Originally from Practitioner's Handbook On International Arbitration And Mediation- 3rd Edition

§ 1.01 Overview

This chapter reviews the reasons for choosing to arbitrate an international commercial dispute:

(a) the parties’ right to select their forum, rather than be subject to litigation in the other party’s courts;

(b) the parties’ right to select the adjudicators for their dispute;

(c) the likelihood that the parties’ choice of governing law will be respected;

(d) the ease of enforcement of the arbitral award in other jurisdictions;

(e) reduced (many times substantially reduced) cost;

(f) for many adversaries, the most important reason of all, confidentiality of the proceedings.

Arbitration seems everywhere. One major New York law firm reported that 90 percent of the international transactions in which it is involved contain arbitration clauses, and yet one finds lawyers in the United States and abroad who hate arbitration, and swear that they will never again bring a dispute before a panel of arbitrators. Lawyers who have lost an arbitration case are not the only ones who dislike arbitration, though they are the ones who most long for some form of appeal, which arbitration generally does not afford.2 Even lawyers who have not lost an arbitration often express the wish that they were back in the courtroom, where they know the rules, in contrast with arbitration, where, they lament, there are no rules.

In my experience, both of those these perceptions are erroneous. The procedural rules of court are not nearly as comprehensive as many antiarbitration lawyers claim, as can be seen by the plethora of motions and by the large number of issues left to the decision--and discretion--of the trial judge. In contrast, although international arbitrators are granted wide leeway,3 international arbitration is not a free exercise. Not only are parties entitled to be heard (orally and in writing), and to be treated fairly and equally, they are bound to follow the panel’s rules.