”So far as international commercial arbitration is concerned, it would save considerable time, trouble and expencse if the laws governing arbitrations were the same throughout the world, so that there was – so to speak – a universal lex arbitri.”
(Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. Alan Redfern. London, Sweet&Maxwell Limited, 2004)
With this post we continue the series of comments “Stereotypes of international arbitration”. There is nothing new in the statement that the procedures that govern the commercial arbitration proceeding is a subject that has been left to the parties. Some arbitration agreements call for the use of an off-the-shelf set of procedures, such as the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce, or the United National Conference on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The institutions which support international commercial arbitration essentially contribute to the process of permanent development of the arbitration practice. At least I hope that the amendments to the rules adopted by the world-renowned arbitration centers were aimed at that development. Some of them may be treated as a step toward unification of arbitration procedures. Here I would like to draw your attention to certain differences in arbitration procedures generally and without particular stress on national legislation governing arbitration in different states. Even in the states that adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law commercial arbitration procedures differs due to the legal culture and traditions and the history of arbitration. In the table below we tried to present the contrast in the case (common) law and civil law arbitration systems.
”The LCIA arbitration rules are universally applicable.
They offer a combination of the best features of the civil
and common law systems, including in particular:
maximum flexibility for parties and tribunals to agree on procedural matters..”
London Court of International Arbitration
This post is the second in the special set of comments “Stereotypes of international arbitration”. It is worth mentioning that here we discuss the myths which re typical for international arbitration. If you are interested in discovering the misconceptions about the domestic arbitration process you may read about some of them on Arbitration-Truth.com. In this post we would like to draw your attention to the idea, that flexibility of international arbitration procedure does not mean that there is no “scenario”.
This post opens the set of short comments concerning the most common stereotypes related to the advantages and disadvantages of international arbitration as well as other myths related to international arbitration.
Stereotype No 1. Speed and economy
“Arbitration is faster and less expensive than litigation in the courts. Although a complex international dispute may sometimes take a great deal of time and money to resolve, even by arbitration, the limited scope for challenge against arbitral awards, as compared with court judgements, offers a clear advantage. Above all, it helps to ensure that the parties will not subsequently be entangled in a prolonged and costly series of appeals. Furthermore, arbitration offers the parties the flexibility to set up proceedings that can be conducted as quickly and economically as the circumstances allow. In this way, a multi-million dollar ICC arbitration was once completed in just over two months.”
ICC International Court of Arbitration
“Introduction to arbitration. Advantages of arbitration”