Originally from: AAA/ICDR Handbook on International Arbitration and ADR - 2nd Edition

Preview Page

The focal point of the developing tension between the rights of the parties and the powers of arbitrators and arbitral institutions in the conduct of arbitral proceedings is the ever-increasing mandate to expedite proceedings. In reality, these tensions create an opportunity and shared responsibility for all those involved in the arbitral process. 

The costs and delays associated with international arbitration are the driving force behind the dramatically increasing emphasis on improvements in case management by the tribunal. With the explicit requirement of management with “due expedition,” recent arbitration legislation in England and Hong Kong and amendments to arbitration rules such as the new American Arbitration Association international rules inevitably will magnify the tensions between the right of the parties to control their own destiny, effective case management by the tribunal, and the exercise of supervisory functions by the arbitral institution. Gone are the days when sloppy case management can be excused as deference to party autonomy or limited authority of the arbitral institution. 

Creative and flexible case management must strike a balance between the mandate for expedition and the right of the parties to a fair hearing with procedures that are reasonably predictable. The oversight responsibility of the administrating institution must ensure the parties that prospective neutrals with impeccable qualifications and demonstrated management skills are continually available, and that the institution will monitor the performance of its neutrals and their adherence to applicable rules, procedures, and ethical standards.