TREATY FOUNDATIONS TO INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION
What is a true international dispute resolution professional? It is the difference between someone who is content with a basic knowledge of a given topic and one whose incomplete understanding of a given topic inspires additional learning and comprehension. The latter is a differentiating characteristic seen in most true internationalists – constantly seeking opportunities to learn, understand and expand their perspectives by listening, observing and reading.
In that spirit, this article explores international arbitration and mediation and discusses three groundbreaking treaties that promote the enforcement of awards and agreements from disputing parties.
Is there a difference between domestic and international arbitration?
First, we should distinguish why international dispute resolution professionals do not refer to an arbitration as an ‘alternative dispute resolution’ process or ‘ADR’, as do their domestic counterparts. International commercial arbitration is not an alternative; rather, it is a presumption used to resolve commercial disputes because there are no broad reciprocal laws to enforce court judgements from one jurisdiction to another.
Arbitration, mediation and other similar proceedings all are considered replacements to litigation internationally, not only in the US but also in other countries where domestic and international practices, cases and experiences are different.
It is also important to understand that most jurisdictions have different laws for domestic and international arbitration process, jurisdiction and enforcement. Some might see the use of retired judges in international arbitration cases as counterintuitive, as laws create a wide range of practice and process differences during an international arbitration proceeding.
Apr-Jun 2024 issue
International Centre For Dispute Resolution