International Dispute Resolution

Introduction and Context

Cross-border commerce creates value but also legal risk. Parties may be incorporated in different states, perform obligations across several jurisdictions, hold assets in multiple countries, and rely on evidence stored through international digital systems. When a dispute arises, the central question is not simply who is right. It is also where, by whom, under which procedural rules, and with what prospect of enforcement the dispute should be resolved.

International dispute resolution therefore involves a strategic choice among negotiation, mediation, court litigation, commercial arbitration, and, in qualifying circumstances, investor–state arbitration. The choice affects cost, speed, confidentiality, procedural control, evidentiary burdens, interim protection, appellate review, enforceability, and relationships between the parties.

This chapter treats dispute resolution as both a legal and managerial problem. The analysis is necessarily jurisdiction-sensitive: national arbitration statutes, court procedures, treaties, public-policy doctrines, and judicial interpretations differ. A sound contractual clause should therefore be reviewed by counsel familiar with the jurisdictions connected to the transaction and with the location of likely assets.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, a student should be able to:

1. Distinguish negotiation, mediation, litigation, commercial arbitration, and investor–state arbitration.
2. Select a dispute-resolution process using legal, commercial, evidentiary, and enforcement criteria.
3. Draft an effective multi-tier dispute-resolution and arbitration clause.
4. Assess documentary, witness, expert, and digital evidence in international proceedings.
5. Explain interim measures, costs, confidentiality, and enforcement under the New York Convention.
6. Critically evaluate the limits and governance concerns of international dispute mechanisms.

1. The Architecture of International Dispute Resolution

A dispute-resolution process may be consensual, adjudicative, or hybrid.

Consensual processes depend on party agreement to reach a settlement. Negotiation is entirely party-controlled. Mediation adds a neutral facilitator but does not give that person power to impose a binding decision.

Adjudicative processes authorize a court or tribunal to decide the dispute. Litigation takes place in a state judicial system. Commercial arbitration is based on party consent and is decided by private arbitrators whose award may be enforced internationally. Investor–state arbitration permits a qualifying foreign investor to bring claims against a host state under an investment treaty, investment statute, or contract containing the necessary consent.

Hybrid processes combine stages. A contract may require negotiation, followed by mediation, followed by arbitration or litigation. Such clauses are often called escalation, multi-tier, or stepped clauses. Their enforceability depends on the language used, the clarity of the procedural requirements, and the law governing the clause.

Core selection criteria

No mechanism dominates on every criterion. A highly confidential arbitration may be expensive; a court may offer strong coercive powers but public proceedings; mediation may preserve a relationship but cannot guarantee a settlement.

2. Negotiation and Mediation

Negotiation

Negotiation is direct communication aimed at resolving disputed interests. It may be positional, where parties exchange demands and concessions, or interest-based, where they explore underlying commercial needs. International negotiation is affected by language, culture, hierarchy, time zones, risk tolerance, and differing assumptions about authority.

A disciplined negotiation process identifies the parties’ legal rights, commercial interests, best alternative to a negotiated agreement, reservation point, and possible package solutions. Legal representatives should preserve privilege where available, distinguish settlement communications from admissions, and ensure that any settlement is documented with authority, consideration where required, governing law, release language, and an enforcement mechanism.

Mediation

Mediation is a structured process in which an independent neutral assists parties in reaching their own settlement. The mediator does not ordinarily impose a decision. Mediation can be evaluative, facilitative, or transformative:

• Facilitative mediation helps parties identify interests and generate options.
• Evaluative mediation tests legal and factual strengths and weaknesses.
• Transformative mediation focuses on recognition, communication, and relationship repair.

The Singapore Convention on Mediation provides a framework for enforcing certain international mediated settlement agreements, subject to its scope, reservations, and grounds for refusal. It complements, rather than replaces, domestic contract and enforcement law. Parties should specify whether mediation is confidential, how costs are allocated, the appointment method, the applicable mediation rules, and what happens if mediation fails.

A mediation clause should avoid indefinite delay. It may require mediation within a defined period and state that either party may commence arbitration or litigation after the period expires or after an impasse is declared. A settlement reached during mediation should be signed by authorized representatives and should specify payment dates, currency, tax treatment, releases, confidentiality, default consequences, and dispute resolution for the settlement itself.

