In recent years, the convenience of maintaining the “discovery” procedure as a standard rule in the development of international arbitration procedures has been debated in several forums of the arbitration community. On one hand, there are opinions arguing that “discovery” should be suppressed because, contrary to the interests of the parties that agreed arbitration, its application presupposes a cost increase and unnecessary delays in the resolution of their dispute. On the other hand, there is a sector sta¬ting that this procedure is essential to obtain a fair and enforceable award, without necessarily incurring in high costs or delays, if the system operates properly, which is the main interest of the parties who wish to submit their disputes to arbitration. In the present academic work, the author analyzes both positions with statistical and legal information, in order to determine if it is convenient to maintain or suppress “discovery” as a standard rule in international arbitration practice.