Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a way
to resolve disputes outside the courts. The dispute will be decided by
one or more persons (the "arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral
tribunal"), which renders the "arbitration award". An arbitration
award is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in the
Arbitration is often used for the resolution of commercial disputes,
particularly in the context of international commercial transactions.
In certain countries such as the United States, arbitration is also
frequently employed in consumer and employment matters, where
arbitration may be mandated by the terms of employment or commercial
contracts and may include a waiver of the right to bring a class
action claim. Mandatory consumer and employment arbitration should be
distinguished from consensual arbitration, particularly commercial
Arbitration can be either voluntary or mandatory (although mandatory
arbitration can only come from a statute or from a contract that is
voluntarily entered into, in which the parties agree to hold all
existing or future disputes to arbitration, without necessarily
knowing, specifically, what disputes will ever occur) and can be
either binding or non-binding.
Non-binding arbitration is similar to
mediation in that a decision cannot be imposed on the parties.
However, the principal distinction is that whereas a mediator will try
to help the parties find a middle ground on which to compromise, the
(non-binding) arbitrator remains totally removed from the settlement
process and will only give a determination of liability and, if
appropriate, an indication of the quantum of damages payable. By one
definition arbitration is binding and non-binding arbitration is
therefore technically not arbitration.
Arbitration is a proceeding in which a dispute is resolved by an
impartial adjudicator whose decision the parties to the dispute have
agreed, or legislation has decreed, will be final and binding. There
are limited rights of review and appeal of arbitration awards.
Arbitration is not the same as:
judicial proceedings, although in some jurisdictions, court
proceedings are sometimes referred as arbitrations
alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
mediation (a form of settlement negotiation facilitated by a neutral
1 Advantages and disadvantages
4 Comparative law
4.1 United States
5.2 International agreements
5.3 International enforcement
5.3.1 Government disputes
6 Arbitral tribunal
6.1 Duties of the tribunal
7 Arbitral awards
9.2 United States
10 See also
12.1 International arbitration
13 External links
Advantages and disadvantages
Parties often seek to resolve disputes through arbitration because of
a number of perceived potential advantages over judicial proceedings.
Companies often require arbitration with their customers, but prefer
the advantages of courts in disputes with competitors:[not in
In contrast to litigation, where one cannot "choose the judge",
arbitration allows the parties to choose their own tribunal. This is
especially useful when the subject matter of the dispute is highly
technical: arbitrators with an appropriate degree of expertise (for
example, quantity surveying expertise, in the case of a construction
dispute, or expertise in commercial property law, in the case of a
real estate dispute) can be chosen.
Arbitration is often faster than litigation in court.
Arbitral proceedings and an arbitral award are generally non-public,
and can be made confidential
In arbitral proceedings the language of arbitration may be chosen,
whereas in judicial proceedings the official language of the country
of the competent court will be automatically applied.
Because of the provisions of the New York Convention 1958, arbitration
awards are generally easier to enforce in other nations than court
In most legal systems there are very limited avenues for appeal of an
arbitral award, which is sometimes an advantage because it limits the
duration of the dispute and any associated liability.
Some of the disadvantages include:
Arbitration agreements are sometimes contained in ancillary
agreements, or in small print in other agreements, and consumers and
employees often do not know in advance that they have agreed to
mandatory binding pre-dispute arbitration by purchasing a product or
taking a job.
If the arbitration is mandatory and binding, the parties waive their
rights to access the courts and to have a judge or jury decide the
If the arbitrator or the arbitration forum depends on the corporation
for repeat business, there may be an inherent incentive to rule
against the consumer or employee
There are very limited avenues for appeal, which means that an
erroneous decision cannot be easily overturned.
Although usually thought to be speedier, when there are multiple
arbitrators on the panel, juggling their schedules for hearing dates
in long cases can lead to delays.
In some legal systems, arbitration awards have fewer enforcement
options than judgments; although in the
United States arbitration
awards are enforced in the same manner as court judgments and have the
Arbitrators are generally unable to enforce interlocutory measures
against a party, making it easier for a party to take steps to avoid
enforcement of member or a small group of members in arbitration due
to increasing legal fees, without explaining to the members the
adverse consequences of an unfavorable ruling.
Discovery may be more limited in arbitration or entirely nonexistent.
The potential to generate billings by attorneys may be less than
pursuing the dispute through trial.
