The ICSID Caseload Statistics have now been updated with new data for the fiscal year 2023 (“FY2023”) to capture statistics drawn from cases registered under the ICSID Convention, the Additional Facility Rules and other ICSID-administered cases between 1 July 2022 and 30 June 2023.
The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) was established in 1966 by the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the “ICSID Convention”) as a means of furthering the World Bank’s objective of promoting international investment through the provision of a neutral and reliable forum for the resolution of disputes between foreign investors and States. To date, the ICSID Convention counts 158 Contracting States and seven signatory States, bringing the total number of ICSID Member States to 165. Continue reading “ICSID Caseload Statistics (2023 Fiscal Year)”
Arbitration is quickly emerging as one of the preferred methods for dispute resolution in the United States. The pros and cons of domestic arbitration are well known, and at times hotly contested. While many of the same arguments apply to international arbitration, in the context of cross-border business transactions, international arbitration can provide the neutrality, predictability, enforceability, and efficiency that is critical to achieving a just outcome.
Neutral Site and Predictability
International Arbitration provides a neutral forum for dispute resolution, thereby avoiding even the perceptions of ‘home court advantage’ that often times complicate selection of domestic courts. Often times, a dispute that crosses international boundaries is potentially subject to jurisdiction in more than one country. Parties may have concerns about navigating unfamiliar legal terrain or bias in another party’s home jurisdiction. Under traditional litigation, usually one party gets to decide where, and under what laws, the litigation will be resolved. Even if parties agree to a forum selection and choice of law clauses ahead of time, inevitably one party is likely to be disadvantaged by local procedures and/precedents in the chosen venue. While these advantages and disadvantages are part of general litigation strategy, they are often barriers to fair and effective dispute resolution.
International arbitration provides parties the opportunity to choose where the arbitration will take place, what laws will apply, and even the makeup and nationalities of the arbitrators. From there, parties will know what to expect in term of pleading rules, discovery procedures, and the types of damages and other remedies that are available. Most importantly, both parties will be given the same set of circumstances to arbitrate under, without substantial advantages given to either party. International arbitration allows disputes to be decided on the merits without influence from potentially biased judiciaries, disadvantageous procedural technicalities, and other issues that muddy the waters in traditional litigation.
In addition to providing an opportunity for neutrality that is not always available through traditional litigation, international arbitrations provide invaluable predictability to both parties. One of the biggest issues that arises in international litigation is the uncertainty that comes with navigating a foreign judicial system. Rules and procedures governing what claims may be brought, the discovery process, the trial itself, and remedies vary widely across jurisdictions. When parties agree to arbitrate an international dispute, they have the opportunity to create certainty and predictability in how the dispute will be resolved. The location of the arbitration and the rules governing the arbitration will be agreed upon prior to the dispute arising. The parties will have an opportunity to assemble an agreed-upon panel of fair minded individuals with alleviates the fear of being subject to the whims of a foreign judicial system. Parties in international arbitration have much more control over the length of the process without having to worry about a backlogged court-docket and other procedural delays that often cause traditional litigation to go on for years. Overall, international arbitrations provide parties with the resources to maintain control over their own disputes in many ways that traditional litigation does not.
An Increased Likelihood that Judgments are Enforceable
The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award (otherwise known as the “New York Convention) provides a straightforward mechanism for enforcement of international arbitral awards. Over 150 countries have ratified the Convention and it provides a guarantee a mechanism that allows, and encourages, courts within the various signatory countries to enforce an international arbitration clause and award. This level of comity provides a significant benefit over the difficulties faced when seeking to enforce a foreign-court judgment. For example, a judgment from a United States court is not automatically enforceable in other countries – even those with similar legal traditions. A claimant may have to go through a second series of expensive and time-consuming litigation just to prove that the judgment should be enforceable in the foreign jurisdiction. An award secured in international arbitration however, provides more security to the prevailing party that they will be able to recover their award no matter where they need to enforce the judgment.
Pick the Panel
When parties decide to resolve their dispute through international arbitration, one of the key benefits is the ability to appoint arbitrators with relevant expertise. This removes a lot of the variability seen when presenting cases before judges and juries who may not be well-versed in the subject matter of the dispute. The presence of subject matter experts on the tribunal usually provides assurance to the parties that their claims are being adjudicated properly and fairly and reduces the need for appeals based on incorrect findings.
Affordability and Efficiency
While the affordability and efficiency of arbitration versus domestic litigation can be hotly contested, many of the rules and forums common to International Arbitration provide at least the possibility for significant cost and time benefits. When viewed in contrast with the American legal tradition, this is particularly so given the lack of expensive pre-trial discovery and post-trial appeals that are prevalent in many US jurisdictions and which may prolong a case for years. Under an arbitration agreement, parties are encouraged to move through the process quickly with a panel of arbitrators dedicated to their case. For example, the International Chamber of Commerce Rules of Arbitration offer an expedited procedure in cases where the amount in dispute does not exceed $2 million. This is meant to streamline the arbitration process and keep costs low. Unfortunately, in traditional litigation, there is not a similar mechanism in the United States or other jurisdictions. After an arbitration has ended and the tribunal has issued a final award, that dispute is usually over. Challenges to arbitral awards are also generally more limited than domestic court judgments. In addition, parties in international arbitration proceedings are often awarded reimbursement of their attorneys’ fees and other arbitration costs which has the potential to make arbitration an even more affordable option.
Resolving an international dispute does not have to be a lengthy, confusing, or expensive endeavor. Parties engaged in international business transactions should consider that agreeing to arbitrate can keep costs manageable while moving the dispute along efficiently with fairness and predictability.