What to Do When Pressing the Flesh Means Breaking the Bank: Trade-Offs Between Remote and In-Person Hearings in International Arbitration - Journal of Technology in International Arbitration - Vol. 1, No. 1

Author(s):

Samaa A. Haridi

Justin Bart

Page Count:

4 pages

Media Description:

1 PDF Download

Published:

June, 2015

Jurisdictions:

International

Practice Areas:

Arbitrators and Arbitral Tribunals,

Online Arbitration,

Institutional and Administered Arbitration,

Arbitral Process,

Dispute Resolution & Litigation,

ADR,

ICC,

ICDR,

Advocacy,

Practice & Procedure,

PDF524.95 KB

$40.00

Description:

Originally from Journal of Technology in International Arbitration

Preview Page

There has been much discussion recently regarding how
technological developments such as e-filing, online dispute

resolution (a.k.a. ODR), and electronic document production are

changing the legal landscape, including in the field of

international arbitration. As with most aspects of life in the 21st

century, technology undoubtedly has a part to play—SharePoint

sites and text-searchable pdf documents can be invaluable tools

when it comes to sharing or sorting through large quantities of

information conveniently and efficiently. Likewise, the very

concept of video conferencing has revolutionized industries like

international arbitration where, by definition, the players come

from geographically-disparate locations. But what are the limits

of technology? At what point does technology stop connecting us

and begin rather to separate us? In this article, the authors argue

that the limit lies in the parties’ right to a bona fide, in-person

arbitral hearing on the merits.

The benefits of conducting an in-person hearing are manyfold,

and range from the mundane (like avoiding the IT problems

that inevitably plague long-distance communication methods

supposedly made “easier” by technology) to the amusing (who

has not experienced seeing an arbitrator dozing off after the lunch

break at a hearing—imagine the same arbitrator watching and

listening to arguments on a television screen). They can also be

quite substantive, however.

From the arbitrators’ perspective, having an opportunity to

meet counsel and parties face-to-face is critical to building a

relationship of trust so that the parties feel as though they are

getting a fair shake. No matter who the parties are or what the

outcome of the dispute ends up being, it is absolutely critical that

both parties feel as though they have “had their day in court.”