See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328580909

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Article · October 2018

DOI: 10.17323/2072-8166.2018.3.214.233

CITATION READS

1 193

1 author:

Borut Strazisar
ARAO
23 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Financial instruments - casino with fictious legal foundations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Borut Strazisar on 29 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Borut Stražišar
Assistant Professor, B&B Educational Institution, PhD in law. Address: 16a Letališka Str.,
Ljubljana SI-1000, Slovenia. E-mail: borut.strazisar@guest.arnes.si

Abstract
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) becomes a synonym for different techniques as alterna-
tive to the long and costly court procedure. Alternative dispute resolution became popular
in the middle of 1990’s. At first, it was seen as a tool for the reduction of court’s backlogs.
With the diminishing role of national chambers of commerce  — as promoters of arbitrage
courts — also the arbitrage became less and less popular among small and medium size en-
terprises. These processes were even more radical in ex-Socialist/Communist countries with
no small and medium enterprises developed1. So, the new millennium with the developed IT
infrastructure has brought out also new ideas about the society development. The Alternative
dispute resolution is now presented as a procedure that is faster and cheaper than the court
procedure. To avoid the negative sides of arbitrage more elements of court procedure were
introduced (like role of experts, provisional measures…). To make Alternative dispute resolu-
tion more popular it was promoted as a procedure in which the parties can choose their own
judge, produce their own law and even sell the risk of the possible decision. But the latest
judgement of EU court in investment arbitrage2 could be the end of such approach. The main
question is whether the arbitrage could be still an effective method of dispute resolution also
for small and medium size enterprises. For the adequate answer the analysis of historical de-
velopment of ADR should be seen. Through the historical development the essence of ADR
could be explained. Submission is divided in three parts. Introduction presents the historical
developments and logic behind ADR. Second part deals with goals and interests in ADR. Un-
derstanding the goals and interests helps in understanding the nature of disputes. The last
part presents cases in which ADR could be still effectively used. The solutions presented is a
synthesis of first and second part findings.

Keywords
dispute; resolution; arbitrage; mediation; negotiation; international commercial arbitration

Citation: Stražišar B. (2018) Alternative Dispute Resolution. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly
ekonomiki, no 3, pp. 214–233 (in English)
DOI: 10.17323/2072-8166.2018.3.214.233

1
  There was also a lack of entrepreneur tradition and knowledge.
2
  Judgment in Case C — 284/16 Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV — The arbitration clause in
the Agreement between the Netherlands and Slovakia on the protection of investments is not compatible
with EU law.

214
 Borut Stražišar. Alternative Dispute Resolution. P. 214–233

Introduction

History of ADR

Arbitration is simply a usually (but not always) private process of adjudication

in which parties in dispute with each other choose decision-makers (sometimes
one, often a panel of three) and the rules of procedure, evidence, and decision by
which their dispute will be decided. This is distinguished from mediation in which
a neutral third party facilitates party negotiations to resolve a dispute, but does
not decide the matters in conflict, and adjudication in which an officer of the state
(usually a judge) decides a matter according to principles of law that are often (but
not always) published and available for use as precedent by parties other than the
principal disputants3. Much of the current outcry and controversy about the use of
arbitration is lodged by those (principally on behalf of employees, consumers, and
non-merchant contractors for services) who see arbitration being mandated in
situations where parties to a contract, or litigants in a court, are being compelled
to use arbitration because of a contract clause or court rule that the party probably
did not fully understand or agree to4. As a result of the growth of international
commercial interaction, the number of disputes has increased and arbitration is
often considered to be the preferable method of dispute resolution for reasons of
expediency, technical specialization, or in order to avoid potential bias that might
be encountered in national courts5.
First roots of alternative dispute resolution could be found in China in media-
tion (tiaojie). It has origins in Confucian ethics. Confucius taught that natural har-
mony should not be disrupted, and adversarial proceedings were the antithesis of
harmony. Chinese mediation aims not only to respond to a conflict when it breaks
out, but also to prevent it from happening. It is total quality management of a con-
flict. Mediation treats conflict as being necessarily evil, bad, or undesirable. So the
mediation aims to resolve conflicts — bring the conflict to end in order to reach
the state of harmony. This is consistent with the Chinese folk term for a mediator,
shuo he ze, a person who speaks in harmonious words to smooth interpersonal
relationships. Chinese mediator plays a role that combines the function of coun-
sellor, educator, pacifier, unifier, problem solver, arbitrator, negotiator, litigant,
therapist and consultant. The mediator is usually a person who is regarded as an
authority in the community. If either of the disputants refuses to accept the words
of mediator, the mediator will not only “lose face” in front of the two disputants,
3
  Menkel-Meadow C. Ethics Issues in Arbitration and Related Dispute Resolution Processes: What‘s
Happening and What‘s Not // University of Miami Law Review. 2000, vol. 56, p. 949.
  Ibid. P. 950.
4

5
  Nesheiwat F., Khasawneh A. The 2012 Saudi Arbitration Law: A ComparativeExamination of the Law
and Its Effect on Arbitration in Saudi Arabia // Santa Clara Journal of International Law. 2015, no 3, p. 443.

215
Law in the Modern World

but also in front of community and the state. The intention of mediation is to avoid
the damage to empathy, sympathy, care, respect for others and modesty for self.
Wolaver describes that traces of arbitration could be found in ancient Greece and
Rome6. While arbitration probably antedates all the former legal systems, it has not
developed any code of substantive principles, but is, with very few exceptions, a mat-
ter of free decision, each case being viewed in the light of practical expediency and
decided in accord with the ethical or economic norms of some particular group7.
In ancient Greece in the settlement of disputes between individuals the only
concern of authority was the avoidance of disruptive friction between its subjects.
The reciprocity principle didn’t make peaceful resolution of conflicts. The use of
mandatory reasoned arbitration is illustrated by Herodotus’ report that the Per-
sian Empire imposed arbitration procedures on the Ionian cities to settle their
differences. Xenophon points out the case where Persians pushed the Armenians
and Chaldeans to reach agreement about unused land and thus creating win-win
situation. On the other case Xenophon point out that the cases of not voluntary
exchange aren’t just8.
The principle of arbitration could be found in Talmud in the book dealing with
contracts, partnerships and found objects. Talmud in this book explains cases
where portions established by will sum to more than total available. Talmud rec-
ognizes that different persons can have the rights that are equally valid but mutu-
ally inconsistent. To resolve such problem the principle of fairness should be used.
And this can be done only through arbitration
In fact, arbitration that applies Shari’a as its foundation and governing law
is endorsed in the Qur’an. Arbitration (or tahkim), often in the sense of an ami-
able compositeur, has played an integral role as a means of resolving disputes in
pre-Islamic Arabia, and the role of arbitration was also acknowledged in all four
schools of Islamic legal tradition and has continued to be of widespread use in
the region thereafter, including in the earliest disputes between the Saudi Arabian
government and foreign oil companies9.
Customary laws emerge spontaneously as a consequence of cooperation in-
duced by reciprocities. Reciprocity, in fact, provides the basis for recognition of
duty or obligation under customary law. Cooperation does not require collective
(governmental) action. Furthermore, the rules of obligation recognized under all