3. Litigation in National Courts

Litigation offers the coercive authority of the state. Courts can usually compel compliance with procedural orders, join parties in ways an arbitral tribunal may not, grant certain forms of relief against third parties, and supervise insolvency or public-law matters. Courts also provide established rules of evidence and, commonly, avenues of appeal.

Its disadvantages in international disputes include jurisdictional contests, service abroad, translation, unfamiliarity with foreign law, public hearings and judgments, delays, and difficulties enforcing judgments in states without a relevant treaty or reciprocal practice. The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the Hague Judgments Convention may assist in particular circumstances, but their applicability depends on state participation, reservations, subject matter, and temporal requirements.

A forum-selection clause should identify whether jurisdiction is exclusive or non-exclusive. It should address the courts of a specific state or a clearly identifiable place, rather than merely naming a city. Parties should examine:

• personal and subject-matter jurisdiction;
• recognition of exclusive jurisdiction clauses;
• anti-suit injunctions and competing proceedings;
• limitation periods;
• service and evidence abroad;
• sovereign or diplomatic immunities;
• availability of interim and enforcement remedies; and
• treatment of foreign governing law.

Litigation may be preferable where a dispute involves multiple related parties, urgent relief against third parties, insolvency, public regulation, or a need for authoritative precedent.

4. Commercial Arbitration

Commercial arbitration is a private adjudicative process founded on an arbitration agreement. The agreement may be a clause in a contract or a separate submission agreement. Arbitration is generally based on party autonomy, but autonomy is constrained by mandatory law, due process, arbitrability, public policy, and the supervisory court at the seat.

Seat, venue, and applicable law

The seat, or legal place, of arbitration determines the procedural law and identifies the courts with supervisory jurisdiction. The venue is the physical or virtual location where hearings occur and may differ from the seat. Confusing the two can produce uncertainty about court applications, annulment, and procedural rules.

An arbitration clause should address at least:

1. the parties bound;
2. disputes covered;
3. institutional or ad hoc administration;
4. arbitration rules;
5. seat;
6. number and method of appointing arbitrators;
7. language;
8. governing substantive law;
9. confidentiality, if desired;
10. emergency or interim relief; and
11. allocation of costs and fees, subject to tribunal discretion and mandatory law.

The arbitration agreement is generally treated as separable from the underlying contract. The tribunal may also determine its own jurisdiction under the competence-competence principle, subject to court review at specified stages. Separability and competence-competence reduce tactical attempts to invalidate the arbitration clause merely by alleging that the main contract is void, although their precise operation depends on applicable law.

Institutional and ad hoc arbitration

Institutional arbitration is administered by an organization under established rules. Institutions commonly assist with appointments, procedural administration, fee collection, scrutiny or review of awards, and case management. Ad hoc arbitration is administered by the parties and tribunal, often under UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. It may offer flexibility but requires careful drafting of appointment, replacement, and administrative arrangements.

Tribunal composition and impartiality

A sole arbitrator can reduce cost and appointment delay. A three-member tribunal may be preferred for high-value, technically complex, or politically sensitive disputes, although it usually increases cost and time. Arbitrators must disclose circumstances that may create justifiable doubts about independence or impartiality. Parties may challenge appointments under applicable rules and law. The IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest are influential soft-law guidance but do not automatically govern every proceeding.

5. Investor–State Arbitration

Investor–state dispute settlement differs from ordinary commercial arbitration because the claimant is typically a foreign investor and the respondent is a host state. Consent may arise from a bilateral investment treaty, multilateral treaty, domestic investment law, or contract. Jurisdiction usually depends on nationality, the existence of a protected investment, treaty ratione temporis, consent, and compliance with pre-arbitration requirements.

Substantive protections may include fair and equitable treatment, full protection and security, protection against unlawful expropriation, national treatment, most-favoured-nation treatment, and free transfer provisions. Treaty wording varies significantly, and tribunals disagree on issues such as legitimate expectations, the scope of most-favoured-nation clauses, corporate nationality, and the legality of investments.

Investor–state arbitration raises special concerns. It may involve public budgets, regulatory choices, environmental protection, public health, and democratic accountability. States may face claims arising from bona fide regulation, while investors may require protection against discrimination, arbitrary conduct, or uncompensated taking. Transparency rules, publication of awards, third-party submissions, and treaty reform have developed in response to legitimacy concerns. ICSID arbitration has a distinctive enforcement regime under the ICSID Convention, while non-ICSID awards may rely on instruments such as the New York Convention and the domestic law of the enforcement state.

