Research Associate, King’s College London

This article investigates whether a coherent set of transnational principles is emerging from the diverse dispute boards (DBs) frameworks in standard forms (FIDIC, NEC, JCT), institutional rules (ICC, AAA-ICDR, CRCICA) and ad hoc models (CIArb, DBF). Through a comparative analysis, the article identifies converging features – such as independence, early appointment and informal assistance – while also highlighting divergences in enforcement, institutional involvement, procedural formality and regional legal constraints. Applying a three-step methodology for identifying general principles of transnational law, the article argues that the converging points reflect the formation of a body of transnational norms.

In the construction industry, the risk of disputes is persistent and high. The causes of disputes commonly range from changes by the client, inaccurate design information, lack of information or decisiveness, and inadequate contract administration.1 These disputes can cause severe disruptions – delays, cost overruns, contract termination, and even insolvency. Traditional resolution methods, such as litigation or arbitration, while effective in some contexts, often come too late to preserve relationships or project momentum. In contrast, dispute boards (or “DBs”) offer a proactive and flexible approach to managing conflict. By combining dispute avoidance with rapid adjudication, they are designed to protect cash flow, minimise downtime, and resolve disagreements before they escalate.