6
  In Heraldus' Animadversiones there is described a court of reconcilement that existed among the
Greeks.
7
  Wolaver E. The Historical Background of Commercial Arbitration // University of Pennsylvania
Law Review and American Law Register. 1934, no 2, p. 132.
8
  Lowry S. The Economic and Jurisprudential Ideas of the Ancient Greeks: our =Heritage from Hel-
lenic Thought. Ancient and Medieval Economic Ideas and Concepts of Social Justice. S. Lowry and B. Gor-
don (eds.). Leiden: Brill, 1998, p. 11.
9
  Nesheiwat F., Khasawneh A. Op. cit. P. 444.

216
 Borut Stražišar. Alternative Dispute Resolution. P. 214–233

the customary law systems that have existed have always focused on individual
rights, including the right to private property10.
Medieval mercantile law was customary law enforced by the merchants them-
selves, and it was applied even-handedly to foreign merchants and domestic mer-
chants alike.
Why would someone pay a fine or pay off any debt if the coercive power of the
state did not exist to force payment? The answer is basically the same as for the
question of why someone, particularly someone guilty of an offense, would submit
to arbitration in the first place-ostracism and boycott sanctions would convince
many to pay their debts11.
It is very common to say that commercial arbitration had its beginning with the
practices of the market and fair courts and in the merchant gilds. It is true the gild
merchant had wide grants of power as to trade. They were monopolistic in charac-
ter and, in many cases, the right to trade in a borough depended upon membership
in a chartered gild. They took active part in the government of the town, though
their chief function was the protection of merchant privileges, guarding not only
the local guildsman’s interest but also that of town traders who had sought the
markets of other towns. The gild was a part of the borough government “whose
duty was to maintain and regulate the trade monopoly”12.
The suggestion that the gilds maintained boards of arbitration for the benefit of
members is not borne out by the facts. Although the evidence is very meagre it is
reasonably certain that the gild developed its own court to which members came
not voluntarily but by order and summons. In cases involving debt and covenant
they were, in many cases, courts of original jurisdiction13.
The practice of giving penal bonds to enforce engagements was very common.
It was usually the practice to put the bond at a high figure as a means of insurance
of performance. The validity of the bond depended on its seal and when the obli-
gor revoked the arbitration authority, the bond became enforceable14.
Rolls of St. Ives (1110–1250) shows that mercantile court was indeed a state
court. The St. Ives documents show that such coercive power—to enforce deci-
sions, to collect damages, and to assess fines—was exercised routinely. Indeed, in
the context of thirteenth-century legal theory, there could have been little dispute
about such questions; these powers lay very clearly in the hand of the abbot of
Ramsey. The court was part of the abbey’s patrimony, which included the manor

10
  Benson B. Enforcement of Private Propeny Rights in Primitive Societies // Journal of Institutional
and Theoretical Economics.1988. no 4, p. 772.
11
  Ibid.
12
  Wolaver E. Op. cit. P. 133.
13
  Ibid. P. 134.
14
  Ibid.

217
Law in the Modern World

of Slepe in which the village was located. The residents of St. Ives were largely of
villain status and owed tenurial obligations to the abbey. The abbot therefore had
direct, personal jurisdiction over the many residents of St. Ives who appear in the
court rolls, and who came before the fair court as before the court of their lord15.
The executive authority of the abbot over the fair, so well established in theory,
was also confirmed in practice. The officers of the fair court—the steward, the
bailiffs, and the clerks—were appointed by the abbot or by his representatives.
The court was held in the abbot’s own administrative buildings, and the fines and
amercements paid in the fair court went to the abbot’s treasury16.
It was a feature of 13th century practice, however, that despite the development
of juridical concepts, parties tended to refer disputes to arbitration under a multi-
jurisdictional commission to act as arbiter, arbitrator and amicable compositor,
suggesting that the distinctions under discussion were those which struck jurists
as important than those which were necessarily relevant in practice. When a sub-
mission was made the parties would not necessary be sure or indeed care whether
the resolution was achieved in the form of an arbitrium or a mere composition,
and by deploying the widest form of commission they permitted the most appro-
priate form of disposal to be used in the light of the arbitration17.
Originally conceived as a means to resolve commercial disputes among mer-
chants during the medieval period, arbitration thrived as the preferred dispute
resolution mechanism in specialized, self-regulating communities. Merchants
were interested in a system that would resolve disputes (1) quickly (so they could
leave the fairs) and (2) in accordance with industry standards (to facilitate rela-
tionships among the parties). Thus, self-regulating communities, like merchants
in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, adopted an arbitral system to resolve
disputes. Traditional arbitration, unlike litigation, empowered these disputants to
appoint a disinterested third party who was an expert in the industry to resolve
the dispute in accordance with understood customary norms. The arbitral process,
with its lack of formalism, provided the swift results the parties desired. Moreover,
the arbitral system ensured finality, also essential to facilitating continuing rela-
tionships, by obtaining the parties’ agreement to abide by the arbitrator’s resolu-
tion of the claim18.

