This Article is Written by Aman Goyal
Introduction
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms have become an integral part of the estatal structure for resolving commercial disputes worldwide over the last few decades. Traditional litigation, however, has often failed to address the multidimensional needs of parties engaged in complex and cross-border commercial transactions who demand efficient, confidential and commercially sensitive resolution of disputes. In doing so, it discusses the changing dynamic of ADR in commercial matters, recent amendments to arbitration-related laws, judicial attitudes to arbitral autonomy, and the sophistication of mediation as a reasonable alternative for complex commercial disputes.
The ongoing evolution of ADR mechanisms mirrors broader trends in commercial law and practice: The globalization of business transactions; the digitization of commerce; and a recognition, unfashionable as ever at the time of writing, that adversarial dispute resolution may not always be in the best commercial interests. As these developments have unfolded, legislators and courts, as well as practitioners, have been forced to reassess received wisdom regarding dispute resolution and devise more sophisticated frameworks attuned to the commercial realities of their time.
This article discusses these developments, and how recent amendments to arbitration legislation, the judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings and innovations in mediation practitioners are reshaping the landscape of commercial dispute resolution. It goes on to explore the relevance of these changes for legal lawyers, companies and the commercial eco-system at large.
Recent Amendments to Arbitration Laws: Balancing Party Autonomy and Public Interest
Modernizing Arbitration Frameworks
Over the last two decades, countries around the world have taken steps to modernize their laws on arbitration with many jurisdictions updating their legislative frameworks to address issues such as how to facilitate swift and efficient dispute resolution, the subject matter and scope to be arbitrated and the challenges posed by emerging technologies. These amendments seem to embody both a reflection of respect for the party autonomy principle that is the underpinning philosophy of arbitration, as well as of the need to put arbitration in line with the broader interests of society at large in having their interests of justice, fairness and legal certainty served by arbitration.
One of the most important amendments has been to the issues of arbitrability” the extent of conflicts that can properly be referred to a mediation process. Proving the point all over again, many jurisdictions have steadily expanded the types of matters that can be arbitrated from conventional commercial disputes to the likes of intellectual property disputes, competition law issues, and even certain corporate governance issues. Such an expansion reflects a growing confidence in arbitration, as a dispute resolution mechanism capable of addressing intricate legal and factual issues, as well as a recognition that the autonomy of the parties to select their forum to resolve disputes merits substantial deference.
In parallel with a widespread expansion of arbitrability, many jurisdictions have adopted procedural reforms designed to increase efficiency and reduce delay. Modernized arbitration laws commonly feature time limits for the rendering of awards, simplified procedures for challenging arbitrators, and expedited procedures for smaller claims. These changes recognize that one of the foremost claimed benefits of arbitration, efficiency, has in reality sometimes been undermined by procedural complexity and delay.
Addressing Contemporary Challenges
Recent amendments have also sought to respond to contemporary challenges in arbitration practice, such as those related to transparency, third-party funding, and emergency relief. Transparency provisions have been included in many frameworks and have allowed for increased accountability and consistency whilst respecting confidentiality as a salient feature of arbitration, particularly in arbitrations involving public entities or questions of public interest. These provisions typically call for the disclosure of general information about arbitral proceedings, without undermining the commercial confidentiality that many parties desire from arbitral proceedings.
Third-party funding, where a company not involved in the dispute covers arbitration costs in return for a share of potential compensation, has become more and more prevalent in commercial arbitration. Amendments to legislation in jurisdictions such as Singapore and Hong Kong in recent years have directly addressed this practice, creating disclosure obligations and ethical requirements. These proposed amendments represent a considered approach that recognizes the validity of third parties funding electoral campaigns, yet adds protections against misuse or conflict of interest.
Recent reforms in arbitration law have also emphasized emergency relief mechanisms. Many institutions and jurisdictions now provide for the appointment of emergency arbitrators, who are endowed with the power to grant urgent interim measures before the constitution of the full tribunal. These clauses have been added to address a common criticism of arbitration: a party requiring immediate measures of protection may be prejudiced by the time necessary to form a tribunal. The prevalence of emergency arbitrator provisions is a substantial improvement in the practical efficacy of arbitration for commercial disputes where timing is frequently of the essence.
