross-border dispute resolution that expertise must be narrow to be credible. Such a shipping dispute needs a maritime dispute arbitrator who has spent a career dealing with charterparties and bills of lading. A dispute over a stalled highway or a half-built refinery needs a construction dispute arbitrator fluent in FIDIC clauses and delay analysis. A claim brought by an investor against a sovereign state needs an investment treaty dispute arbitrator versed in the language of fair and equitable treatment and indirect expropriation. And a fight over a collapsed mine or a disputed concession needs a mining dispute arbitrator who understands geology as much as law.
Each of these instincts is reasonable. None of them is the whole story
What the last decade of international arbitration has shown, quietly but consistently, is that the disputes themselves rarely stay inside their disciplinary boundaries. A mining dispute is, more often than not, also a contract dispute, a regulatory dispute and sometimes a treaty dispute, all at once. A construction claim over a delayed power plant frequently drags in financing covenants, insurance coverage and cross-border supply agreements. Parties who assume they need four different specialists for four different chapters of the same conflict often end up paying for four different learning curves, run in parallel, at their own expense.
This is part of why the practice of accepting appointment as sole arbitrator has grown steadily more common in cases that would once have gone automatically to a three-member panel. A single arbitrator with genuine range across sectors can hold the entire narrative of a dispute in one mind rather than splitting it across a tribunal that has to be walked, sometimes painstakingly, through the commercial logic of an industry it has not previously encountered. There is an efficiency to this that goes beyond cost, though the cost savings are real. It is an efficiency of understanding.
Consider how these threads actually intersect in practice. A construction dispute arbitrator called in on a delayed infrastructure project may find that the true argument is not about the schedule at all but about whether the host state’s conduct amounted to a breach of an underlying investment treaty. This question belongs, at least in part, to the world of the investment treaty dispute arbitrator. A mining dispute arbitrator examining a concession dispute may need to reason through maritime logistics, export terminals and shipping contracts, territory more familiar to a maritime dispute arbitrator. The lines between these specialisms are administrative conveniences, useful for organizing a CV or a panel list, but they rarely map cleanly onto the disputes that actually arrive.
None of this is an argument against specialization. It is an argument for a particular kind of specialist: one whose depth in a sector does not come at the cost of range across sectors and whose comfort accepting appointment as sole arbitrator reflects confidence that a single, well-prepared mind can manage complexity that might otherwise be distributed, unevenly and expensively, across a panel.
For parties negotiating an arbitration clause today, the practical lesson is a modest one. Ask not only whether a prospective arbitrator has handled disputes like this one before but whether they have handled disputes adjacent to it, disputes that touch the same commercial ecosystem from a different angle. The best answers, increasingly, come from practitioners who move comfortably between construction sites, mining concessions, shipping lanes and treaty texts and who see no contradiction in doing so within a single career or a single case.