15
  Sachs S. From St. Ives to Cyberspace: The Modern Distortion of the Medieval ‘Law Merchant’ //
American University International Law Review. 2006, no 5, p. 685.
16
  Ibid.
17
  Godfrey M. Arbitration in the Ius Commune and Scots Law // Roman Legal Tradition. 2002, no 2,
p. 122.
18
  Cole S. Curbing the Runaway Arbitrator in Commercial Arbitration: Making Exceeding the Pow-
ers Count. 2015. Available at: // http://works.bepress.com: http://works.bepress.com/sarah_cole/2/ (ac-
cessed: 2.02.2016)

218
 Borut Stražišar. Alternative Dispute Resolution. P. 214–233

Interestingly, even if the parties had not agreed that the arbitrator’s decision
was final, judicial involvement would nevertheless have been unnecessary to en-
sure enforcement of most arbitration agreements or awards because both parties
had an incentive to avoid self-serving behaviour. The amount in controversy tend-
ed to be relatively small, meaning that the value of the parties’ ongoing relation-
ship, as well as the reputational interest of each party within the industry, vastly
outweighed the stakes at issue in any particular case. Thus, parties willingly abided
by arbitration agreements and decisions in order to preserve their relationship
and their respective reputations, and, accordingly, to protect their livelihoods19.
As we see from the history of arbitration the background of arbitration has
changed through time. So today arbitration has almost nothing to do with the
arbitration in medieval times. Even today the term arbitration as a dispute reso-
lution, has totally diverse background in different countries. Present seeking of
efficient and cheap way of dispute resolution has nothing to do with arbitration
procedure. The answer is connected with:
social position of organization under the auspices of it operates the arbitral
court;
relation of arbitral court to state organization (true NGO, quasi NGO or gov-
ernmental organized NGO);
relation of parties to arbitral court (internal or external arbitration).

Logic Behind Alternative Dispute Resolution

Before proceeding on logic behind alternative dispute resolution, one termino-

logical question should be resolved. Term “alternative dispute resolution” is mis-
leading and inappropriate. Not all mechanisms, enumerated by legal theory, are
really alternative or really dispute resolution. Merriam Webster dictionary defines
adjective alternative in three different meanings:
offering or expressing a choice;
not usual or traditional;
existing or functioning outside of the established society20.
Negotiations or even mediations could not fall within term alternative in none
of above three meanings. Indeed, they represent a contractual obligation to settle
disputes peacefully and amicable. So, mediation is one of the ways to settle dispute
amicably before going to court or arbitral court. Both are traditional, usual and ex-
ist form history within the society. Problematic is also the word dispute. Webster
dictionary defines verb dispute in three meanings:

19
  Ibid.
  Webster M. Alternative. 2016. Available at: // http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alternative
20

(accessed: 17.07.2016)

219
Law in the Modern World

to say or show that (something) may not be true, correct, or legal;

to argue about (something);
to fight in order to take control of (something)21.
Real disputes have their roots in problems of contractual implementation. But
could we really talk about dispute before the procedure of adjudication? Pread-
judication procedure actions are targeted to resolve the problem of contractual
implementation and to find new common solution. So technically speaking it’s
not a dispute, it’s a contractual problem. Solving the problem means also the pre-
paredness of both parties to discuss the contract as whole. On the other hand,
dispute means orientation only on one problem. There is no preparedness of both
parties to discuss the contract as whole. Thus it would be more appropriate to talk
about non-adjudication conflict solving (NACS). The only case in which we could
talk about alternative dispute resolution are arbitral and state courts. The choice
for arbitral court excludes the state court and vice versa. As we’ll see forward, dif-
ferent ways of problem/dispute solving/resolution have different background and
thus require different approach.
Negotiations are the first mechanism listed on the list how to solve conflict.
Even if they are the oldest way to resolve conflicts, law is almost tacit about them.
“Negotiation” is derived from the Latin neg (not) and otium (leisure or ease).
Hence, the word “negotiation” reflects the inherent tension—not leisure—within
the activity22. Walton and McKersie suggested that negotiation denotes “…the de-
liberate interaction of two or more complex social units which are attempting to
define or redefine the terms of their interdependence”23. Winning in negotiations
should not be defined in terms of defeating the other side, but rather in terms of
achieving own objectives. Competition is part of negotiation, but so is coopera-
tion. Negotiation involves both give and take. The other party in the negotiation is
not one’s adversary, but one’s partner. Or it should be called counterpart24. Con-
flicts escalate because of naive realism. Negotiations are taxing for participants in
part because information is incomplete and uncertain, and a common strategy to
reduce informational complexities is for people to act as naive realists: People as-
sume that the world is as they perceive it; that other people view the world in that
very same way25. American negotiation theory highlights “interests” as a key com-
ponent of negotiations. According to this theory, people negotiate to fulfil their

21
  Ibid.
22
  Cohen J. Adversaries? Partners? How about Counterparts? // Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 2003,
no 4, p. 430.
23
  See for details: Walton R. and McKersie R. A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications, 1965.
24
  Cohen J. Op. cit. P. 431.
25
  De Dreu C. PACT against Conflict Escalation in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution // Current
Directions in Psychological Science. 2005, no 3, p. 149.

220
 Borut Stražišar. Alternative Dispute Resolution. P. 214–233

interests. Getting to Yes, the classic American negotiation text, urges negotiators
to “focus on interests, not positions.” Interests are commonly thought to include
substantive, procedural, and psychological interests26. Marc Galanter warns that
naming negotiation as alternative dispute resolution is misleading because it im-
plies that negotiation is infrequent, new, unproven, and marginal27. He points out
that negotiation is always a part of litigation. It’s a strategic pursuit of a settlement
through mobilizing the court process — litigotiation28. Condlin defines three pro-
cesses within negotiation:
assessment — a negotiator identifies the principal meaning of an adversary’s
communication, determines whether it accurately predicts what the adversary will
do, and measures the importance the adversary attaches to the predicted behav-
iour. Call these the questions of meaning, trustworthiness, and valuation;
exchange — is the process of offer, concession, and, usually agreement. These
manoeuvres occur in sequence, and collectively are referred to as the concession
pattern. Exchange takes place within a bargaining range, a set of points located on
a spectrum of overlap between the smallest amount one side will accept and the
largest amount the other side will give before refusing to settle;
persuasion  — is the process of convincing an adversary to view a matter in
dispute favourably to oneself. It can take the form of threat, appeal, and argument.
Threat is the prediction that one will harm another unless the other performs some
specified action within his control. Appeal is the request that an adversary make
a gratuitous concession and is similar to the practice in animals of going “belly-
up” when faced with certain defeat by a more powerful enemy. Argument is the
invocation and reasoned elaboration of authoritative norms-rules, policies, and
principles-to support a negotiation position or to rebut an adversary’s position29.
As we could see, the process of negotiation has little to do with legal norms and
legal arguments. The whole negotiation process is more about parties’ interests,
expectations and concessions’ limits. Legal norms post only the border for nego-
tiations. Parties could not negotiate about cases that violate the cogent legal norms
or it would be amoral.
Next mechanism in conflict solving is mediation. West’s Law Encyclopedia
defines mediation as “A settlement of a dispute or controversy by setting up an
independent person between two contending parties in order to aid them in the

