Originally from Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation

PAGE PREVIEW

On Page 167 inside, Alternatives presents a special full-issue feature comparison of the current rules from five major administrative bodies in the international arbitration field. When using the rules, best practice is to check the latest versions for the exact current wording in the comparison categories, available at the organizations’ websites listed at the top of the chart.

Practitioners are also advised to carefully consider the consequences of selecting one set of rules over another as the subtle differences between the sets of rules may align with, or frustrate, clients’ strategic or tactical needs. This advice is as important for corporate counsel negotiating an arbitration clause within a commercial agreement as it is to outside counsel engaged after a dispute has arisen. While the choice of governing rules generally follows the selection of the administering body, it may fairly be said that the former is more important than the latter.

The leading providers’ rules that are the subject of this comparison feature are from CPR: International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (www.cpradr.org) ICC: International Chamber of Commerce (https://iccwbo.org); ICDR/AAA: International Centre for Dispute Resolution/American Arbitration Association (www.icdr.org); LCIA: London Court of International Arbitration (https://www.lcia.org), and UNCITRAL: United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (https://uncitral.un.org).