Originally from European International Arbitration Review

Preview Page

I. Introduction 

The courts are constituted under public law and are responsible for the administration of law and justice on the State’s behalf. Anyone can be empowered to perform the quasi- or ad hoc judicial function if the same is permitted by law. Therefore, arbitral tribunals are not courts as their formation, procedures, governing rules, cost, and arbitration fees are predicated on the agreement between the parties.  In addition, the award rendered by the arbitrator does not follow the same enforcement regime as the courts’ judgments. The arbitral tribunal award is subject to courts’ assistance or judicial review. Arbitration is a substitution for the judicial function of a State, but the arbitrators are not considered judges, so any breach by the arbitral tribunal is not assigned to the State.   As per European Union (EU) laws, the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that arbitral tribunals cannot be considered regular courts as they are not established by law directly and lack perpetuity and compulsory jurisdiction.  

As arbitration is a private alternative dispute resolution mechanism that is not protected by the domestic legal system safeguards, the arbitral tribunal’s quality impacts the confidence of parties in arbitration as a reasonable alternative dispute settlement mechanism. For this reason, this article inspects the matters concerning the formation of an arbitral tribunal, duties, powers, liabilities, impartiality and independence, replacement and removal of arbitration, as well as cost and fee of arbitration beyond the minimalist approach by scrutinizing each aspect through an exclusive transnational lens as this article is not limited to the laws, rules or regulations of a single State but instead examines the interplay of various international legal landscapes, norms and standards to set out parameters and peculiarities for an arbitral tribunal’s quality.