Unlike court judgments, arbitration awards themselves are not directly
enforceable. A party seeking to enforce an arbitration award must
resort to judicial remedies, called an action to "confirm" an award.
By their nature, the subject matter of some disputes is not capable of
arbitration. In general, two groups of legal procedures cannot be
subjected to arbitration:
Procedures which necessarily lead to a determination which the parties
to the dispute may not enter into an agreement upon: Some court
procedures lead to judgments which bind all members of the general
public, or public authorities in their capacity as such, or third
parties, or which are being conducted in the public interest. For
example, until the 1980s, antitrust matters were not arbitrable in the
United States. Matters relating to crimes, status and family law
are generally not considered to be arbitrable, as the power of the
parties to enter into an agreement upon these matters is at least
restricted. However, most other disputes that involve private rights
between two parties can be resolved using arbitration. In some
disputes, parts of claims may be arbitrable and other parts not. For
example, in a dispute over patent infringement, a determination of
whether a patent has been infringed could be adjudicated upon by an
arbitration tribunal, but the validity of a patent could not: As
patents are subject to a system of public registration, an arbitral
panel would have no power to order the relevant body to rectify any
patent registration based upon its determination.
Some legal orders exclude or restrict the possibility of arbitration
for reasons of the protection of weaker members of the public, e.g.
consumers. Examples: German law excludes disputes over the rental of
living space from any form of arbitration, while arbitration
agreements with consumers are only considered valid if they are signed
by either party, and if the signed document does not bear any
other content than the arbitration agreement.
Arbitration agreements are generally divided into two types:[citation
Agreements which provide that, if a dispute should arise, it will be
resolved by arbitration. These will generally be normal contracts, but
they contain an arbitration clause
Agreements which are signed after a dispute has arisen, agreeing that
the dispute should be resolved by arbitration (sometimes called a
The former is the far more prevalent type of arbitration agreement.
Sometimes, legal significance attaches to the type of arbitration
agreement. For example, in certain Commonwealth countries (not
England and Wales), it is possible to provide that each
party should bear their own costs in a conventional arbitration
clause, but not in a submission agreement.
In keeping with the informality of the arbitration process, the law is
generally keen to uphold the validity of arbitration clauses even when
they lack the normal formal language associated with legal contracts.
Clauses which have been upheld include:
London - English law to apply"
"suitable arbitration clause"
"arbitration, if any, by ICC Rules in London"
The courts have also upheld clauses which specify resolution of
disputes other than in accordance with a specific legal system. These
include provision indicating:
That the arbitrators "must not necessarily judge according to the
strict law but as a general rule ought chiefly to consider the
principles of practical business"
"internationally accepted principles of law governing contractual
Agreements to refer disputes to arbitration generally have a special
status in the eyes of the law. For example, in disputes on a contract,
a common defence is to plead the contract is void and thus any claim
based upon it fails. It follows that if a party successfully claims
that a contract is void, then each clause contained within the
contract, including the arbitration clause, would be void. However, in
most countries, the courts have accepted that:
A contract can only be declared void by a court or other tribunal; and
If the contract (valid or otherwise) contains an arbitration clause,
then the proper forum to determine whether the contract is void or
not, is the arbitration tribunal.
Arguably, either position is potentially unfair; if a person is made
to sign a contract under duress, and the contract contains an
arbitration clause highly favourable to the other party, the dispute
may still referred to that arbitration tribunal.
Conversely a court may be persuaded that the arbitration agreement
itself is void having been signed under duress. However, most courts
will be reluctant to interfere with the general rule which does allow
for commercial expediency; any other solution (where one first had to
go to court to decide whether one had to go to arbitration) would be
Nations regulate arbitration through a variety of laws. The main body
of law applicable to arbitration is normally contained either in the
national Private International Law Act (as is the case in Switzerland)
or in a separate law on arbitration (as is the case in
Jordan). In addition to this, a number of national procedural laws
may also contain provisions relating to arbitration.
Arbitration in the United States
Federal Arbitration Act
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of 1925 established a public policy
in favor of arbitration. For the first six decades of its existence,
courts did not allow arbitration for "federal statutory claims"
through a bright-line "nonarbitrability" doctrine, but in the 1980s
Court of the
United States reversed and began to use the
act to require arbitration if included in the contract for federal
statutory claims. Although some legal scholars believe that it was
originally intended to apply to federal courts only, courts now
routinely require arbitration due to the FAA regardless of state
statutes or public policy unconscionability determinations by state
courts. In consumer law, standard form contracts often include
mandatory predispute arbitration clauses which require consumer
arbitration. Under these agreements the consumer may waive their right
to a lawsuit and a class action. In 2011, one of these clauses was
upheld in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.
