Term Paper: International Commercial Arbitration

Pages: 10 (3434 words)  ·  Style: Harvard  ·  Bibliography Sources: 20  ·  Level: Master's  ·  Topic: Business - Law  ·  Buy This Paper


[. . .] International arbitration settlements might prove to be cheaper compared to litigation as well, particularly if several nationwide legal courts are providing their services and input. Generally, international arbitration expenses are a lot more than the local arbitration proceedings though. However, this structure of international arbitration will probably be more affordable compared to worldwide litigation structures (Philip, 1997).

International arbitration usually is actually much less adversarial compared to international litigations structures and could much better in conserving company human relationships and networks as well due to its open and honest nature of discussions (Rozas, 2005).

Arbitration is actually progressively approved, accepted, through the majority of countries from the globe. Arbitration was formerly seen in the past in the U.S. (as well as within some other countries) being as an incorrect structure as well as an illegal one and these nations believed that international arbitration structures primarily tried to expel the legal courts off their jurisdictions (Brower, 1995). However, it is currently preferred within the United States as well as majority of the Western Europe region (Grantham, 1996). Additionally, a substantial amount of nations have accepted international commercial arbitration as a standard through ratifying the New York Convention (Russel, 2006). Arbitration might be particularly suitable in numerous Asian countries, in which the tradition disfavours the actual adversarial procedure for lawsuit. Although some South American regions as well as Middle Eastern states never have preferred to not use international arbitration for the past settlements, for example Egypt as well as Brazil, have now accepted and utilized the services of International Commercial Arbitration (Martin, 1997).

Drawbacks associated with International arbitration

Drawbacks associated with international commercial and/or industrial arbitration when compared with international litigation

The actual decisions, orders as well as awards released through a good arbitration tribunal are not able to combine the 3rd parties as well, which is a big disadvantage. The procedure associated with arbitration is actually consensual and for that reason is not able to combine or include anybody who is not really directly affiliated with the party involved in the arbitration process.

A good arbitration award has to be forced into application via nationwide legal courts, if the opposing party who lost is not willing to comply with general procedures. Whilst arbitrators, generally, might honour temporary or even long-term injunctive alleviation, it nevertheless has to be forced within nationwide legal courts if the opposing party who lost is not willing to comply with general procedures (in contrast to the court-ordered injunction, that is instantly self-enforcing).

Arbitration might struggle to offer an instant temporary alleviation. Usually it takes a few months in order to make up a good arbitration tribunal. Legal courts, in comparison, tend to be long-term establishments and therefore are in a position to offer temporary alleviation upon brief observe. This is also a big disadvantage. Numerous arbitration establishments (remarkably the WIPO establishment) have wanted to reduce the results of the restriction through creating position sections associated with arbitrators to deal with unforeseen risks, emergencies or disasters.

International arbitration might limit breakthrough as well as documentation or testimony which is another disadvantage, although discovery being restructured can also be an advantage in certain situations aforementioned (Martin, 1997). Another disadvantage is that arbitration will not produce precedent. The national courtroom orders in a single nation might be approved as applicable in the short and long run on the parties involved, the details recognized, as well as the problems raised internationally, under the application and established standards of the "comity" doctrine.

Parties are not able to need to arbitrate if the contractual responsibility is missing. Arbitration is actually simply consensual. The problem associated with whether or not 3rd parties are recognized as part of the consensual contract is based purely on the situational litigation and documentations even if the third party is an affiliate, sister company or a subsidiary (Allen et al., 1998).


A good anti-suit injunction as part of the international arbitration structure can be explained as "an order of the court requiring the injunction defendant not to commence, or to cease to pursue, or not to advance particular claims within, or to take steps to terminate or suspend court or arbitration proceedings in a foreign country" (Raphael, 2008).

Actually, in the U.S., anti-suit injunctions are used to prevent procedures not just with overseas nations, but additionally within sister-state legal courts (Bermann, 1990). It had been, nevertheless, just lately when the United States national and legal courts started giving worldwide anti-suit injunctions (Bermann, 1990).

Based on the opinions and rulings established by Thomas Raphael, the actual anti-suit injunction developed through the regular injunction, which was given through English Courts of Chancery whenever England's typical legislation courts' ruling dishonoured concepts associated with collateral equity (Raphael, 2008). The idea associated with rule had been practically examined and scrutinized for the first time back in the 17th century when the case of Love vs. Baker was being decided. However it had been not been till the earlier 19th century when "the grant of injunctions to restrain proceedings in the other countries of the United Kingdom and the British Empire became well established; and by the end of the century, injunctions had been granted to restrain proceedings in foreign countries that owed no allegiance to the Queen" (Raphael, 2008).

