Choosing an Arbitral Institution - Chapter 4 - Arbitration Clauses for International Contracts - 2nd Edition
Paul Friedland is a Partner at White & Case LLP and Chair of the firm's International Arbitration Practice Group. Mr. Friedland was Chair of the Task Force that developed the recent "IBA Guidelines for Drafting International Arbitration Clauses." Mr. Friedland is Chair of the Law Committee and a Member of the Board of Directors of the AAA and a Court Member of the LCIA.
Originally from Arbitration Clauses for International Contracts - Second Edition
CHOOSING AN ARBITRAL INSTITUTION
(1) Why it Matters
Six criteria should be considered in choosing among international arbitral institutions: (i) the relative advantages or disadvantages of any distinctions among the sets of institutional rules; (ii) the relative abilities and preferences of the institutions with respect to arbitrator appointments; (iii) the relative experience and ability of the institutions’ administrators or secretariats respecting case administration; (iv) relative reputation insofar as reputation may enhance or undermine the prospects for enforcement of an arbitral award; (v) cost, both administrative and arbitrator fees; and (vi) whether certain institutions are better suited for arbitration in certain locations.
This Chapter identifies and discusses these criteria, without seeking to rank the institutions according to each criterion. No worthwhile ranking can be established absent knowledge of the circumstances of a particular case.
(a) Institutional Rules
The differences among the arbitration rules of the leading international arbitral institutions are, in most cases, not outcome determinative and will not govern the parties’ choice among institutions; in some cases, the differences are significant. This section summarizes the salient differences among the rules of the ICC, LCIA and ICDR.107 Two regional arbitral institutions not discussed, but to be born in mind for disputes in the Americas are: (i) the Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Center for the Americas (“CAMCA”), founded in 1996 by the AAA together with arbitral associations in Quebec, British Columbia and Mexico; CAMCA provides a forum for commercial arbitration among parties in the NAFTA states, under rules that resemble the AAA’s International Arbitration Rules; and (ii) the Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commissions (“IACAC”), which oversees a network of Western Hemisphere arbitral bodies, applying UNCITRAL-derived rules of procedure and administered by the AAA’s ICDR.