Several arbitration organizations exist, including the American
Arbitration Association and JAMS. The
National Arbitration Forum also
conducts arbitrations, but it no longer conducts consumer arbitrations
pursuant to a consent decree entered into in 2009 because of evidence
that it had been biased toward, and had incentives that favored,
credit card companies over cardholders. The AAA was also asked to exit
the business., but has not done so.
United States and Great Britain were pioneers in the use of
arbitration to resolve their differences. It was first used in the Jay
Treaty of 1795, and played a major role in the
Alabama Claims case of
1872 whereby major tensions regarding British support for the
Confederacy during the American Civil War were resolved. At the First
International Conference of American States in 1890, a plan for
systematic arbitration was developed, but not accepted. The Hague
Peace Conference of 1899, saw the major world powers agreed to a
system of arbitration and the creation of a Permanent
William Howard Taft
William Howard Taft was a major advocate. One
important use came in the Newfoundland fisheries dispute between the
United States and Britain in 1910. In 1911 the
United States signed
arbitration treaties with France and Britain.
Arbitration was widely discussed among diplomats and elites in the
1890-1914 era. The 1895 dispute between the
United States and Britain
over Venezuela was peacefully resolved through arbitration. Both
nations realized that a mechanism was desirable to avoid possible
future conflicts. The
Olney-Pauncefote Treaty of 1897 was a proposed
treaty between the
United States and Britain in 1897 that required
arbitration of major disputes. The treaty was rejected by the U.S.
Senate and never went into effect.
American Secretary of State
William Jennings Bryan
William Jennings Bryan (1913–1915)
worked energetically to promote international arbitration agreements,
but his efforts were frustrated by the outbreak of World War I. Bryan
negotiated 28 treaties that promised arbitration of disputes before
war broke out between the signatory countries and the United States.
He made several attempts to negotiate a treaty with Germany, but
ultimately was never able to succeed. The agreements, known officially
as "Treaties for the Advancement of Peace," set up procedures for
conciliation rather than for arbitration.
were negotiated after the war, but attracted much less attention than
the negotiation mechanism created by the League of Nations.
By far the most important international instrument on arbitration
law is the 1958 New York Convention on Recognition
and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, usually simply referred to
as the "New York Convention". Virtually every significant commercial
country is a signatory, and only a handful of countries are not
parties to the New York Convention.
Some other relevant international instruments are:
The Geneva Protocol of 1923
The Geneva Convention of 1927 
The European Convention of 1961
The Washington Convention of 1965 (governing settlement of
international investment disputes)
The Washington Convention (ICSID) of 1996 for investment arbitration
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of
1985, (revised in 2006).
Arbitration Rules (providing a set of rules for an ad hoc
It is often easier to enforce arbitration awards in a foreign country
than court judgments. Under the New York Convention
1958, an award issued in a contracting state can generally be freely
enforced in any other contracting state, only subject to certain,
limited defenses. Only foreign arbitration awards are enforced
pursuant to the New York Convention. An arbitral decision is foreign
where the award was made in a state other than the state of
recognition or where foreign procedural law was used. In most
cases, these disputes are settled with no public record of their
existence as the loser complies voluntarily, although in 2014
UNCITRAL promulgated a rule for public disclosure of investor-state
Virtually every significant commercial country in the world is a party
to the Convention while relatively few countries have a comprehensive
network for cross-border enforcement of judgments their courts.
Additionally, the awards not limited to damages. Whereas typically
only monetary judgments by national courts are enforceable in the
cross-border context, it is theoretically possible (although unusual
in practice) to obtain an enforceable order for specific performance
in an arbitration proceeding under the New York Convention.
Article V of the New York Convention provides an exhaustive list of
grounds on which enforcement can be challenged. These are generally
narrowly construed to uphold the pro-enforcement bias of the
Certain international conventions exist in relation to the enforcement
of awards against states.
