deciding on the right dispute resolution process: arbitration justin michaelson
DESCRIPTION
2.Provides a flexible procedure Not every dispute suits one level of regulation. Adapting to the parties’ needs.TRANSCRIPT
Deciding on the right dispute resolution process: Arbitration
Justin Michaelson
1. It is a truly private forum
• Not publicly listed.
• Concept of “inherent confidentiality”: Moscow City Council case.
2. Provides a flexible procedure
• Not every dispute suits one level of regulation.
• Adapting to the parties’ needs.
3. Choosing your own “judges”
• Very often, allows the parties to select their own ‘arbitrators’
• Party autonomy.
4. Speed of process
• It can be, but is not always, quicker than litigation.
5. Compatibility with other methods of non-binding dispute resolution process
• Arbitration can easily dove-tail into other non-binding processes of dispute resolution.
• The “Mediator-Arbitrator”.
6. Enforceable within the EU, through the exemption under Brussels Regulation 44/2001
• ‘Arbitration’ agreements work more effectively than exclusive jurisdiction clauses.
• Strategic use of Exclusive Jurisdiction clauses.
• Through Transport and The Front Comor
7. Facilitates the resolution of cross-border disputes
• International Arbitration is intended to provide a “jurisdiction-neutral” approach.
8. “International” Arbitration Awards are Immediately enforceable
• International Arbitration awards are immediately enforceable in over 140 countries.
• The same is true of domestic Awards, although the regime is a little less stringent.
Conclusions
• Flexible process
• Judges with suitable expertise
• Guided by party autonomy
• Confidentiality