• slide1
  • slide2
  • slide3
  • slide4
  • slide5


Not to be confused with Arbitrage.
For the 2016 film, see The Arbitration. For Wikipedia's arbitration committee,


Alternative dispute resolution

  • Arbitration
  • Conciliation
  • Mediation
  • Negotiation
  • Collaborative law
  • Conflict resolution
  • Dispute resolution
  • Lawyer-supported mediation
  • Party-directed mediation
  • Restorative justice

Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a way to resolve disputes outside the courts. The dispute will be decided by one or more persons (the "arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral tribunal"), which renders the " arbitral award". An arbitral award is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in the courts.[1]
Arbitration is often used for the resolution of commercial disputes, particularly in the context of international commercial transactions. In certain countries such as the United States, arbitration is also frequently employed in consumer and employment matters, where arbitration may be mandated by the terms of employment or commercial contracts.
Arbitration can be either voluntary or mandatory (although mandatory arbitration can only come from a statute or from a contract that is voluntarily entered into, in which the parties agree to hold all existing or future disputes to arbitration, without necessarily knowing, specifically, what disputes will ever occur) and can be either binding or non-binding. Non-binding arbitration is similar to mediation in that a decision cannot be imposed on the parties. However, the principal distinction is that whereas a mediator will try to help the parties find a middle ground on which to compromise, the (non-binding) arbitrator remains totally removed from the settlement process and will only give a determination of liability and, if appropriate, an indication of the quantum of damages payable. By one definition arbitration is binding and non-binding arbitration is therefore technically not arbitration.
Arbitration is a proceeding in which a dispute is resolved by an impartial adjudicator whose decision the parties to the dispute have agreed, or legislation has decreed, will be final and binding. There are limited rights of review and appeal of arbitration awards. Arbitration is not the same as:

  • Judicial proceedings, although in some jurisdictions, court proceedings are sometimes referred as arbitrations[2]
  • Alternative dispute resolution (ADR)[3]
  • Expert determination
  • Mediation (a form of settlement negotiation facilitated by a neutral third party)


  • 1Advantages and disadvantages
  • 2Arbitrability
  • 3Arbitration agreement
  • 4Comparative law
  • 4.1United States
  • 5International
  • 5.1History
  • 5.2International agreements
  • 5.3International enforcement
  • 5.3.1Government disputes
  • 6Arbitral tribunal
  • 6.1Duties of the tribunal
  • 7Arbitral awards
  • 7.1Challenge
  • 7.2Costs
  • 8Nomenclature
  • 9History
  • 9.1England
  • 9.2United States
  • 10See also
  • 11Notes
  • 12References
  • 12.1International arbitration
  • 13External links

Advantages and disadvantages
Parties often seek to resolve disputes through arbitration because of a number of perceived potential advantages over judicial proceedings. Companies often require arbitration with their customers, but prefer the advantages of courts in disputes with competitors:[4]