Balancing Competing Interests
Arguably the greatest challenge still to be faced in recent arbitration law amendments is that of balancing competing interests: party autonomy against public policy, efficiency against due process, finality against correctness. Each jurisdiction has sought its balance, based on its unique legal traditions and policy values.
In some jurisdictions, the amendments have empowered the courts to exercise greater supervisory oversight over arbitral proceedings, especially about compliance with public policy and essential procedural guarantees. Others have closer to an approach of greater judicial deference to arbitral autonomy, restricting bases for challenge or refusal of enforcement of awards. That divergence we see between the UK and US approaches mirrors the essentially unstable tension between arbitration’s contracts/consensus grounding on the one hand and, its quasi-judicial function on the other; a tension which we have seen has yet to be resolved despite, literally, decades of theory and practice.
Judicial Attitudes Toward Arbitral Proceedings: Evolution or Interference?
The Delicate Balance of Judicial Review
Courts across the world have traditionally been ambivalent about “arbitration” itself — acknowledging, on the one hand, arbitration’s legitimacy as a parallel means of dispute resolution, but, on the other hand, often being hesitant to abandon their control over the ultimate adjudication of legal rights. Recent years have seen a gradual change in judicial attitudes, with courts in many jurisdictions adopting a more sophisticated approach, recognizing the need to support rather than displace the arbitral process.
This evolution has been most visibly manifested in decisions on the extent of judicial review of arbitral awards. Courts in pro-arbitrational well-known jurisdictions like France, Switzerland and Singapore generally adopted a light review approach, intervening only in cases involving serious procedural irregularities or fundamental violation of public policy. For example, the French Cour de Cassation has persistently adopted a narrow definition of the public policy exception, intervening only where enforcement would cause a “flagrant, effective and concrete” breach of international public policy.
Even in jurisdictions where skepticism toward arbitration has traditionally prevailed, case law developments indicate increasing judicial ease with the idea of arbitral independence. One such country is India, where the ratio in Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.(2003) created a broad standard for judicial review that has been progressively amended through the years to create more limitations on judicial interference, implementing a more restrained approach that is reflected in subsequent cases before that country’s courts.
Judicial Assistance to Arbitration: A Double-Edged Sword?
Judicial review has the potential for interference with arbitral autonomy; on the flip side, of course, is that courts provide necessary support at various points in the arbitral process – whether that be in upholding arbitration agreements, appointing arbitral tribunals in the event parties do not do so, or providing assistance with gathering evidence. Recent case law has tended to reinforce this pro-arbitration function, with courts in several jurisdictions showing a greater willingness to uphold arbitration agreements and enforce awards.
The supporting function does generate tensions, however, especially concerning interim measures. Indeed, some courts have accepted an approach of complementary jurisdiction and provided interim relief in aid of arbitration where tribunals lack the power or ability to function effectively. Others have given even more deference to arbitral authority, intervening only when tribunals expressly authorize and invite judicial assistance. The divergence demonstrates continued uncertainty concerning the judicial/arbitral divide in overlapping competence areas.
Evolving Issues in Court-Arbitration Relationship
The court-arbitration relationship has become complicated over the years with several emerging issues. The application of multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses has produced competing judicial interpretations, with some courts enforcing such requirements as a precondition to arbitration and others regarding them as procedural and not jurisdictional.
Class actions and collective proceedings, their increasingly frequent interaction with arbitration are imposing new tensions, especially in the areas of consumer and employment. Courts have grappled with how to align the fundamentally individualized character of typical arbitration consents with the procedural and substantive goals of collective action mechanisms. Accordingly, judicial decisions in this space have often been more reflective of broader policy preferences over access to justice as opposed to compelling applications of arbitration tenets.