Commercial arbitration and investor–state arbitration should not be conflated. A contract between a company and a state may contain a commercial arbitration clause, but treaty jurisdiction is a separate question requiring a valid treaty-based offer and acceptance.

6. Drafting Effective Dispute-Resolution Clauses

A robust clause should be complete without becoming internally contradictory. The following is an illustrative, not universal, model:

Any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, including its existence, validity, interpretation, performance, breach, or termination, shall first be referred to senior representatives of the parties for good-faith negotiation. If the dispute has not been resolved within 30 days after written notice, either party may refer it to mediation under the [specified] Mediation Rules. If the dispute has not been settled within 45 days after appointment of the mediator, or within another period agreed in writing, it shall be finally resolved by arbitration under the [specified institutional] Arbitration Rules. The seat of arbitration shall be [city, state, country]. The tribunal shall consist of [one/three] arbitrator[s], appointed in accordance with those Rules. The language shall be English. This Agreement shall be governed by the substantive law of [state], excluding its conflict-of-laws rules. The award shall be final and binding, and judgment upon it may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Drafting choices require analysis:

• “Arising out of or relating to” is generally broad, but interpretation is jurisdiction-specific.
• A negotiation or mediation step should state its trigger, duration, participants, and endpoint.
• The seat should be a legal place, not merely a preferred hearing venue.
• The clause should identify rules that actually exist and are in force.
• Language should cover the arbitration agreement, pleadings, evidence, and award.
• The clause should avoid incompatible requirements, such as one institution’s rules combined with another institution’s appointment mechanism without explanation.
• A state party may require express waiver of immunity from jurisdiction and execution, although waiver rules are strictly governed by applicable law.
• Confidentiality should be drafted expressly because arbitration is not universally confidential by default.
• Emergency arbitration and court applications for interim relief should be considered.

7. Evidence and Procedure

International proceedings commonly involve contracts, amendments, invoices, shipping records, inspection reports, accounting data, emails, messaging applications, source code, metadata, expert reports, and witness testimony. The tribunal must address relevance, materiality, authenticity, reliability, privilege, proportionality, and chain of custody.

The IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration are frequently used as procedural guidance, but they apply only when adopted or directed by the tribunal. They occupy a middle position between broad common-law discovery and more limited civil-law production. A party may request a narrowly described document or category, explain relevance and materiality, and respond to objections such as privilege, burden, confidentiality, or lack of possession.

Digital evidence requires particular care. Parties should preserve original data, record collection methods, maintain access logs, identify custodians, and explain translation or extraction processes. Generative AI can assist with document classification, chronology, translation, and issue spotting, but lawyers remain responsible for verification, confidentiality, privilege, bias, and disclosure of material errors. Fabricated citations or synthetic evidence can damage credibility and may constitute professional misconduct or fraud.

Witness evidence should distinguish personal knowledge from hearsay, advocacy, and reconstruction. Expert evidence should disclose assumptions, methodology, data sources, uncertainty, and independence. Cross-examination may test causation, alternative explanations, mitigation, and damages.

8. Interim Measures

Interim measures preserve the effectiveness of the final process. They may include asset preservation, injunctions against disclosure, security for costs, preservation of evidence, anti-dissipation orders, orders protecting goods, or security for a claim.

The applicant commonly must show a prima facie case or reasonable possibility of success, urgency, risk of irreparable or serious harm, proportionality, and sometimes security for the respondent’s potential loss. Exact tests vary by court, institution, and applicable law. Tribunals may lack power over third parties or assets outside the legal framework supporting the arbitration. Courts may therefore remain essential, particularly before tribunal constitution.

Parties should identify whether institutional rules permit emergency arbitration, whether the arbitration agreement permits court applications without waiver, and whether the relevant court recognizes and enforces tribunal-ordered measures.

9. Costs, Confidentiality, and Transparency

Costs include tribunal and institutional fees, lawyers’ fees, experts, translators, travel, technology, document production, and enforcement. Tribunals may allocate costs according to the event, relative success, conduct, reasonableness, or applicable rules. A successful party may not recover every expenditure. Third-party funding can expand access but creates questions about disclosure, conflicts, security for costs, and control of settlement.

