Statizoid

Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) (DB16-20 methodology) by country

The alternative dispute resolution evaluates two aspects: (i) whether domestic commercial arbitration is regulated by law, all disputes can be submitted to arbitration and valid arbitration clauses are usually enforced by courts; and (ii) whether voluntary mediation and/or conciliation are a recognized way of...

Countries reporting
190
Highest
3 DB16-20 methodology
Armenia
Lowest
0.5 DB16-20 methodology
Tonga
Median
2.5 DB16-20 methodology
Years covered
5
2015–2019
Data points
955

What the numbers show

Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) (DB16-20 methodology) is currently reported for 190 countries. The highest value is 3 DB16-20 methodology in Armenia; the lowest is 0.5 DB16-20 methodology in Tonga.

The median across all reporting countries is 2.5 DB16-20 methodology, and the mean is 2.29 DB16-20 methodology.

The gap between the highest and lowest reporting country is a factor of about 6.

Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3): full country ranking

#Country LatestYear 10-year changeTrend
1 Armenia 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
1 Bangladesh 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Brazil 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
1 China 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Germany 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Spain 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Hungary 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Israel 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Italy 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Jordan 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Kazakhstan 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 South Korea 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Lithuania 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Latvia 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Poland 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Romania 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Uzbekistan 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
1 Taiwan 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Angola 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Antigua and Barbuda 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Australia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Austria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Belgium 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Benin 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Burkina Faso 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Bulgaria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Belarus 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Belize 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Bolivia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Barbados 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Bhutan 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Central African Republic 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Switzerland 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Cote d'Ivoire 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Cameroon 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Democratic Republic of Congo 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Congo 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Colombia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Comoros 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Costa Rica 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Cyprus 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Dominica 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Denmark 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Dominican Republic 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Algeria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Ecuador 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Estonia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Finland 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 France 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Gabon 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Georgia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Ghana 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Guinea 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Gambia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Guinea-Bissau 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Greece 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Hong Kong 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Honduras 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Croatia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Indonesia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 India 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Ireland 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Iran 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Jamaica 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Japan 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Cambodia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Saint Kitts and Nevis 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Kuwait 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Laos 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Saint Lucia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Sri Lanka 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Lesotho 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Luxembourg 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Morocco 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Moldova 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Madagascar 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Mexico 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Marshall Islands 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 North Macedonia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Mali 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Malta 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Mozambique 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Mauritania 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Mauritius 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Malaysia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Niger 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Nigeria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Nicaragua 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Norway 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Nepal 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Oman 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Panama 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Peru 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Philippines 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Portugal 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Paraguay 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Russia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Rwanda 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Senegal 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Singapore 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Solomon Islands 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 El Salvador 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Serbia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Slovenia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Sweden 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Chad 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Togo 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Thailand 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Trinidad and Tobago 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Turkey 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Uganda 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 United States 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Vietnam 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
19 Samoa 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 South Africa 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Afghanistan 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 United Arab Emirates 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Argentina 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Bahrain 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Bahamas 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Brunei 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Botswana 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Canada 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Cape Verde 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Czechia 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Djibouti 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
117 Egypt 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Fiji 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Micronesia (country) 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 United Kingdom 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Equatorial Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
117 Grenada 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Guatemala 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Guyana 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Haiti 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Iceland 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Kenya 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Lebanon 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
117 Libya 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Maldives 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Montenegro 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Mongolia 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Namibia 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 New Zealand 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Pakistan 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Papua New Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Puerto Rico 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Palestine 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Qatar 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Saudi Arabia 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Sudan 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
117 Somalia 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 South Sudan 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Suriname 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Slovakia 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Eswatini 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Seychelles 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Syria 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Tajikistan 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Tunisia 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Uruguay 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Venezuela 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Vanuatu 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Kosovo 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
117 Yemen 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Zimbabwe 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
170 Albania 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
170 Azerbaijan 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
170 Burundi 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
170 Chile 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
170 Eritrea 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
170 Ethiopia 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
170 Iraq 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
170 Kyrgyzstan 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
170 Kiribati 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
170 Liberia 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
170 Myanmar 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
170 Malawi 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
170 Netherlands 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
170 Sierra Leone 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
170 San Marino 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
170 Sao Tome and Principe 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
170 Tanzania 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
170 Ukraine 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
170 Zambia 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
189 Palau 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
190 Tonga 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) by country. Statizoid. Retrieved 24 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/enforcing-contracts-alternative-dispute-resolution-0-3-db16-20-methodology/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/enforcing-contracts-alternative-dispute-resolution-0-3-db16-20-methodology/">Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) by country</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Enforcing contracts: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) (DB16-20 methodology)
Unit
DB16-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
191 places, 955 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

The alternative dispute resolution evaluates two aspects: (i) whether domestic commercial arbitration is regulated by law, all disputes can be submitted to arbitration and valid arbitration clauses are usually enforced by courts; and (ii) whether voluntary mediation and/or conciliation are a recognized way of resolving commercial disputes, they are regulated by law and there are financial incentives for parties to attempt mediation of conciliation. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.