Reading the Tea Leaves on Mediation in Commercial Disputes: From Alternative to Mainstream
The Growth of Commercial Mediation
Mediation, on the other hand, although often considered the ‘poor cousin’ of arbitration when it comes to discussions of commercial ADR, has seen spectacular growth in recent years, utilizing a method of dispute resolution that is becoming increasingly recognized as not an ‘alternative’ but rather a mainstream method for resolving commercial disputes. This growth represents both a pragmatic acknowledgment of the value of mediation and crucial structural developments in favor of mediated settlements.
The adoption of the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Singapore Convention) in 2019 was a watershed moment and gave mediation settlements an enforcement framework similar to the one provided by the New York Convention for arbitral awards. By ensuring much greater certainty over the enforceability of mediation outcomes across jurisdictions, the Singapore Convention addresses one of the historic weaknesses of mediation as a means for resolving disputes compared to arbitration or litigation: exclusivity of enforcement of negotiated outcomes.
Beyond the Singapore Convention, many jurisdictions have developed their domestic mediation legal frameworks, for example, by providing privilege protections to mediation communications (and at times the privilege also attaches on a prospective basis to mediation communications in the context of future mediation), the status of mediated settlement agreements and in some jurisdictions, a requirement of mediation before litigation of certain commercial matters. These developments have increased mediation’s legal status and brought more procedural certainty, for parties and practitioners.
Mediation in Complex Commercial Disputes
Other highlights include an increasing role for mediation in framing complex commercial disputes that in the past could only be suitable for arbitration or litigation. Mediation is increasingly being used in complex multi-party disputes, cross-border transactions and high-value commercial relationships, often alongside other processes. That expansion indicates both a growing sophistication among mediators to address complex commercial concerns and a growing awareness by businesses that negotiated resolutions, which create value, may serve commercial needs better than adversarial and rights-based adjudication.
The practice of commercial mediation has also evolved, and mediators are now less reticent about adopting evaluative and directive approaches as appropriate in relevant cases. We have seen this evolution of thinking where the commercial parties recognize that they also need substantive expertise from the mediator and reality-testing, more so than process facilitation. Other practiced commercial mediators with subject-matter expertise in shopping, intellectual property, or international commerce have developed considerable practices centered on complex disputes in these industries.
Integration of Other Processes with Mediation
Perhaps most important has been the increasingly interlinked nature of mediation with other dispute resolution processes in multi-tiered arrangements. Commercial practice has embraced med-arb, arb-med and a variety of hybrid processes that enable parties to reap the advantages of different approaches at different stages of their dispute resolution journey. These bundled approaches reflect a pragmatic acknowledgment that various kinds of disputes or different phases of complex disputes may yield different methodologies for resolution.
Institutional support for integrated approaches has developed in parallel, with many arbitral institutions now providing mediation services and creating protocols for transitions between processes. We are familiar with the institutional convergence between what traditionally has been viewed as separate dispute resolution processes, with parties and practitioners alike now emphasizing solutions as opposed to adherence to formalistic divisions between such ADR mechanisms.
THE CHANGING NATURE OF ADR THEORY AND PRACTICE
The commercial ADR landscape described above is one of a discipline in ongoing evolution, where theory informs practice and vice versa. The classic theoretical distinction in dispute resolution between adjudicative processes (arbitration) and consensual processes (mediation) seems more and more irrelevant and unable to describe contemporary commercial dispute resolution, where hybrid processes or flexible approaches predominate.
In the same vein, party autonomy increasingly qualified as ADR’s defining characteristic, with a growing acknowledgment that public interests should sometimes justifiably limit private ordering in dispute resolution. That recognition is reflected in broadened public policy bases for judicial review of arbitration, transparency mandates in specific contexts, and limits on arbitrability on matters impacting third-party or public interests.
Practical Implications for Commercial Parties
These developments require more advanced approaches to dispute resolution planning from commercial parties. Companies are better served by utilizing bespoke dispute resolution clauses to determine process selection, seat selection, confidentiality expectations, and cross-mechanism integration, rather than defaulting to the most common arbitration clauses. As choice becomes more complex, seeking expert advice early on — during contract drafting, for example — will become increasingly valuable.
