Survey on Scrutiny of Arbitral Institutions - Chapter 1 - Arbitral Institutions Under Scrutiny: ASA Special Series No. 40
Simone HOFBAUER is a Senior Associate at Wenger & Vieli AG in Zurich. Her practice focuses on commercial arbitration, litigation, banking and financial services, as well as general corporate and commercial law. She has acted both as party representative and on behalf of arbitral tribunals (mostly as administrative secretary) in numerous domestic and international commercial arbitration cases, mainly in ICC, Swiss Rules and ad hoc proceedings. She holds an LL.M. degree in International Business Law from American University, Washington College of Law, and clerked with the District Court of Winterthur, Switzerland, prior to being admitted to the bar.
Michael BURKART is a Research Assistant and a PhD Candidate at the University of Lucerne. He works at the chair of Prof. Dr. Daniel Girsberger in the field of International Arbitration, Swiss and International Private, Business and Procedural Law and Comparative Law. Mr. Burkart graduated from the University of Lucerne and studied also at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago and at the University of Stockholm. He is a Member of Young ICCA. Mr. Burkart speaks German, English, French and Spanish.
Lara BANDER is a trainee Solicitor at the international law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski International LLP in London. A law graduate from King’s College, London, Lara spent the third year of her undergraduate programme studying French law at Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne. In 2011, Lara was awarded an LLM in International dispute settlement at the Graduate Institute of Geneva and the University of Geneva. Lara speaks English (native), French and Arabic.
Mehtap TARI HIRT is the in- house Counsel of Stucky SA in Switzerland, a consulting company offering engineering and consulting services in the fields of dams, water and energy. She is also founder and head of Legal Business Consulting, a Swiss registered company, active in international litigation and arbitration. Ms. Tari Hirt is a registered lawyer admitted to the Bar in Istanbul and a nominee for the Arbitrator List of the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce. International contract negotiation and drafting being her main activity, she is specialized in FIDIC contracts. She obtained her LLM degree at Graduate Institute and University of Geneva in International Dispute Settlement. She speaks Turkish, English and French fluently.
Arbitral institutions play a crucial role in facilitating arbitral proceedings world-wide. Parties who prefer to have their potential disputes adjudicated by an arbitral tribunal rather than by state courts have the choice to agree on an ad hoc arbitration or institutional arbitration. An ad hoc arbitration allows the parties the greatest extent of flexibility to shape and tailor the arbitral procedure to the specific requirements of the individual case. Ad hoc arbitrations are still subject to the mandatory law at the seat of arbitration but they do not depend on the assistance of an arbitral institution in the administration or facilitation of the arbitral proceedings. Yet, many parties do prefer to conduct their arbitrations within the ambit of an already established set of arbitration rules provided by a particular arbitral institution and make use of the infrastructure and services of such an institution.
There are, however, significant differences between various arbitral institutions with regard to the scope as well as the level of administrative assistance and services provided. The organizational structure of arbitral institutions may also vary significantly. The supervision by the arbitral institutions over the proceedings may differ from institution to institution as well as the level of quality control exercised by these institutions.
The objective of this survey was to collect data from various arbitral institutions worldwide to allow for a thorough analysis and to learn more about how these various institutions work; whether there are similarities in their organizational structure and functioning or in their procedures on the appointment, confirmation, removal and replacement of arbitrators. The survey also focused on whether and how arbitral institutions supervise and control the quality of the arbitral proceedings administered under their rules of arbitration. Furthermore, the survey focused on the differences between various institutions in regard to the costs of arbitration as well as in regard to the liability of arbitrators and institutions.