Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

Preview Page

The significance of the changes in the laws and practice of international commercial arbitration over the past 20 years cannot be underestimated. Many Western European nations, and all of those widely regarded as leading arbitration venues, including Belgium, France, Germany, Holland, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, as well as England, have subjected their arbitration laws to radical overhaul. The process continues: Spanish arbitration law is under review and new draft legislation is hopefully not too long off.

Nor is this process of revision confined to Western Europe: Australia, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, India, Mexico, and New Zealand are among states which have updated their arbitration statutes. Whether these countries have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law wholesale (as did Australia and Scotland), or whether they elected to draw up their own legislation with reference to the Model Law as part of the process of reform, as did England, certain trends clearly emerge.

Typically, these revisions emphasize the predominance of the autonomy of the parties; they emphasize the need to avoid unnecessary delay and expense (in the case of England, the 1996 Act imposes mandatory obligations on tribunals and parties alike to prosecute an arbitration with all dispatch, commensurate with a proper observance of due process); and they impose severe limitations on rights of appeal.
In the United States, while there may have been no wholesale revision of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), it is fair to say that the Prima Paint case in 1967, and similar landmark decisions, such as Mitsubishi Motors in 1985, and Republic of the Philippines and Westinghouse in 1989, have evidenced strong judicial support for the arbitral process.