26
  Barkai J. Cultural Dimension Interests, Dance of Negotiation, and Weather Forecasting: A Per-
spective on Cross-Cultural Negotiation and Dispute Resolution // Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law
Journal. 2008, no 3, p. 403.
27
  Galanter M. Worlds of Deals: Using Negotiation to Teach about Legal Process // Journal of Legal
Education. 1984, no 2, p. 268.
28
  Ibid. P. 267.
  Condlin R. Cases on Both Sides: Patterns of Argument in Legal Dispute-Negotiation // Maryland
29

Law Review. 1985, no 1, p. 65.

221
Law in the Modern World

settlement of their disagreement30. In International Law, mediation is the friendly

interference of one state in the controversies of nations. It is recognized as a prop-
er action to promote peace among nations.” Mediation derives from 14th century
Medieval Latin word mediationem and means “a division in the middle,” noun of
action from past participle stem of mediare “to halve; to be in the middle”31. Me-
diator is a person who has no socially legitimate authority to render a decision but
his mandate is to settle a case. Mediation range between bargaining and therapy32.
The process of mediation should be seen as extension of negotiations. Mediation
and mediators help disputing parties to:
open or improve communications between or among them;
establish or build more respectful and productive working relationship;
better identify, understand, and consider each other’s interests, and concerns;
propose and implement more effective problem-solving or negotiation procedures;
recognize or build mutually acceptable agreements33.
Mediators are independent. They also commonly do not have predetermined,
biased, or fixed opinions or views regard how the dispute should be resolved, but
they are able to look at all parties’ issues, needs, interests, problems and relation-
ships in a more objective, impartial, or “multipartial” manner than can partici-
pants themselves. It’s expected form mediator to be impartial and neutral person,
although the neutrality is hard to define and to measure. Mediators has often the
view of neutrality-as-impartiality. “Impartiality” is equivalent to the absence of
feelings, values, or agendas; “bias” is to be avoided-it is a strong opinion, value,
feeling, or agenda. The mediator’s goal is either to dismiss their opinions, values,
feelings, and agendas or to separate them from the mediation process34.
Mediation offers some clear advantages over adversary processing: it is cheap-
er, faster, and potentially more hospitable to unique solutions that take more fully
into account nonmaterial interests of the disputants. It can educate the parties
about each other’s needs and those of their community. Thus, it can help them
learn to work together and to see that through cooperation both can make posi-
tive gains. One reason for these advantages is that mediation is less hemmed-in
by rules of procedure or substantive law and certain assumptions that dominate
the adversary process35. In most mediations, the emphasis is not on determining
rights or interests, or who is right and who is wrong, or who wins and who loses
30
  See: West’s Encyclopedia of American Law. 2nd ed. London: Gale Group, 2008. P. 505.
31
  Harper D. (2001–2016). Online Etymology Dictionary. Available at: http://www.etymonline.com/
index.php?term=mediation (accessed 16.07.2016).
32
  Silbey S., Merry S. Mediator Settlement Strategies // Law & Policy, 1985, no 1, p. 7.
33
  See for details: Moore C. The Mediation Process. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, 2014.
34
  Cobb S., Rifkin J. Practice and Paradox: Deconstructing Neutrality in Mediation // Law & Social
Inquiry. 1991, no 1, p. 35.
35
  Riskin L. Mediation and Lawyers // Ohio State Law Journal. 1982, no 1, p. 29.

222
 Borut Stražišar. Alternative Dispute Resolution. P. 214–233

because of which rule; these would control the typical adjudicatory proceeding.
The focus, instead, is upon establishing a degree of harmony through a resolu-
tion that will work for these disputants. A danger inheres in this illegal character:
individuals who are not aware of their legal position are not encouraged by the
process to develop a rights-consciousness or to establish legal rights. Thus, the risk
of dominance by the stronger or more knowledgeable party is great36.
We can conclude that mediation follows more or less the same logic a negotia-
tion. Goal is to solve conflict with the help of third person. Goal is to reach a new
agreement, acceptable from both parties and thus overcome the existing conflict.
Legal norms are pushed into background. Parties are seeking how to resolve con-
flict not how to legally protect their interests.
Arbitration is the last method of conflict resolution and also adjudication. It’s
a subject of different scholarly articles and books. In last years there is a strong
movement for its promotion. To make arbitration efficient states are changing
their laws and bylaws37. Arbitration courts change their procedural codes towards
simplified court procedures. Arbitral procedure wants to become cheaper, faster and
more efficient than court procedure. Indeed, arbitration is seen as efficient version of
privatized courts. In this changeable world the question about essence of arbitration
should be posted again. What is arbitration? The word arbitration has roots in Latin
arbitrari — “decided by one’s own discretion or judgment”. It should be made the
distinction between the “arbiter” deciding according to the law, and the “arbitrator”
and “amicable compositor” deciding according to justice38.
Parties created arbitration to resolve disputes effectively, efficiently and at a
lower cost than they could achieve through litigation. While arbitration is similar
to litigation in that a neutral third-party resolve the dispute, it differs in several
important ways, including that the parties design the process and control (at least
in theory) the issues and law the arbitrator can consider and the remedies she can
order. In addition, in a typical arbitration, parties trade the right to challenge the
substance of the decision-maker’s ruling in exchange for a fast and relatively final
resolution of the issue. Narrow judicial review of arbitration awards made sense
historically because parties wanted their disputes resolved according to norms and
customs, rather than laws39.
  Ibid. P. 30.
36

