Originally from Practice of International Litigation - 2nd Edition

Preview Page

Arbitration, both international and domestic, compared to
proceedings in courts, both in the United States and elsewhere in the world,
is almost free of procedural rules. Much is left to the parties—the vaunted
“party autonomy”—and the arbitrators to determine how arbitration
proceedings are conducted. In recent years, however, there has been
increasing criticism that this state of relative anarchy has often opened the
way for proceedings that bear too great a resemblance to U.S. court cases—
with extensive discovery and attendant costs and delays. To the extent that
this charge is an accurate reflection of reality, international arbitrations have
lost some of the benefits of economy and efficiency they once had.

The criticisms have focused, to a great extent, on the ways in which
arbitral proceedings have been conducted—particularly with respect to the
production of documents and other aspects of discovery, especially
disclosure of electronic information. But the rules of the institutions and
the statutes and international agreements that govern arbitration say little, if
anything, about these issues. Thus, the Federal Arbitration Act says little
concerning how arbitrations are to be conducted, doing no more than
providing for the summoning of witnesses by arbitrators to testify at
hearings. Similarly, New York state law, primarily Article 75 of the CPLR,
authorizes the summoning of witnesses1 and the issuance of provisional
remedies in connection with an arbitration.2