Since its establishment as an effective and efficient way to resolve disputes, international arbitration has continued to grow in leaps and bounds. Countries, institutions, and companies in different jurisdictions have increasingly and unanimously accepted it as a great if not better alternative to court processes.
However, as the acceptance of arbitrary rulings across jurisdictions has grown, so has it encountered challenges. There has been the issue of fairness and the ability of Arbitrators to remain neutral in settling disputes, especially in extremely delicate cases. Also, there has been the need to tackle issues of cyber compromise, which is still a challenge to the system.
Also, another challenge that has plagued international arbitration is how to effectively manage people, uphold the practices, and ensure that every party understands its procedures.
All of these challenges have forced the need for innovation in international arbitration practices, and there has been significant improvement as well. However, there is more to be done and more especially in the areas of arbitration practices. While arbitration is evidently a superior method of resolving disputes, there is still a brooding air around it that individuals and institutions who seek a resolution tend to point at. While this situation may just be speculation, an innovation in arbitration practices and procedures will help calm some nerves and clear certain doubts.
This article will focus on innovation and international arbitration with respect to how parties and disputes can be efficiently and effectively managed. An ability to do this will lead to an effective and efficient resolution in resolving commercial disputes across jurisdictions while saving cost and time
Innovation and International Arbitration: Managing People, Practice and Procedure
Despite the sensitivity that surrounds managing people during arbitrary resolution, there is only very little discussion on how to drive innovation in the area such that animosity in proceedings can be effectively and efficiently canceled.
The foundation and survival of international arbitration processes fully depend on the perceptions of parties involved in the disputes, and if there is a lack of truth in the processes, especially in neutrality, cost, and speed in resolving disputes, it would be doom for the process.
Most arbitration firms and practitioners have been paying more attention to the processes of arbitrations and how they can make them more appealing to the parties involved in disputes
During the number four session of the Commercial Dispute Resolution (CDR) Autumn Arbitration Symposium, two practitioners focused on how to innovate the practice and proceeding of arbitral dealings to make it more efficient and effective.
Judge Samuel Granata, an Intellectual property specialist of the Antwerp Court of Appeal, and Barrister Paul Cowan of the London 4 new square and a former partner of White and Case Arbitration both discussed how the International arbitration process could be made better. The relevant discussion that relates to the topic being considered was given by the latter, who advocated for more efficient and transparent dealings on arbitration proceedings.
Cowan, in his speech, emphasized the need for practitioners and arbitration bodies to make arbitration laws and processes much more transparent to people and institutions so that they know what they are signing up for. He stressed that once arbitrary processes were clear to parties involved, they would be more understanding of the resolution reached and would really have no need to challenge issuing an award.
He cited a report by the ICC in 2012 on the need for transparency in arbitration processes and also stated a survey carried out in 2015 by a combination of White and Case International Arbitration and the Mary University of London. The survey was aimed to find out from relevant respondent what they thought on the Practices of the arbitration firm and if there were more need for simplification of the proceedings.
92% of the respondents agreed on a simplified proceeding. 33% of the 92% agreed on Mandatory simplification, while 59% wanted it to be an option that can be requested when the need arises.
Another area of the arbitration process that Cowan suggested a need for change was the sequential representation of pleadings. He stated that it would be best that pleading a claim and
a counterclaim can go on simultaneously. This would end in saving time and cost by up to half compared to the sequential representation of pleading and counter pleadings.
Cowan also suggested that Practitioners should be more proactive and should always engage with the tribunal during and immediately after the closure of pleadings. A management conference should also be held, and that will help make the most important details clearer. It would be easier to reach the Lever that moves the mountain, and a resolution reached with that. This, if successfully and neutrally, carried out in line with arbitration best practices, would help arbitrators save the time and cost of both parties.
Another suggestion was the need for arbitration firms to accept the progress of technology and how it can be harnessed to ensure neutrality and efficiency in proceedings. The dispute resolution rules can be easily shared among the parties involved, and all data needed by the practitioner can be accessed with just a click.
CONCLUSION
There are so many adjustments that can be made in international arbitration processes and innovation in the proceedings, especially when considering international arbitration for commercial dispute resolution. Innovation and international arbitration must go hand in hand to better manage people and evolve some archaic processes that consume time and lead to high costs for all parties involved.
Certain arbitration firms have begun adopting innovative processes without breaching the civil and common law that guide arbitration proceedings. These firms have adopted practices that instill confidence from the disputers and ensure that the highest level of fairness is reached. One of the firms that have been at the forefront of employing innovation in international arbitration is Rattsakuten.
Rattsakuten is a firm with some of the most innovative teams of professional arbitrators. The professionals in this firm have been able to build a reputation of ensuring total neutrality and not
a counterclaim can go on simultaneously. This would end in saving time and cost by up to half compared to the sequential representation of pleading and counter pleadings.
Cowan also suggested that Practitioners should be more proactive and should always engage with the tribunal during and immediately after the closure of pleadings. A management conference should also be held, and that will help make the most important details clearer. It would be easier to reach the Lever that moves the mountain, and a resolution reached with that. This, if successfully and neutrally, carried out in line with arbitration best practices, would help arbitrators save the time and cost of both parties.
Another suggestion was the need for arbitration firms to accept the progress of technology and how it can be harnessed to ensure neutrality and efficiency in proceedings. The dispute resolution rules can be easily shared among the parties involved, and all data needed by the practitioner can be accessed with just a click.