37
  Despite being a relatively recent chapter in arbitration, thus, less common than interim measures
in the context of civil court proceedings, interim measures are becoming increasingly important in
arbitration practice. Rules on emergency relief were aimed at responding to the parties’ demand to have
the choice to avoid approaching State courts with interim relief requests before the formation of the
arbitral tribunal .
  Godfrey M. Arbitration in the Ius Commune and Scots Law. Roman Legal Tradition, 2002, no 2,
38

p. 122.
  Cole S. Op. cit. Available at: http://works.bepress.com: http://works.bepress.com/sarah_cole/2/ (ac-
39

cessed: 2.02.2016)

223
Law in the Modern World

Moreover, modern commercial disputes might have purely commercial as-

pects, or purely legal aspects, or a combination of both. If legal questions are at
issue, merchants would have an interest in obtaining expanded judicial review of
arbitration awards because arbitrators are generally considered experts in particu-
lar industries but not in the law. In other words, merchants might want to increase
the predictability of results where legal issues are central to the dispute while still
taking advantage of some of arbitration’s benefits, such as speed and efficiency40.
Like other sellers, courts and arbitration institutions provide bundles of ser-
vices to their customers — in this case, bundles of dispute resolution procedures to
the parties in a dispute. Courts provide the default bundle, but parties can opt in-
stead for arbitral procedural bundles that vary according to the applicable arbitra-
tion rules chosen by the parties. Scholars traditionally assume that sophisticated
parties make a single choice between courts and arbitration based on the bundle of
dispute resolution services that seem most appealing ex ante. As with the literature
on bundling generally, however, legal scholars are increasingly focusing their at-
tention on the unbundling of court and arbitral procedures — that is, the ability
of parties to contract for à la carte or customized dispute resolution procedures in
court and arbitration. Carve-outs and carve-ins are mechanisms by which parties
choose between court and arbitral bundles of procedures on a claim-by-claim or
remedy-by-remedy basis. By using carve-outs and carve-ins, parties can obtain
a more carefully calibrated unbundling of procedure than an arbitration clause
or forum-selection clause alone would provide, but at a much lower overall cost
than the parties would incur by contracting for individual procedures. What often
results is a sort of middle ground for bundling of procedural rules: parties choose
among pre-set bundles of dispute resolution services, but unbundle the circum-
stances where any given dispute resolution bundle will be used41. Arbitration, in
short, is a trade-off in which the parties agree to exchange the benefits and risks of
dispute resolution under the formal law for the benefits and risks of dispute reso-
lution in a less formal setting42.
International commercial arbitration, while sometimes cited as an example of
private ordering, is in fact—a hybrid case—with important elements of public in-
volvement supplementing the use of a private decision maker. International com-
mercial arbitration, as distinguished from trade association arbitration, is nonspe-
cialized arbitration between private parties involved in international commercial
transactions. Parties to international arbitration agreements reject the option of
having their dispute resolved under privately developed commercial rules, the so-
40
  Ibid.
41
  Drahozal C., O’Hara O’Connor E. Inbundling Procedure: Carve-Outs From Arbitration Clauses //
Florida Law Review. 2015, no. 5, p. 945.
42
  Reuben R. First Options, Consent to Arbitration, and the Demise of Separability: Restoring Access
to Justice for Contracts with Arbitration Provisions // SMUL Rev. 2003, no 56, p. 819.

224
 Borut Stražišar. Alternative Dispute Resolution. P. 214–233

called new Law Merchant or lex mercatoria. Instead, they choose to have their
dispute resolved under publicly created laws. Moreover, unlike parties in trade as-
sociation arbitrations, parties in international commercial arbitrations often turn
to the courts for aid in enforcing awards. Too often, international arbitration is
grouped with trade association arbitration in ways that blur the important distinc-
tions between the two43.
Trade association arbitration is most likely to be used for transactions in simple
goods, although less likely in international transactions involving greater distanc-
es than domestic transactions. International commercial arbitration is the more
likely choice for international transactions, except in cases in which the applicable
law is clear or emergency relief is likely to be needed. In such cases, parties are
more likely to choose litigation in national courts44.
We must distinguish two types of arbitration:
rights arbitration — refers to situations covered by pre-existing rules or cus-
toms. When a dispute has arisen because the rules are unclear, the arbitrator
makes a judgement about the meaning of the rules, and in this way, decides the
parties’ rights;
interests arbitration — there are no pre-existing rules. Judgements are made on
the parties’ interests, i.e., the relative benefits each would receive45.
In the case of rights arbitration the arbitrator must clarify the meaning of the
rules or in some cases resolve a contradiction among prevailing rules. In the in-
terest arbitration the decision will be based on a conception of fairness, or on the
relative powers of the two sides in order to make a stable workable agreement. The
interests arbitrator is a fast and safe substitute for the barging process46.
Informality of arbitrage is a two-edged sword. Because arbitration permits par-
ties to resolve their disputes without the constraints of law, it has the potential to
be faster and less expensive than traditional litigation. It also offers the possibility
of better decision making, as arbitration awards are generally made by persons
whom the parties agree upon, often because of the arbitrator’s sophistication in
the subject matter of the dispute. Moreover, unfettered by rules of evidence or
procedure, arbitral decisions can be based on whatever evidence the parties wish
to put before the arbitrator, including industry customs and practices and oth-
er applicable but non-legal norms. However, the absence of legal standards can
translate into gross substantive and procedural injustices, particularly when there
are severe power imbalances between the parties, and the absence of substantive

  Drahozal C. Private Ordering and International Commercial Arbitration // Penn State University
43

Law Review. 2009, no 4, p. 1032.

44
  Ibid.
45
  O’Neill B. A Problem of Rghts Arbitration from the Talmud // Mathematical Social Sciences. 1982,
no 2, p. 345.
46
  Ibid. P. 346.

225
Law in the Modern World

judicial review worsens the situation by making capricious awards essentially un-
correctable. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that arbitrators, unlike judges,
have economic incentives with respect to their caseloads that can affect their judg-
ment in individual cases, making them perhaps more favourably disposed toward
“repeat players” than “ones hotters.”47
Access to arbitration should not be confused with “access to justice” more gen-
erally. Adopting arbitration as the final forum is consensual and a party has the
choice whether or not to agree to this form of dispute resolution. If cost pressure
is a concern for a party then it should be taken into account before an agreement
to arbitrate is made. Of course, the cost of pursuing a dispute and the potential for
an adverse costs award is likely to be as much a concern in relation to those con-
templating litigation as it is for arbitration48.

