Professor Bermann has rightfully focused his discussion on the definition of “pro-arbitration” and the qualities that can make certain policies or positions more (or less) friendly to arbitration. For jurisdictions that are already on the “arbitration-friendly” spectrum, the discussion is enormously useful.
A more basic question, however, must still be asked in many contexts—namely whether a jurisdiction itself is “pro-arbitration” or “arbitration-friendly”. As arbitration lawyers, when making such determinations we tend to focus on arbitral seats—advising clients to choose a seat that will support, and not unduly interfere with, an arbitration conducted within its boundaries.
What unfortunately receives less discussion, at least at the transaction-entry stage, is the arbitration-friendliness of the jurisdiction(s) in which any arbitral award arising from a dispute might ultimately need to be enforced.