To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Arbitrations have been on the rise for several years, in part because of the convenience it affords the parties and the introduction of arbitration clauses into the language of almost every contract. The pandemic has sent the use of this mode of dispute resolution into overdrive, in large part because of its speed and relatively easy transition to a virtual setting. While arbitrations were already popular pre-pandemic, we expect the increased attraction of “work from home” arbitrations to continue.
We often hear from clients with arbitrations that preparing for them is easier than preparing for a jury trial. In addition to the convenience factor, the expectation is that arbitrators can often be more reliable and more analytical decision makers than juries and possibly even judges. However, a growing body of research shows that – surprise, surprise – arbitrators are human, too. We have learned from three areas of r
Introduction
Arbitration has long been valued as an entirely voluntary
process. In an ideal international commercial arbitration equally
sided parties may freely decide to arbitrate as well as agree on
innumerable options of how exactly possible disputes shall be
resolved: institution or ad hoc arbitration, seat and language of
arbitration, venues and means of proceedings, number and
description of arbitrators, allocation of costs, etc.
Enjoying such procedural freedom, parties frequently decide that
one party saves the option to refer disputes either to arbitration
or to state court whilst the other party is entitled to bring the
disputes exclusively to state court.