Goals and Interests in ADR

As seen from the presented historical development non-judicial dispute resolu-

tion was chosen by the parties due to different reasons and local markets demands.
Nevertheless, each historical period and each local market custom and demand
contribute a small stone to a mosaic of 20th century arbitral procedures and courts.
Changes in local chambers of commerce (transition from mandatory to voluntary
membership, no formal control of local market…), globalization of commerce (no
need form import-export companies, expanding number of subjects in interna-
tional trade…), modern banking systems (enabling fast money transfer) and abo-
lition of trade barriers place in front of dispute resolution new challenges.
Contrary to the present stand, medieval merchant courts were far away from
the modern perception of arbitral court. They were a part of borough authority.
Notwithstanding this fact they introduced some key principles of ADR.
Firstly, they promote customary law and not the state (city) law. The introduc-
tion of Lex Mercatoria set the solid foundation for the medieval “international”
trade. Because it was a general customary law, it was accepted from all the mer-
chants and also understood by all merchants. Malynes wrote: “Every man know
eth, that for Manners and Prescriptions, there is a great diversity amongst all Na-
tions: but for the customs observed in the course of traffic and commerce, there
is that sympathy, concordance, and agreement, which may be said to be of like
condition to all People, diffused and spread by right reason, and instinct of nature
consisting perpetually. And these Customs are properly those observations which
Merchants maintain between themselves, and if these be separated from the Law

47
  Reuben R. Op. cit. P. 820.
48
  Williams D., Walton J. Costs and Access to International Arbitration // Journal of the Chartered
Institute of Arbitrator. 2014, no 4, p. 432.

226
 Borut Stražišar. Alternative Dispute Resolution. P. 214–233

of Nations, the remainder of said Law will consist of but few points.” The 19th
Century brought modern civil codifications (French Code Civil 1804, Austrian
Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, ABGB 1811, Montenegrin Opšti imovinski
zakonik in 1888 and German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch in 1900) that accepted also
some customs used in everyday life. Nevertheless, the trade customs were part of
commercial life till the 1980’s. Process of industrial globalisation and internation-
al trade expansion (with more and more complex contracts) caused the wane of
trade customs and also the position of arbitration courts. If earlier that courts were
a successors of merchant courts and interpreters of customary law, after 1980’s
became as an alternative to state courts. On the other hand, also the state courts,
to the virtue of modern civil codes, gain the authority to judge on the basis of
customary law (if the parties of contract include customary law as governing law)
Mentioned change destroyed the key concept of customary law  — the concept
of full autonomy and expression of self-regulation49. Thus in present life most of
agreements in international trade are governed by state laws and not by customs.
Second, even though the medieval merchant courts in UK (but not in other
continental Europe city states) were a part of borough’s governing authority, they
promote the basic principle — essence over procedure. There were some proce-
dural rules, but all it was in the hand of arbiter50. Merchants brought disputes to
arbiters mainly for time and financial reasons51. Procedural rules were always con-
nected to time consuming and also to the lawyers52. Thus merchants used this way
of dispute resolution to resolve disputes arising from the day to day trade. They
were questions about fulfilment of rights and obligations under customary law.
Contrary to state regulations, customary law is more open to interpretation. Rules
aren’t so exact — they mostly deal with principles (ethical and moral). Main part of
decision procedure was also interpreting basic trade principles. Using arbitration,
merchants got a quick decision (and thus possibility to move to a fair in another
city) not damaging further trade relations. Main interest of the parties was achiev-
ing the execution of business relation and not avoiding the proper obligations. We
can see the use of arbiters for both type of arbitrage: rights and interests. Due to
the openness of customary law the same rule could be used for long time — only
the interpretation was changed through time. The use of customary rule could be

49
  It’s a kind of paradox. The 1980’s and 1990’s brought a policy of wide self-regulation in different
fields of human activities (e.g. IT, medicine…). On the other hand, national and international chambers
of commerce and “classic industry” moved out of self-regulation.
  See Kotruljević B. Della mercatura et del mercante perfetto. Dubrovnik, 1458.
50

  Ibid.
51

  Koturljević in the chapter »O mijestu primjernem za trgovca (About the right place for the mer-
52

chant) « wrote:”…in the towns that commerce is ruled by Justinian Law (i.e. state law) there are also
lawyers. And as it is known the lawyers are the main enemy of merchant’s sack…”

227
Law in the Modern World

widened or narrowed — depending of the time and space component. Over all the
customary law was sc. divine law — equal justice and fairness53.
Third, aim of medieval merchant courts was also to gain execution of award.
The same goal was pursued also in the medieval systems of arbiters in Mediterra-
nean area. Although the problem of non-execution is not an invention of modern
society54. This goal was achieved through two mechanisms:
fear of place-ostracism and boycott sanctions;
penal bonds, set in case for non-execution of merchant court’s award.
First mechanism worked efficiently because of trade monopolies (so the bor-
ough market authorities decided about accession to local market) and small num-
ber of merchants (they were personally known). We found no historical data about
the execution of penal bonds. But, considering the descriptions of life of medieval
merchant in Koturljević’s work, most merchants were life dependent from daily
trade. So, execution of the award was necessary for merchant to gain the daily pay-
ments and moving to other fair location55.
Fourth, there was no clear distinction between arbitration and non-arbitration
procedure. In Kotruljević’s work in the chapter “About the merchant’s person-
ality” we could find the guidance about setting possible disputes amicably56. So
arbiter main goal was to find a solution acceptable for both parties. This could be
reached through various mechanisms — from counselling, through a way of me-
diation to final adjudication. It was up to arbiter to choose the right “tool” to settle
the dispute. Merchants choose arbiter because of his ability and knowledge how
find the solution for the dispute. It was not important whether the settlement was
reached on the basis of “wise man’s advice” or on adjudication. We can’t ignore
the fact that even in that time the arbiter was chosen when the parties were un-
able to settle their dispute among themselves. As we can see from the China case,
the wise arbiter plays many roles with one goal — to effective resolve the conflict.
Main goal though was not to find the solution itself but to overcome relation’s
conflict among the parties. We could see this approach in interest arbitration or
in the cases that different persons can have the rights that are equally valid but
mutually inconsistent
And last but not least, as we see it from historical development described at the
beginning of this submission, the parties had chosen arbiter because of his pro-
fessional and moral authority. Both authorities were part of arbiter’s day-to-day
life. Professional authority was gained through his professional activity. It showed
53
  Malynes talks about common sense and justice. He points out that state law is in some cases unjust.
So, the Lex Mercatoria allow to find the solutions that are just and in accordance with divine law.
  The fact is that non-execution was also a big problem for medieval merchants. Benedikt Kotrulje-
54

vić wrote a special chapter titled “On execution”.

