Siddhi Dama, SVKM’s Pravin Gandhi College of Law
ABSTRACT:
This paper has explored the efficiency of ad-hoc arbitration as against institutional, strategic considerations that underline the choice of an appropriate dispute resolution procedure, and trajectories of arbitration practices into the future. It shall, therefore, be incumbent upon this overview to consider the arbitration agreement, lex arbitri, and implications of arbitral awards under both mechanisms against the broader settings of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL arbitration rules to clarify the role and relevance of ad-hoc arbitration within contemporary legal frameworks and its bearing on the arbitration procedure and court intervention.
1. Introduction:
Ad-hoc arbitration, however, has operated as one of the most visible mechanisms for dispute resolution without the oversight of arbitral institutions. It is really a pillar of most modern legal systems, offering a rather different pathway than its counterpart, institutional arbitration. In such kinds of arbitration, very close adherence is paid to principles that underscore autonomy and flexibility during the process of arbitration. In this form of arbitration, parties at odds may custom-design an agreement, procedure, and selection of the arbitral tribunal in ways specific to their needs. Institutional arbitration, by contrast, is performed on the basis of predefined rules and under the auspices of an established arbitral institution. This delineates a more formalistic attitude toward dispute resolution. How this will be done between ad hoc and institutional arbitration, being one of the most important decisions in this landscape, is regulated by either the arbitration acts or the BITs and thus rules over efficiency, costs, and procedural dynamics of resolution.1
Comments