Even though some years back it may be stated that this treatment had been enclosed towards the typical international legislation (Bermann, 1990), however, it appears that currently there are numerous samples of anti-suit injunctions given through city legislation courts as well, such as in Brazil as well as Venezuela (Gaillard, 2008). Additionally, despite the fact that anti-suit injunctions have primarily and typically been released through legal courts, there have been numerous cases of anti-suit injunctions in the past that have been given and completed through the use of arbitrators.

It is important to note here that the actual circumstances by which anti-suit injunctions tend to be given or used within the international arbitration structure differ considerably.

George Bermann outlined the next situations in which issuance associated with anti-suit injunctions tend to be justified through U.S. legislation: (1) once the overseas courtroom is actually extremely inconvenient, vexatious or even oppressive; (2) once the overseas decision was the one that had been challenged as being within the lines of breach but had not been dragged into normal court proceedings (for instance this is true for all those decisions made through panel discussions or a good arbitration contract); as well as (3) whenever there is a risk or possibility of jeopardy for the enjoining court's personal legislation or perhaps possible violation of the general public policy being applied in the region (Bermann, 1990).

In the case of China Trade and Dev. Corp. v. M.V. Choong Yong (1987), the Second Circuit ruled which candidates with regard to worldwide anti-suit injunctions should accomplish the examination which involves 2 limit specifications: "(1) the parties must be the same in both matters, and (2) resolution of the case before the enjoining court must be dispositive of the action to be enjoined." As soon as both of these specifications have been fulfilled by the parties involved, there are a total of five discretionary aspects that have to be thus examined throughout the courtroom proceedings: "(1) frustration of a policy in the enjoining forum; (2) the foreign action would be vexatious; (3) a threat to the issuing court's in rem or quasi-in rem jurisdiction; (4) the proceedings in the other forum prejudice other equitable considerations; or (5) adjudication of the same issues in separate actions would result in delay, inconvenience, expense, inconsistency, or a race to judgment" (1987)

Within Britain, based on the experience and opinions of Thomas Raphael, anti-suit injunctions might be given within the subsequent conditions: (1) once the ending decision is directly in line with the proper and legal rights; (2) to safeguard the substantive lawful or even fair right of the parties involved; (3) in order to restrain vexatious or even oppressive legal procedures; as well as (4) in which overseas procedures symbolize an unlawful disturbance or disparity with the established British procedures, or to safeguard the actual legislation of the British courtroom proceedings (Raphael, 2008).

Nonetheless, due to the fact the actual anti-suit injunction is really a discretionary treatment; there might be some other situations which warrant the actual issuance associated with this kind of purchase (Bermann, 1990), needing the actual courtroom to consider the particular conditions from the situation.

Despite the fact that anti-suit injunctions tend to be given recurrently, particularly in the regions of U.S. And the British legal courts, this may not really occur without having argumentative demonstrations through the worldwide lawful community, particularly when the actual purchase is aimed at enjoining the initiation or even continuation associated with procedures within other countries. Essentially, a decision to pursue some form of litigation in order to refrain from looking for redress in the courtroom of an overseas nation is indisputably… [END OF PREVIEW]

Four Different Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?

1.  Buy the full, 10-page paper:  $28.88


2.  Buy + remove from all search engines
(Google, Yahoo, Bing) for 30 days:  $38.88


3.  Access all 175,000+ papers:  $41.97/mo

(Already a member?  Click to download the paper!)


4.  Let us write a NEW paper for you!

Ask Us to Write a New Paper
Most popular!

Arbitration and Its Relation to Family Law Term Paper

Expropriation and Compensation of Foreign Direct Investments in EU and Developing Countries Term Paper

Evolution of Commercial Law From the 18th Century to the Current International E-Commerce Era Research Paper

International Commercial Arbitration Dubai International Arbitration Centre DIAC Rules Essay

International Trade Law Term Paper

View 57 other related papers  >>

Cite This Term Paper:

APA Format

International Commercial Arbitration.  (2012, February 12).  Retrieved July 17, 2019, from https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/international-commercial-arbitration/9120133

MLA Format

"International Commercial Arbitration."  12 February 2012.  Web.  17 July 2019. <https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/international-commercial-arbitration/9120133>.

Chicago Format

"International Commercial Arbitration."  Essaytown.com.  February 12, 2012.  Accessed July 17, 2019.