Confidentiality is not identical to privacy. Privacy concerns who may attend proceedings; confidentiality concerns whether information may be disclosed outside them. The governing law, institutional rules, procedural orders, protective orders, and settlement agreements should be examined. Exceptions may be needed for legal obligations, regulators, auditors, insurers, lenders, shareholders, and enforcement.

Investor–state proceedings often involve greater transparency because public interests and public funds are implicated. Transparency can improve legitimacy but may expose sensitive state or commercial information. The appropriate balance depends on treaty text, rules, and protective mechanisms.

10. Recognition and Enforcement under the New York Convention

The 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards is the principal international framework for enforcing qualifying arbitral awards. Its success rests on a pro-enforcement orientation, but enforcement is not automatic.

A party seeking enforcement typically supplies the authenticated original award or certified copy and the original arbitration agreement or certified copy, together with translations where required. The enforcing court may refuse recognition on limited grounds, including:

• incapacity or invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• inadequate notice or inability to present a case;
• the award exceeding the submission to arbitration;
• improper tribunal composition or procedure;
• the award not yet binding, or having been set aside or suspended at the seat;
• non-arbitrability under the enforcing state’s law; or
• public policy.

Some grounds are raised by the resisting party, while non-arbitrability and public policy may be considered by the court under the Convention’s framework. The enforcing court does not ordinarily rehear the merits. Enforcement strategy should focus on asset location, sovereign immunity, limitation periods, local procedural requirements, and the risk of dissipation.

The seat court may annul an award, while an enforcement court may refuse recognition. These are distinct judicial functions. An award annulled at the seat may face serious enforcement obstacles, although approaches to annulled awards differ in exceptional cases. The Convention permits states to make reservations, including reciprocity and commercial reservations, so treaty status must be checked for the relevant countries.

Applied Case: Meridian Components v. Orbis Motors (Illustrative)

Background

Meridian Components, incorporated in State A, agreed to supply specialized battery-control units to Orbis Motors, incorporated in State B. The contract required negotiation followed by mediation and then arbitration under institutional rules. It selected State C as the seat, English as the language, and the law of State B as the substantive law. Most engineering documents were held in State A, while Orbis’s manufacturing records and bank accounts were in State B. The contract did not expressly address confidentiality or emergency relief.

Problem

Orbis alleged that the units were defective and withheld payment. Meridian alleged wrongful rejection and sought urgent protection against disposal of retained units. Orbis threatened to commence proceedings in State B’s courts. Both parties expected the dispute to affect their continuing supply relationship.

Analysis

The first question was whether negotiation and mediation were conditions precedent to arbitration. The clause specified time periods and identifiable steps, making procedural compliance more likely to be required than under a vague promise to negotiate. Counsel documented the negotiation, appointed a mediator, and preserved the right to arbitrate when mediation ended without settlement.

The seat in State C gave its courts supervisory jurisdiction, while the hearing could occur virtually or in another location. The tribunal could consider technical expert evidence, production requests, inspection records, and software logs. Because the contract lacked an express confidentiality provision, the parties sought a procedural confidentiality order, subject to mandatory disclosures.

Meridian applied for interim protection concerning the units. The tribunal assessed urgency, the risk of deterioration or disposal, proportionality, and the possibility of security. Meridian also considered applying to a competent court because an order directed at third-party logistics providers might exceed the tribunal’s practical reach.

Approach and outcome

The parties agreed to a narrow document protocol, independent testing, and a timetable for expert reports. The tribunal ordered preservation of the units and prohibited destruction or alteration of relevant digital records. After expert testing showed that some units failed because of Orbis’s installation process while others had manufacturing defects, the parties settled. Orbis paid for conforming units, Meridian replaced defective units, and the parties amended the contract to include a detailed arbitration clause, express confidentiality, emergency-relief language, and a procedure for electronic evidence.

Learning points

The case illustrates that dispute resolution begins before the hearing. Clause design, preservation of evidence, interim relief, expert methodology, and relationship management can determine whether a dispute becomes a costly adjudication or a controlled commercial settlement. It also demonstrates that an arbitration clause should not be assumed to solve confidentiality, third-party relief, or evidence-management problems automatically.

