About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

25 J. Int'l Arb. 529 (2008)
Party Autonomy in International Commercial Arbitration: Popular Fallacy or Proven Fact?

handle is hein.kluwer/jia0025 and id is 539 raw text is: Journal of International Arbitration 25(5): 529-535, 2008. 0 2008 Kluwer Law International. Printed in The Netherlands. Party Autonomy in International Commercial Arbitration: Popular Fallacy or Proven Fact? Mia Louise LIVINGSTONE* Parties to cross-border disputes are developing a preference for international commercial arbitration as a desired alternative to litigation in the national courts. This trend owes much to the popular pro-arbitration belief that arbitrating parties are granted the autonomy to control their own decision-making process. But is this true? This article explores whether party autonomy is achieved in practice in international commercial arbitration or whether the parties still find themselves burdened with quasi-litigious constraints. Upon considering the experience of international parties from an Australian and English perspective, this article finds that the restrictions imposed on parties to international commercial arbitration have developed so as to protect the freedoms they can exercise in the process. I. INTRODUCTION The concept of party autonomy and the promise that parties to international arbitration are free to control their process has contributed greatly to promoting arbitration as the most desirable means of dispute resolution in a cross-border context. However, arguably the strongest advantage conferred upon international parties in choosing arbitration over other methods of dispute resolution is that parties can enforce foreign awards more easily than they can foreign judgments.' To ensure the international acceptance of foreign awards, the law of international commercial arbitration imposes limited exceptions on party autonomy in the interests of preserving the integrity of the arbitral process. These discrete carve-outs remain consistent with a definition of party autonomy which upholds the parties' freedom to choose almost all aspects of the arbitral process without having their choices constrained. II. CONCEPT OF PARTY AUTONOMY A. UNIQUE TO ARBITRATION Unlike litigation, international arbitration is heralded as a flexible and autonomous process to resolve disputes between international parties according to the procedures and laws of their choice. Although other forms of alternate dispute resolution to litigation may offer similar flexibilities, no alternative also provides international parties with an enforceable decision at the conclusion of the process. As a result, international arbitration * Mia Louise Livingstone is a lawyer in Commercial Dispute Resolution at Baker & McKenzie in Melbourne, Australia. IHon. MrJustice Kerr, InternationalArbitration and Litigation,J. Bus. L. 197, May 1980. Copyright 2007 by Kluwer Law International. All lights reserved No claims asserted to original government works

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most