The Washington Convention 1965 relates to settlement of investment
disputes between states and citizens of other countries. The
Convention created the International Centre for Settlement of
Investment Disputes (or ICSID). Compared to other arbitration
institutions, relatively few awards have been rendered under
The Algiers Declaration of 1981 established the Iran-US Claims
Tribunal to adjudicate claims of American corporations and individuals
in relation to expropriated property during the Islamic revolution in
Iran in 1979. The tribunal has not been a notable success, and has
even been held by an English court to be void under its own governing
Main article: Arbitral tribunal
The arbitrators which determine the outcome of the dispute are called
the arbitral tribunal. The composition of the arbitral tribunal can
vary enormously, with either a sole arbitrator sitting, two or more
arbitrators, with or without a chairman or umpire, and various other
combinations. In most jurisdictions, an arbitrator enjoys immunity
from liability for anything done or omitted whilst acting as
arbitrator unless the arbitrator acts in bad faith.
Arbitrations are usually divided into two types: ad hoc arbitrations
and administered arbitrations.
In ad hoc arbitrations, the arbitral tribunals are appointed by the
parties or by an appointing authority chosen by the parties. After the
tribunal has been formed, the appointing authority will normally have
no other role and the arbitation will be managed by the tribunal.
In administered arbitration, the arbitration will be administered by a
professional arbitration institution providing arbitration services,
such as the LCIA in London, or the ICC in Paris, or the American
Arbitration Association in the United States. Normally the arbitration
institution also will be the appointing authority. Arbitration
institutions tend to have their own rules and procedures, and may be
more formal. They also tend to be more expensive, and, for procedural
Duties of the tribunal
The duties of a tribunal will be determined by a combination of the
provisions of the arbitration agreement and by the procedural laws
which apply in the seat of the arbitration. The extent to which the
laws of the seat of the arbitration permit "party autonomy" (the
ability of the parties to set out their own procedures and
regulations) determines the interplay between the two.
However, in almost all countries the tribunal owes several
non-derogable duties. These will normally be:
to act fairly and impartially between the parties, and to allow each
party a reasonable opportunity to put their case and to deal with the
case of their opponent (sometimes shortened to: complying with the
rules of "natural justice"); and
to adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the particular
case, so as to provide a fair means for resolution of the dispute.
Although arbitration awards are characteristically an award of damages
against a party, in many jurisdictions tribunals have a range of
remedies that can form a part of the award. These may include:
payment of a sum of money (conventional damages)
the making of a "declaration" as to any matter to be determined in the
in some[which?] jurisdictions, the tribunal may have the same power as
a court to:
order a party to do or refrain from doing something ("injunctive
to order specific performance of a contract
to order the rectification, setting aside or cancellation of a deed or
In other jurisdictions, however, unless the parties have expressly
granted the arbitrators the right to decide such matters, the
tribunal's powers may be limited to deciding whether a party is
entitled to damages. It may not have the legal authority to order
injunctive relief, issue a declaration, or rectify a contract, such
powers being reserved to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts.
Generally speaking, by their nature, arbitration proceedings tend not
to be subject to appeal, in the ordinary sense of the word. However,
in most countries, the court maintains a supervisory role to set aside
awards in extreme cases, such as fraud or in the case of some serious
legal irregularity on the part of the tribunal. Only domestic arbitral
awards are subject to set aside procedure.
In American arbitration law there exists a small but significant body
of case law which deals with the power of the courts to intervene
where the decision of an arbitrator is in fundamental disaccord with
the applicable principles of law or the contract. However, this
body of case law has been called into question by recent decisions of
the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately there is little agreement amongst the different American
judgments and textbooks as to whether such a separate doctrine exists
at all, or the circumstances in which it would apply. There does not
appear to be any recorded judicial decision in which it has been
applied. However, conceptually, to the extent it exists, the doctrine
would be an important derogation from the general principle that
awards are not subject to review by the courts.
The overall costs of arbitration can be estimated on the websites of
international arbitration institutions, such as that of the ICC,
the website of the SIAC  and the website of the International
Arbitration Attorney Network. The overall cost of administrative
and arbitrator fees is, on average, less than 20% of the total cost of
In many legal systems - both common law and civil law - it is normal
practice for the courts to award legal costs against a losing party,
with the winner becoming entitled to recover an approximation of what
it spent in pursuing its claim (or in defense of a claim). The United
States is a notable exception to this rule, as except for certain
extreme cases, a prevailing party in a US legal proceeding does not
become entitled to recoup its legal fees from the losing party.