Challenges, Ethics, and Contemporary Developments

International dispute resolution faces delay, escalating costs, inconsistent decisions, limited appellate review, strategic procedural applications, and unequal access to sophisticated counsel. Arbitration may reproduce power imbalances where a weaker party accepted a clause without meaningful negotiation. Courts and tribunals must protect due process while preventing abusive document production and tactical delay.

Ethical duties include independence, candour, preservation of evidence, accurate citation, protection of confidential information, and avoidance of conflicts. Counsel should not use settlement discussions or procedural rights oppressively. Arbitrators must disclose relevant relationships and manage conflicts consistently.

Contemporary practice increasingly uses virtual hearings, electronic bundles, cybersecurity protocols, online case-management platforms, and data analytics. These tools improve access and efficiency but create risks involving data breaches, unequal technological capacity, witness coaching, authentication, and cross-border data-transfer restrictions. A procedural order should address platform security, recording, exhibit integrity, time-zone fairness, and contingency planning.

Best-Practice Decision Framework

A business should first map the transaction: parties, assets, performance locations, evidence, regulators, and likely enforcement states. It should then test whether disputes are arbitrable and whether a treaty or contract provides consent. The decision-maker should compare litigation and arbitration on neutrality, coercive power, confidentiality, cost, speed, expertise, appeal, and enforcement. Finally, the clause should be tested against realistic scenarios: insolvency, urgent asset dissipation, multiple parties, third-party evidence, data loss, and settlement failure.

The strongest clause is not the longest clause. It is one that clearly expresses consent, identifies an operational procedure, selects a legally meaningful seat and governing law, and anticipates enforcement and evidence problems.

Chapter Summary

International dispute resolution is a strategic system rather than a single procedure. Negotiation and mediation maximize party control and may preserve commercial relationships, but they depend on voluntary settlement. Litigation provides state authority, coercive powers, and appellate structures, but may be public, slow, and difficult to enforce internationally. Commercial arbitration offers neutrality, procedural flexibility, expertise, privacy, and treaty-supported enforcement, but may be costly and has limited review. Investor–state arbitration is a distinct treaty- or statute-based mechanism involving public power and special jurisdictional and legitimacy concerns.

Effective clauses identify the scope of disputes, escalation steps, rules, seat, tribunal, language, governing law, confidentiality, interim relief, and enforcement implications. Evidence must be preserved and assessed for relevance, authenticity, privilege, reliability, and proportionality. Interim measures protect the process but may require court assistance. Costs and confidentiality should be planned rather than assumed. Under the New York Convention, enforcement is strongly supported but remains subject to limited defenses, procedural requirements, public policy, and non-arbitrability. Sound practice integrates legal analysis, commercial objectives, ethical governance, technology controls, and asset-focused enforcement planning.

Key Terms

Arbitration agreement: Agreement to submit defined disputes to arbitration.

Arbitrability: Whether a subject matter may legally be decided by arbitration.

Award: A tribunal’s binding decision in an arbitration.

Competence-competence: Principle that an arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction.

Confidentiality: Duty or undertaking restricting disclosure of proceedings or information.

Enforcement: Legal process by which a judgment or award is given effect.

Escalation clause: Clause requiring sequential negotiation, mediation, and adjudication steps.

Institutional arbitration: Arbitration administered by an arbitral institution under its rules.

Investor–state arbitration: Arbitration between a qualifying foreign investor and a host state.

Interim measure: Temporary relief protecting rights, evidence, assets, or the effectiveness of proceedings.

Litigation: Adjudication by a state court.

Mediation: Assisted negotiation conducted by an independent neutral without imposed adjudication.

New York Convention: 1958 treaty governing recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

Seat: Legal place of arbitration determining the supervisory procedural framework.

Separability: Treatment of an arbitration agreement as legally distinct from the main contract.

Sovereign immunity: Protection affecting jurisdiction over a state or execution against state assets.

Third-party funding: Financing of dispute costs by a non-party in return for a financial return or other benefit.

Venue: Physical or virtual location where hearings or procedural activities occur.

Review Questions

5 Short Answer Questions

1. What is the principal difference between mediation and arbitration?
2. Why is the seat of arbitration legally significant?
3. Identify three grounds on which recognition of an award may be refused under the New York Convention.
4. What is the difference between privacy and confidentiality?
5. Why may a party seek interim relief from a national court despite having an arbitration agreement?