Once disputes do arise, the added availability of different mechanisms provides commercial parties with greater choice but also demands a more refined assessment of suitable forums. Deciding whether this leaves arbitration, mediation, or some other combination thereof follows from numerous factors, including the need for confidentiality; whether, and to what extent, it is important to preserve relationships (with both parties and third parties); whether the precedential value is needed or desirable; and issues of enforcement. Such complexity puts a premium on counsel who has experience in planning strategic ways to resolve disputes early rather than just managing tactical litigation or arbitration.
Implications for Educators and Practitioners
For those of us engaged in legal education or practice, this expanding ADR landscape invites new skills development and awareness. In addition to substantive legal knowledge, effective commercial dispute resolution increasingly demands an understanding of negotiation theory, principles of procedural design, and cross-cultural communication. Law schools and continuing legal education need to adapt to prepare practitioners to navigate this new, more complex environment.
The lines are increasingly blurred between the roles of different types of dispute resolution professionals, causing traditional professional identities to be blurred as well. Lawyers increasingly function as arbitrators in some matters, mediators in others, and advocates in still others; hence careful attention must be paid to potential role conflicts, as well as conflicting duties depending on whether one is acting as an arbitrator, mediator, or attorney.
Conclusion
Commercial dispute resolution is evolving to become increasingly complex, flexible, and integrated with a variety of rule sets and dispute resolution classifications. The latest amendments to the arbitration laws have overall enhanced such an environment while ensuring a fair balance between the autonomy of the parties and the larger public interest. In many jurisdictions, judicial attitudes toward arbitration mature from simple positive/negative or pro-/anti-arbitration views, toward nuanced sophisticated understanding of complementary roles rather than competitive postures. Mediation has moved from being a matter of alternative dispute resolution in complex commercial disputes to becoming part of the mainstream, as we now see accompanying institutional support with the strengthening of legal frameworks to support mediation in various jurisdictions around the world.
The developments indicate that this integration of different processes tailored to particular disputes and party needs will characterize commercial dispute resolution in the future, more than dominion and ascendance by any one mechanism. For practitioners, scholars, and commercial parties alike, traversing this evolving terrain necessitates a deeper appreciation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of different mechanisms and the ways they can most efficiently work hand-in-hand toward commercial ends.
References
- G Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2021).
- S Brekoulakis, ‘The Concept of Arbitrability and the Public Policy Exception: Towards a Transnational Approach’ (2022) 38(1) Arbitration International 1.
- CA Rogers and JJ Tao, ‘Third-Party Funding Transparency: A Comparative Analysis of Recent Reforms’ (2023) 40(2) Journal of International Arbitration 151.
- Cour de cassation civ (1), 4 June 2008, Bull civ I, No 162 (SNF v Cytec)
- Bharat Aluminium Co v Kaiser.
- Aluminium Technical Services Inc (2012) 9 SCC 552 (India).
- Emirates Trading Agency LLC v Prime Mineral Exports Private Ltd [2014] EWHC 2104 (Comm).
- B Wolski, ‘The Singapore Convention: Effect on the Enforceability of Mediated Settlement Agreements and the Future of Cross-Border Commercial Mediation’ (2021) 87(3) International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management 276.
- SI Strong, ‘Beyond International Commercial Arbitration? The Promise of International Commercial Mediation’ (2022) 45 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 11.
- N Alexander, ‘The Mediation Meta-Model: Understanding Practice’ (2023) 30(4) Conflict Resolution Quarterly 393.
- TJ Stipanowich and V Fraser, ‘The International Task Force on Mixed Mode Dispute Resolution: Exploring the Interplay between Mediation, Evaluation and Arbitration in Commercial Cases’ (2021) 40(3) Fordham International Law Journal 839.
- C Menkel-Meadow, ‘When Litigation Is Not the Only Way: Consensus Building and Mediation as Public Interest Lawyering’ (2023) 10 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 37.