Like the courts, arbitral tribunals generally have the same power to
award costs in relation to the determination of the dispute. In
international arbitration as well as domestic arbitrations governed by
the laws of countries in which courts may award costs against a losing
party, the arbitral tribunal will also determine the portion of the
arbitrators' fees that the losing party is required to bear.
As methods of dispute resolution, arbitration procedure can be varied
to suit the needs of the parties. Certain specific "types" of
arbitration procedure have developed, particularly in North America.
Arbitration is, usually, not arbitration at all, but merely a
court process which refers to itself as arbitration, such as small
claims arbitration before the County Courts in the United Kingdom.
Arbitration is, a form of arbitration that occurs exclusively
online. There is currently an assumption that online arbitration is
admissible under the New York Convention and the E-Commerce Directive,
but this has not been legally verified. Since arbitration is based
on a contractual agreement between the parties, an online process
without a regulatory framework may generate a significant number of
challenges from consumers and other weaker parties if due process
cannot be assured.
High-Low Arbitration, or Bracketed Arbitration, is an arbitration
wherein the parties to the dispute agree in advance the limits within
which the arbitral tribunal must render its award. It is only
generally useful where liability is not in dispute, and the only issue
between the party is the amount of compensation. If the award is lower
than the agreed minimum, then the defendant only need pay the lower
limit; if the award is higher than the agreed maximum, the claimant
will receive the upper limit. If the award falls within the agreed
range, then the parties are bound by the actual award amount. Practice
varies as to whether the figures may or may not be revealed to the
tribunal, or whether the tribunal is even advised of the parties'
Arbitration is a form of arbitration where the decision by the
arbitrator is legally binding and enforceable, similar to a court
Arbitration is a process which is conducted as if it were
a conventional arbitration, except that the award issued by the
tribunal is not binding on the parties, and they retain their rights
to bring a claim before the courts or other arbitration tribunal; the
award is in the form of an independent assessment of the merits of the
case, designated to facilitate an out-of-court settlement. State law
may automatically make a non-binding arbitration binding, if, for
example, the non-binding arbitration is court-ordered, and no party
requests a trial de novo (as if the arbitration had not been
Arbitration refers to a determination in industrial disputes
where an arbitrator has to resolve a claim between a trade union and
management by making a determination of which of the two sides has the
more reasonable position. The arbitrator must choose only between the
two options, and cannot split the difference or select an alternative
position. It was initiated in Chile in 1979. This form of arbitration
has been increasingly seen in resolving international tax disputes,
especially in the context of deciding on the Transfer Pricing margins.
This form of arbitration is also known (particularly in the United
States) as Baseball Arbitration. It takes its name from a practice
which arose in relation to salary arbitration in Major League
Arbitration is a variation of baseball arbitration
where the figures are not revealed to the arbitration tribunal. The
arbitrator will determinate the quantum of the claim in the usual way,
and the parties agree to accept and be bound by the figure which is
closest to the tribunal's award.
Such forms of "Last Offer Arbitration" can also be combined with
mediation to create MEDALOA hybrid processes (
Mediation followed by
Last Offer Arbitration).
Arbitration in its common law form developed in England; in the Middle
Ages, tribunals such as the Courts of the Boroughs, of the Fair and of
the Staple arose as the Royal Courts were not designed for trade
disputes, and trade with foreigners was otherwise unenforceable.
In the mid-16th century, common law courts developed contract law and
the Admiralty court became accessible for disputes with foreign
merchants, broadening the venues for trade disputes. Courts became
suspicious of arbitration; for example, in Kill v. Hollister (1746),
an English court ruled that the arbitration agreement could 'oust'
courts of law and equity of jurisdiction. Merchants, however,
retained provisions to settle disputes among themselves, but tension
between the arbitration proceedings and courts eventually resulted in
the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 which provided for the appointment
of arbitrators and umpires, allowed courts to 'stay proceedings' when
a disputant filed a suit despite an agreement to arbitrate, and
provided a process for arbitrators to submit questions to a court.
Arbitration Act 1889 was passed, followed by other
Arbitration Acts in 1950, 1975, 1979 and 1996.
Arbitration Act 1979
Arbitration Act 1979 in
particular limited judicial review for arbitration awards.
