Professor Nabil N. Antaki has been a member of the Order of Canada; Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada; Chevalier de I'Ordre National de la L6gion d'Honneur (France); and Officier de l'Ordre des Palmes acad6miques (France). He has been a Professor of Law at Laval University since 1968.
The North American Free Trade Agreement fuels economic growth, but NAFTA means also excellent new opportunities for the private sector!. This unprecedented growth of business shall, no doubt bring its load of predictable and unpredictable business disputes2 . These would be directed to the courts or solved by arbitration, mediation or other ADR techniques. When an arbitration institution is to be chosen to handle such a dispute, it has a number of alternatives. It can choose to adopt CANACO, AAA3, ICC, CAMCA4, IACAC, BCICAC or other institutional rules. This article explains why the Quebec Centre's rules should also be considered.
I. The Canadian legal framework
Arbitration has now come to the fore as the privileged means for resolving disputes in international trade. It is also unfortunately clear that this technique is far from being completely tried and true, at least in Canada and maybe also in Mexico. The reasons underlying its mitigated success are many and varied. They result both from the fragility of supra-national law and from domestic circumstances involving politics, law and society. Furthermore, the adoption of up-to-date legislation is not a determining factor. The parties also need reassurance that past irritants have been removed.
Experience shows that the improvement of the law is often a necessary step, but even more important, albeit an indispensable condition, is the replacement of a paradigm of hostility, whether latent or otherwise, by one more receptive to the development of mutual trust. In this area, the Canadian experience has much to say for itself.