  • In contrast to litigation, where one cannot "choose the judge",[5] arbitration allows the parties to choose their own tribunal. This is especially useful when the subject matter of the dispute is highly technical: arbitrators with an appropriate degree of expertise (for example, quantity surveying expertise, in the case of a construction dispute, or expertise in commercial property law, in the case of a real estate dispute[6]) can be chosen.
  • Arbitration is often faster than litigation in court.[5]
  • Arbitral proceedings and an arbitral award are generally non-public, and can be made confidential[7]
  • In arbitral proceedings the language of arbitration may be chosen, whereas in judicial proceedings the official language of the country of the competent court will be automatically applied.
  • Because of the provisions of the New York Convention 1958, arbitration awards are generally easier to enforce in other nations than court verdicts.
  • In most legal systems there are very limited avenues for appeal of an arbitral award, which is sometimes an advantage because it limits the duration of the dispute and any associated liability.
    Some of the disadvantages include:
  • Arbitration agreements are sometimes contained in ancillary agreements, or in small print in other agreements, and consumers and employees often do not know in advance that they have agreed to mandatory binding pre-dispute arbitration by purchasing a product or taking a job.
  • If the arbitration is mandatory and binding, the parties waive their rights to access the courts and to have a judge or jury decide the case.
  • If the arbitrator or the arbitration forum depends on the corporation for repeat business, there may be an inherent incentive to rule against the consumer or employee
  • There are very limited avenues for appeal, which means that an erroneous decision cannot be easily overturned.
  • Although usually thought to be speedier, when there are multiple arbitrators on the panel, juggling their schedules for hearing dates in long cases can lead to delays.
  • In some legal systems, arbitration awards have fewer enforcement options than judgments; although in the United States arbitration awards are enforced in the same manner as court judgments and have the same effect.
  • Arbitrators are generally unable to enforce interlocutory measures against a party, making it easier for a party to take steps to avoid enforcement of member or a small group of members in arbitration due to increasing legal fees, without explaining to the members the adverse consequences of an unfavorable ruling.
  • Discovery may be more limited in arbitration or entirely nonexistent.
  • The potential to generate billings by attorneys may be less than pursuing the dispute through trial.
  • Unlike court judgments, arbitration awards themselves are not directly enforceable. A party seeking to enforce an arbitration award must resort to judicial remedies, called an action to "confirm" an award.
    By their nature, the subject matter of some disputes is not capable of arbitration. In general, two groups of legal procedures cannot be subjected to arbitration:
  • Procedures which necessarily lead to a determination which the parties to the dispute may not enter into an agreement upon:[8][9] Some court procedures lead to judgments which bind all members of the general public, or public authorities in their capacity as such, or third parties, or which are being conducted in the public interest. For example, until the 1980s, antitrust matters were not arbitrable in the United States.[10] Matters relating to crimes, status and family law are generally not considered to be arbitrable, as the power of the parties to enter into an agreement upon these matters is at least restricted. However, most other disputes that involve private rights between two parties can be resolved using arbitration. In some disputes, parts of claims may be arbitrable and other parts not. For example, in a dispute over patent infringement, a determination of whether a patent has been infringed could be adjudicated upon by an arbitration tribunal, but the validity of a patent could not: As patents are subject to a system of public registration, an arbitral panel would have no power to order the relevant body to rectify any patent registration based upon its determination.
  • Some legal orders exclude or restrict the possibility of arbitration for reasons of the protection of weaker members of the public, e.g. consumers. Examples: German law excludes disputes over the rental of living space from any form of arbitration,[11] while arbitration agreements with consumers are only considered valid if they are signed by either party,[12] and if the signed document does not bear any other content than the arbitration agreement.[13]

Arbitration Agreement
Arbitration agreements are generally divided into two types:[

  • Agreements which provide that, if a dispute should arise, it will be resolved by arbitration. These will generally be normal contracts, but they contain an arbitration clause
  • Agreements which are signed after a dispute has arisen, agreeing that the dispute should be resolved by arbitration (sometimes called a "submission agreement")
    The former is the far more prevalent type of arbitration agreement. Sometimes, legal significance attaches to the type of arbitration agreement. For example, in certain Commonwealth countries (not including England and Wales), it is possible to provide that each party should bear their own costs in a conventional arbitration clause, but not in a submission agreement.
    In keeping with the informality of the arbitration process, the law is generally keen to uphold the validity of arbitration clauses even when they lack the normal formal language associated with legal contracts. Clauses which have been upheld include:
  • "arbitration in London - English law to apply"[14]
  • "suitable arbitration clause"[15]
  • "arbitration, if any, by ICC Rules in London"[16]
    The courts have also upheld clauses which specify resolution of disputes other than in accordance with a specific legal system. These include provision indicating:
  • That the arbitrators "must not necessarily judge according to the strict law but as a general rule ought chiefly to consider the principles of practical business"[17]
  • "internationally accepted principles of law governing contractual relations"[18]
    Agreements to refer disputes to arbitration generally have a special status in the eyes of the law. For example, in disputes on a contract, a common defence is to pleadthe contract is void and thus any claim based upon it fails. It follows that if a party successfully claims that a contract is void, then each clause contained within the contract, including the arbitration clause, would be void. However, in most countries, the courts have accepted that:
    1.    A contract can only be declared void by a court or other tribunal; and
    2.    If the contract (valid or otherwise) contains an arbitration clause, then the proper forum to determine whether the contract is void or not, is the arbitration tribunal.[19]
    Arguably, either position is potentially unfair; if a person is made to sign a contract under duress, and the contract contains an arbitration clause highly favourable to the other party, the dispute may still referred to that arbitration tribunal.[citation needed] Conversely a court may be persuaded that the arbitration agreement itself is void having been signed under duress. However, most courts will be reluctant to interfere with the general rule which does allow for commercial expediency; any other solution (where one first had to go to court to decide whether one had to go to arbitration) would be self-defeating.

Rapid Contact

Type: 15779

Nice Social Bookmark

Pin It