Arbitration was common in the early United States, with George
Washington serving as an arbiter on an occasion. The United States
had a notable difference from England, however, in that unlike
England, its courts generally did not enforce executory agreements
(binding predispute agreements) to arbitrate. This meant that
prior to an award, a claimant could sue in court even if they had
contractually agreed to settle disputes by arbitration. After the
award, courts reviewed the judgment, but generally deferred to the
arbitration, although the practice was not consistent.
The lack of enforcement of predispose agreements led to the Federal
Arbitration Act of 1925, with New York leading with a state
law enforcing predispose agreements. In 1921, the American Bar
Association drafted the
Federal Arbitration Act
Federal Arbitration Act based on the New York
law, which was passed in 1925 with minor changes. In the next
American Arbitration Association promoted rules and
facilitated arbitrations through appointments.
Alternative dispute resolution
Arbitration in the United States of America
Arbitration Roundtable of Toronto
Conflict resolution research
Dispute resolution organization
National Academy of Arbitrators
Society of Construction Arbitrators
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
Uppsala Conflict Data Program
^ O'Sullivan, Arthur; Sheffrin, Steven M. (2003). Economics:
Principles in Action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice
Hall. p. 324. ISBN 0-13-063085-3.
^ a b In the United Kingdom, small claims in the county court are
dealt with by a procedure called "small claims arbitration", although
the proceedings are held in front of a district judge, paid for by the
state. In Russia, the courts dealing with commercial disputes are
referred to as the Supreme
Arbitration of the Russian
Federation, although it is not an arbitral tribunal in the true sense
of the word.
^ Although all attempts to determine disputes outside of the courts
are "alternative dispute resolution" in the literal sense, ADR in the
technical legal sense, is the process whereby an attempt is made to
reach a common middle ground through an independent mediator as a
basis for a binding settlement. In direct contrast, arbitration is an
adversarial process to determine a winner and a loser in relation to
the rights and wrongs of a dispute.
^ Hernández, Gabrielle Orum (2017-10-09). "Can
Arbitration Solve Tech
Litigation Cost Concerns". Legaltech News.
^ a b "The Supreme Court's retired, but hardly retiring, Ian Binnie".
The Globe and Mail. Toronto. 15 June 2012.
^ See for example the arbitration service offered by Falcon Chambers,
the specialist property barristers chambers -
^ Cologne, Prof. Dr. Klaus Peter Berger, LL.M., University of.
"Principle XIII.5.1 -
Confidentiality - Trans-Lex.org".
^ Cf. e.g. Section 1030 subsection 1 of the German
^ Larkden Pty Limited v Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Limited  NSWSC
268 (1 April 2011), Supreme
Court (NSW, Australia)
^ Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S.
^ Section 1030 subsection 2 Zivilprozessordnung
^ To be correct: certain form, as defined by statute, of an electronic
signature using a chip card and a PIN code is also sufficient
^ Section 1031 subesction 5 of the Zivilprozessordnung. The
restriction does not apply to notarized agreements, as it is presumed
that the notary public will have well informed the consumer about the
content and its implications.
^ Swiss Bank Corporation v Novrissiysk Shipping  1 Lloyd's Rep
^ Hobbs Padgett & Co v J C Kirkland (1969) 113 SJ 832
^ Mangistaumunaigaz Oil Production v
United Kingdom World Trade 
1 Lloyd's Rep 617
^ Norske Atlas Insurance Co v
London General Insurance Co (1927) 28
Lloyds List Rep 104
^ Deutsche Schachtbau v R'As al-Khaimah National Oil Co  1 AC
^ For example, under English law see Heyman v Darwins Ltd.  AC
^ Tariq Hammouri, Dima A. Khleifat, and Qais A. Mahafzah, Arbitration
Mediation in the Southern Mediterranean Countries: Jordan, Kluwer
Law International, Wolters Kluwer - Netherlands, Volume 2, Number 1,
January 2007, pp. 69-88.
^ a b c Horton D. (2012).
Federal Arbitration Act
Federal Arbitration Act Preemption,
Purposivism, and State Public Policy. Forthcoming in Georgetown Law
^ Berner, Robert (2009-07-19). "Big
Arbitration Firm Pulls Out of
Credit Card Business". Business Week. Retrieved 3 March 2013.
^ John P. Campbell, "Taft, Roosevelt, and the
Arbitration Treaties of
1911," Journal of American History (1966) 53#2 pp: 279-298 in JSTOR.