  Kotruljević B. Op. cit.
55

  Due to the preservation of merchant’s good reputation.

56

228
 Borut Stražišar. Alternative Dispute Resolution. P. 214–233

his capability to work in certain professional field and that his capability was re-
spected and recognized by other professionals from the same profession. Such
capability was not limited to good professional work but also to his attitude to the
work done and towards others in the same profession. From today’s standing we
could talk about extraordinary, leading professional. Dealing with moral author-
ity of arbiter is a bit trickier. Starting from Koturljević’s work the moral aspect of
merchant’s personality was wider as we take into consideration today. Merchant’s
moral value was factor of different life relations:
merchant’s personal relation to the product or service;
merchant’s personal relation to other traders;
merchant’s personal relation towards apprentice;
merchant’s personal relation towards his family (and education of his family
members);
merchant’s personal relation towards his life.
So, the moral authority was a result of whole plethora of merchant’s past and
present relations seen in outside world or whispered in outside world. On the
other hand the moral authority of merchant-arbiter was built on successful cases.
Successful cases showed that parties respect and executes the given solution not
only on the ground of professional reputation but also on the ground of moral
reputation. If the arbiter was known as fair, impartial and righteous (that is a part
of moral quality), then the parties didn’t have ground to attack the given solution
without reasonable professional arguments. And this is also the main logic be-
hind arbitration. It’s the decision of the parties to submit their dispute (or rather
problem) to someone else’s decision (or judgement). The parties didn’t expect the
legal solution (that was part of state courts system), rather they expected the pro-
fessional working solution for their conflict. That was also the reason why in such
procedures there were no lawyers. In this way arbiters could be creative and in-
novative to find the solutions that fit to each specific relation and thus neglected a
possible intention to solve similar problems in similar way.

Today’s Trends and Possible Solutions

International trade’s demands (esp. speed of international trade) posts in front

of its actor’s new questions and challenges. Many old solutions were abandoned
as archaic and improper for present time. Most “new age trade economists” have
tried to persuade that new economic relations are different from old relations. If
we read the work of Koutrljević we can see that in trade nothing has really changed.
The logic of trade remained the same. The main ideas of merchant’s role in market
are still the same. The problem of non-execution of contractual obligations is still
the same. The system of accountability remained the same (as the tool for the mer-
chant to see whether he produces loses or profits). The only two things that have

229
Law in the Modern World

changed were speed and terminology. But the logic and intention is still the same
as it was 1000 years ago.
Non-judiciary dispute resolution has been also a part of a whirl of mentioned
changes. Invention of sc. alternative dispute resolution, recognizing arbitral
awards as execution title, importing elements of civil procedure in arbitral proce-
dures (remuneration of costs, extraordinary measures, court experts,…) shows us
that that industry and commerce is trying to find a fast, not expensive and efficient
system of dispute resolution. The main idea was to find an alternative to judicial
system that was overloaded with time and money consuming protection of par-
ties’ rights within the civil procedure. On the other hand, such ideas were also
the reflection of 1990’s perception that state economy and state organizations are
expensive, inefficient and also corrupted. So, the alternative dispute resolution was
seen also as a project of privatization of state court system. And the proponents of
such system had had all the arguments in their hand (civil procedure was costly,
time consuming and — due to increase of court cases in many countries — a lot of
cases were ended without judgement due the time reason).
The current legal framework for international arbitration was initiated by the
Geneva Protocol in 1923 and Geneva Convention in 1927 and culminated in the
signing of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement
of Foreign Arbitral Awards in 1958 (“New York Convention”), the promulgation
of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules in 1976, the adoption of the UNCITRAL
Model Law in 1985 and the enactment of “modern” arbitration statutes in many
developed jurisdictions from 1980 to the present day57.
The shiny era of international trade arbitration was ended in 2nd decade of 21st
century. The international corporate community has become somewhat disen-
chanted with that particular mechanism because of concerns about rising costs,
delays, and procedural formality58. As a result, parties are looking for other means
of resolving international commercial disputes. So, the arbitration has lost the ad-
vantages that had attracted actors in international trade. Thus, mediation and con-
ciliation was offered as an alternative to arbitration procedure. So, the industry is
searching the way back to the roots of non-adjudication and mainly informal pro-
cedures. On the other hand, arbitral courts all over the world seek how to regain
the past glory of arbitration and how to get clients (and their money) back under
the veil of trade associations. This process is now two folded:
arbitral procedures are really becoming the alternative court procedures (only
main difference — clients can choose judges and there is only one instance);

  Born G., Wendy M. Global Trends in International Arbitration. 2006. Available at: http://www.
57

americanlawyer.com (accessed: 26.08.2016)

58
  Strong S. Beyond International Commercial Arbitration? The Promise of International Commer-
cial Mediation // Washington University Journal of Law and Polity. 2014, no 4, pp. 11–39.