5 Long Answer Questions

1. Compare negotiation, mediation, litigation, and commercial arbitration using cost, enforceability, confidentiality, neutrality, and relationship preservation.
2. Explain the separability and competence-competence principles and discuss their practical importance.
3. Design a dispute-resolution clause for a cross-border supply contract and justify each major drafting choice.
4. Explain the evidentiary challenges created by electronically stored information and generative AI.
5. Distinguish commercial arbitration from investor–state arbitration, including sources of consent, jurisdiction, remedies, and legitimacy concerns.

3 Analytical / Application Questions

1. A supplier and buyer select State X as the arbitration seat but State Y as the hearing location. Explain the legal and practical consequences and identify issues that counsel should verify.
2. An award creditor obtains an award against a company whose principal assets are located in three Convention states. Develop an enforcement strategy, including documents, likely defenses, and asset-related risks.
3. A state introduces an environmental regulation that reduces the value of a foreign investor’s project. Analyze which jurisdictional, substantive, evidentiary, public-interest, and legitimacy questions would arise in a possible investor–state claim.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which feature most clearly distinguishes mediation from arbitration?

A. Mediation always takes place in a national court.

B. A mediator ordinarily cannot impose a binding decision.

C. Mediation is available only to states.

D. Mediation necessarily produces a published award.

Correct Answer: B. A mediator ordinarily cannot impose a binding decision.

Question 2

In international arbitration, the seat primarily determines which matter?

A. The nationality of every witness

B. The currency of the claim

C. The legal framework and courts supervising the arbitration

D. The commercial value of the contract

Correct Answer: C. The legal framework and courts supervising the arbitration

Question 3

Which instrument is principally concerned with recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards?

A. The New York Convention

B. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

C. The CISG

D. The Hague Service Convention בלבד

Correct Answer: A. The New York Convention

Question 4

Which is generally a ground for refusing recognition under the New York Convention?

A. The enforcing judge dislikes the tribunal’s reasoning on the merits

B. The award exceeds the scope of the arbitration agreement

C. The losing party prefers court litigation

D. The hearing occurred outside the claimant’s home country

Correct Answer: B. The award exceeds the scope of the arbitration agreement

Question 5

What is a principal purpose of an interim measure?

A. To replace the final award automatically

B. To preserve assets, evidence, or the effectiveness of proceedings

C. To eliminate the need for jurisdiction

D. To guarantee that the claimant wins

Correct Answer: B. To preserve assets, evidence, or the effectiveness of proceedings

Question 6

Which statement best describes investor–state arbitration?

A. It is always a dispute between two private companies.

B. It requires no basis of state consent.

C. It may be based on a treaty, investment statute, or qualifying contract.

D. It is identical in every respect to commercial arbitration.

Correct Answer: C. It may be based on a treaty, investment statute, or qualifying contract.

Question 7

Why should a contract distinguish the seat from the hearing venue?

A. The distinction can affect supervisory courts and procedural law.

B. The venue determines the claimant’s nationality.

C. The seat determines the exchange rate used in the award.

D. There is never any legal difference between them.

Correct Answer: A. The distinction can affect supervisory courts and procedural law.

Question 8

Which practice best supports reliable digital evidence?

A. Deleting metadata to simplify presentation

B. Preserving data and documenting collection and access methods

C. Allowing an AI tool to invent missing records

D. Producing only documents favorable to the producing party

Correct Answer: B. Preserving data and documenting collection and access methods

Question 9

What is a central characteristic of institutional arbitration?

A. It is administered under the rules and services of an arbitral institution.

B. It cannot involve foreign parties.

C. It always permits an appeal on the merits.

D. It is conducted only by state judges.

Correct Answer: A. It is administered under the rules and services of an arbitral institution.

Question 10

Why should confidentiality be addressed expressly in many arbitration clauses?

A. Arbitration is universally public by treaty.

B. Privacy and confidentiality are identical legal concepts everywhere.

C. The scope of confidentiality may depend on applicable law, rules, and procedural orders.

D. Confidentiality prevents any enforcement application.

Correct Answer: C. The scope of confidentiality may depend on applicable law, rules, and procedural orders.