| dc.description.abstract | International arbitration case numbers slowly but steadily increase and arbitration gains acceptance in jurisdictions where arbitration was previously underutilized or not encouraged; at the same time the subject matters of disputes referred to arbitration also expand. As a corollary, it is an inevitable consequence that the level and frequency of scrutiny and criticism towards arbitration also increases. One key concern is the extent to which arbitration is and can be characterized as an efficient process. For many years, there was a presumption or perhaps a false impression that arbitration was quick and inexpensive. There is also an interesting tension between party autonomy and the desire of various authors supported nowadays by arbitral institutions to attribute to arbitration systemic qualities and features of private ordering. The simple reality is that arbitration continues to be the result of party autonomy and as such, it is a process designed whether by disputing parties, arbitral institutions or arbitral tribunals to meet the parties’ objectives and expectations. The tension between bespoke (or ad hoc) arbitral procedural regulation and more predictable (“systemic”) regulation is ongoing. Arguably, the latter seems to win as more often parties opt for institutional arbitration which provides for a pre-designed regulatory framework for arbitration to be conducted and organised. It is unclear, and indeed debatable, whether international arbitration is innately efficient or whether efficiency is what disputing parties seek from arbitration. It also equally unclear what efficiency in international arbitration means. In addition, it is not always clear as to what disputing parties consider as efficiency. For many, if not all, arbitration users, efficiency seems to be a relative value. Consequently, there may be no universal concept of efficiency: parties may have different efficiency expectations depending on their legal background, culture, expectations, and experiences. However, there may also be a ‘transnational’ or ‘international arbitration autonomous’ concept of efficiency. In any event, it is arguable whether efficiency can only be linked to “quantitative” criteria such as time and cost of arbitration proceedings. Ultimately arbitration is typically established to ensure a fair resolution of a dispute in a procedure guided and informed by party autonomy and due process | en_US |