230
 Borut Stražišar. Alternative Dispute Resolution. P. 214–233

promotion of institutional mediation and conciliation procedures within trade

associations.
So the Western civilization stubborn persist on the difference between arbitra-
tion, mediation, conciliation and other forms of out-of-court dispute resolution.
And thus the western legal theory in this field produced the artificial nonsense —
formal regulation of traditionally informal procedures. And mentioned nonsense
had destroyed and will destroy the historically efficient mechanisms of out-of-
court dispute resolution. Developments and final results in international trade
dispute resolutions brought out the never ending legal dilemma of domestic law:
is procedure the slave of material law or is material law the slave of procedure? We
could advocate that on individual trader there is a wish to use procedural rules to
abide the execution of obligation. But on international level the demand of capital
returns the main principle is still “pacta sunt servanda.” Without that principle
international trade would be dead. Main players in international trade are aware
of that fact and thus reverting from arbitral procedures to other less formal and
more efficient procedures.
What could we do helping the international trade to find the lost treasure?
First, we should distinguish among adjudication and non-adjudication types
of dispute resolution. Both types serve to the same purpose — resolution of con-
flict among parties. We should bear in mind that under the rules of FIDIC there
is arbitral procedure that is quasi-adjudicative. Party who is not satisfied with the
result of arbitration can still begin the court procedure. We could say that the basic
distinction among both types of resolution is the content of decision. In adjudi-
cation procedures we are resolving disputes. In non-adjudication procedures we
are resolving conflicts. Someone would argue that there is no difference between
dispute and conflict. If we look to Merriam-Webster dictionary we could see the
difference:
dispute — to say or show that (something) may not be true, correct, or legal;
to argue about (something); to fight in order to take control of (something);
conflict — a struggle for power, property, etc.; strong disagreement between
people, groups, etc., that results in often angry argument; a difference that pre-
vents agreement: disagreement between ideas, feelings, etc.
The main difference is that in dispute there is a “battle line” and in conflict such
“battle line” doesn’t exist. So, the conflict resolving approach has more chances
to bring the acceptable solution. The conflict approach allows accepting the com-
promise; the dispute approach allows only to accept one party’s stand and thus
leaving the other party disgruntled (and provoking new conflicts). Solution is that
to the industry should be offered non-adjudication procedure as a part of conflict
resolution. More activity should be done on informing the actors in industry how
to deal with conflict instead how to deal with disputes. Or better, how to prevent
that conflict arises in dispute.

231
Law in the Modern World

Second, the distinction among different types of conflict solution should be

abolished. The main goal should be the elimination of conflict. So, it’s on chosen
arbiter (in the wider sense) what approach will chose. Nevertheless, the parties
should still have the emergency exit in adjudication procedure in case that conflict
resolution process would fail or not end in preferred way. With such exit parties
would more willingly participate to find new solution for given conflict. On the
other hand, such approach demands the development of two different types of
arbitral courts:
with recognized adjudication procedures and recognized arbitral awards;
without adjudication procedures and arbitral awards recognized only after un-
dersigning by both parties.
We could say that such solution will bring back the real distinction among
private way of conflict resolution and official dispute resolution (which could be
also private).
Third, formal procedures should be abolished and/or put in the hand of parties
and arbiters. In this way the procedures would be faster and low cost again. As
said, the main goal is elimination of conflict and not the lawyers’ show.
Fourth, the prevention of conflict of interests for arbiters should be widely ac-
cepted. The policy of conflict of interests’ prevention is warranty for equal treat-
ment of both parties. In modern world the professional and moral authority could
be always questioned. The parties chose the arbiter. With the selection of arbiter
parties accept also his/hers professional and moral quality. In such system preven-
tion of conflict of interests assures the equal and just treatment of both parties.
And last but not least  — the efficient system for execution of reached deals
should be introduced. As we have learned from the past, the fear from ostracism
and boycott was the main factor that merchants were willing to execute arbitral
awards. If we look to system of e-bay or Alibaba the same principle is valid also to-
day. Buyers are more willing to trade with the seller with more positive responses
or higher trusted rate. So, the sellers (and buyers) are trying to be fair and to gain
higher grade. Higher grade and positive responses means also more business in
the future. Such system could be accepted also in the field of non-adjudication
way of conflicts’’ resolving. The following system could be introduced. The parties
with the choice of arbiter would also undersign the agreement that in the case of
non-execution of closed deal (within non-adjudication procedure) such case and
names of the parties would be published on the public black list run by trade as-
sociations. The parties would be obliged to inform the arbiter about execution of
accepted solution within three months after the successful ending of non-adjudi-
cation procedure. If there is case of non-execution, the arbiter is obliged to inform
the trade association about such fact.

232
 Borut Stražišar. Alternative Dispute Resolution. P. 214–233

References
Barkai J. (2008) Cultural Dimension Interests, Dance of Negotiation, and Weather Fore-
casting: A Perspective on Cross-Cultural Negotiation and Dispute Resolution. Pepper-
dine Dispute Resolution Law Journal , no 3, pp. 403–448.
Born G. & Wendy M. (2006) Global Trends in International Arbitration. Available at: http://
www.americanlawyer.com (accessed: 26.08.2016)
Cole S. (2015) Curbing the Runaway Arbitrator in Commercial Arbitration: Making Ex-
ceeding the Powers Count. Available at: http://works.bepress.com: http://works.be-
press.com/sarah_cole/2/ (accessed: 2.02.2016)
Drahozal C. (2009) Private Ordering and International Commercial Arbitration. Penn
State University Law Review, no 4, pp. 1032–1050.
Drahozal C. & O’Hara O’Connor E. (2015) Unbundling Procedure: Carve-Outs From Arbi-
tration Clauses. Florida Law Review, no 5, pp. 1945–2006.
Galanter M. (1984) Worlds of Deals: Using Negotiation to Teach about Legal Process.
Journal of Legal Education, no 2, pp. 268–276.
Ghibrazde N. (2015) Preclusion of Remedies Under Article 16(3) of the UNCITRAL Model
Law. Pace Int’l Law Review, no 1, pp. 347–396.
Godfrey M. (2004) Arbitration in the Ius Commune and Scots Law. Roman Legal Tradi-
tion, no 2, pp. 122–135.
Harper D. (2016). Online Etymology Dictionary. Available at: http://www.etymonline.
com/index.php?term=mediation (accessed: 16.07.2016)
Lowry S. (1998). The Economic and Jurisprudential Ideas of the Ancient Greeks: Our
Heritage from Hellenic Thought. T. Lowry & B. Gordon (eds.). Ancient and Medieval Eco-
nomic Ideas and Concepts of Social Justice. Leiden: Brill, pp. 11–37.
Moore C. (2014). The Mediation Process. 4th ed. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.
590 p.
Petros F. (2009). Underlying Distinctions between ADR,” Shimglina” and Arbitration.
Mizan Law Review, no 1, pp. 105–133.
Silbey S. & Merry S. (1985). Mediator Settlement Strategies. Law & Policy, no 1, pp. 7–32.
Strong S. (2014). Beyond International Commercial Arbitration? The Promise of Inter-
national Commercial Mediation. Washington University Journal of Law and Polity, no 4,
pp. 11–39.
Williams D. & Walton J. (2014). Costs and Access to International Arbitration. Journal of
the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators , no 4, pp. 432–442.

View publication stats