^ Bruce W. Jentleson and Thomas G Paterson, eds. Encyclopedia of U.S.
Foreign Relations (1997) 1: pp 87-88
^ Nelson M. Blake, "The
Olney-Pauncefote Treaty of 1897," American
Historical Review, (1945) 50#2 pp. 228-243 in JSTOR
^ Genevieve Forbes Herrick; John Origen Herrick (2005) . The
Life of William Jennings Bryan. Kessinger Publishing.
^ Cordero-Moss, Giuditta (2014). International Commercial
^ Article 1 of the 1958 New York Convention
^ a b Argen, Robert (2015-01-01). "Ending Blind Spot Justice:
Broadening the Transparency Trend in International Arbitration".
Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
SSRN 2393188 .
^ Tupman, "Case Studies in the Jurisdiction of the International
Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes" (1986) 35 ICLQ 813
^ Dallal v Bank Mellat  1 QB 441
^ For example, all arbitral awards issued by the ICC have to be
reviewed internally before being handed down, which helps certainty
and improves the quality of awards, but leads to delay and expense.
^ For example, in
England these are codified in section 33 of the
Arbitration Act 1996
^ The expression appears in the majority judgment in the U.S. Supreme
Court decision in Wilko v Swan 346 US 427 (1953)
^ "Guide to
Arbitration in New York" (PDF). CMS Legal. Retrieved 8 May
^ "Cost calculator - ICC - International Chamber of Commerce".
^ "Singapore International
Arbitration Centre". www.siac.org.sg.
Arbitration - International
Arbitration Attorney Network.
Arbitration Cost Calculators".
Arbitration in New York" (PDF). CMS Legal. Retrieved 10 May
^ R. Morek "The Regulatory Framework for Online Dispute Resolution: A
Critical View" (2006) 38 Tol. L. Rev. 165.
^ E.g., Section 44.103, Florida Statutes.
^ a b c d e f g h Noussia, Dr Kyriaki (2010-01-01). The History,
Importance and Modern Use of Arbitration. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
pp. 11–17. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10224-0_2.
^ a b c "Judicial Enforcement of Pre-Dispute
Back to the Future". ResearchGate. Retrieved 2016-03-21.
^ a b c "State regulation of arbitration proceedings: judicial review
Arbitration Awards by State Courts". ResearchGate. Retrieved
Boskey, James B. (1993) The
American Arbitration Association Insurance
ADR Manual West Pub. Co.
Blackaby, Nigel; Lindsey, David; Spinillo, Alessandro (2003)
Arbitration in Latin America Kluwer
Born, Gary (2009) International Commercial
Buhring-Uhle, Christian and Kirchhof, Gabriele Lars (2006) Arbitration
Mediation in International Business 2nd Ed.
Craig, W. Laurence; Park, William W.; Paulsson, January (2001)
International Chamber of Commerce
International Chamber of Commerce
Arbitration Oxford University Press
David, R. (1985)
Arbitration in International Trade
Dezalay, Yves and Garth, Bryant G. (1998) Dealing in Virtue:
Arbitration and the Construction of a
Transnational Legal Order
Dugan, Christopher; Wallace, Jr., Don; Rubins, Noah (2005)
Arbitration Oxford University Press
Lew, Julian; Mistelis, Loukas; Kroell, Stefan (2003) Comparative
International Commercial Arbitration
Arbitration (2000) International Alternative
Dispute Resolution: Past, Present and Future
PWC (2008) International Arbitration: Corporate Attitudes and
Redfern, A. and Hunter, M. (2004) Law and Practice of International
Arbitration 4th Ed.
Schreuer, Christoph H. (2001) The ICSID Convention: A Commentary
Cambridge University Press – (International Centre for Settlement of
Stuyt, Alexander, ed. Survey of International Arbitrations:
Varady, Tibor; Barcelo, John J.; Von Mehren, Arthur Taylor (2006)
Arbitration 3rd Ed.
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Arbitration
Look up arbitration in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Dispute Resolution and
Arbitration at Curlie (based on DMOZ).
Introduction to Securities Arbitration
Doctrine of double effect
Death, dying, and emergent situations
Next of kin
Health care proxy
Jewish medical ethics
Abuse of trust
Continuity of care
Termination of the patient-physician relationship
Institutional review board