Originally from World Arbitration And Mediation Review (WAMR)

Preview Page

I. INTRODUCTION
One of the recurrent criticisms leveled against international
arbitration is its increased time and costs: arbitration is no longer
perceived as less expensive and more expeditious than traditional
court litigation. Whether that criticism is justified is debatable.
What is clear, however, is that the costs of arbitration often
include the fees of the administering institution. While the role of
an administering institution can be valuable, particularly in highstakes,
complex cases, there are many international disputes that
are not so complex as to require the assistance of an
administering institution. The question then becomes whether
the relatively straightforward run-of-the-mill disputes benefit
from an administering institution, such that the potentially
increased time and cost are justified in all cases.
This article takes the view that in international disputes,
parties are increasingly opting for non-administered, or ad hoc,
arbitrations, and perhaps with good reason. As parties and their
counsel have become more sophisticated international players,
the participation and guidance of an administering institution
may not always be necessary. Moreover, recent changes to
certain international arbitration rules present a new opportunity
to recast international arbitration as an efficient, expeditious and
inexpensive dispute resolution mechanism that can be tailored to
the parties’ needs and preferences.
José María Abascal, in whose honor this essay is being
published, devoted years to making ad hoc arbitration a
meaningful alternative to administered arbitration. He was
chairman of the UNCITRAL Working Group on Arbitration and
Conciliation from 2000 to 2006, which drafted the UNCITRAL
Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation and a
recommendation on the interpretation of the New York
Convention.