Arbitration, as any other human “product,” may have defects, but this is not necessarily frequent. In other words, this does not mean in the least that arbitration is by itself always defective.
It is not rare for users to complain about the arbitrator, or the arbitral institution.
Much depends, of course, on how their arbitration was conducted.
I. PARTIES’ COMPLAINTS AS TO THE ARBITRATOR OR AS TO THE ARBITRAL INSTITUTION
Users who are unhappy with the results of an arbitral proceeding should sometimes blame their own case for not being sufficiently grounded, in which event they are not really entitled to complain about its consequences.
On other occasions their complaint may be justified. That may be the case if the proceedings last many years, or if a party feels that it has not been allowed to present its case or to prove it, or because the arbitrator has committed an error of law (such as the application of the wrong substantive law) or of fact.
A party may also feel – rightly or wrongly ¬¬– that the arbitral institution has not properly selected the chairman of the arbitral tribunal or has not well administered the proceedings.
These complaints have already been addressed by several writers.