Comparative Study Of Institutional Vs. Ad Hoc Arbitration: India And Singapore
- IJLLR Journal
- Jun 4
- 1 min read
Komal, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida
Dr. Deepak Jasial, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida
1. Introduction / Statement of Research Problem
In the past few decades, arbitration has developed into one of the most prominent tools of settling commercial disputes, especially in the case of international trade and international transactions. In a progressively globalized economy where parties in various jurisdictions are involved in complicated contractual relations, the common means of litigation turns out to be insufficient because of procedural inflexibility, delays, and jurisdictional issues. Arbitration, on the other hand, provides a resilient, objective and cost-effective platform upon which parties are able to resolve the disputes outside the national dispute systems whilst making awards binding under international conventions like the New York Convention.
Flexibility is one of the characteristics of arbitration. Parties have a free hand in picking arbitrators who have known-subject-matter expertise, design procedural regulations, and pick the seat and the arbiter governing law. This freedom also increases the effectiveness and legitimacy of dispute resolution process, although, arbitration is not a unitary thing, it has two major variations; institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration which reflect various procedural philosophies and operational implications.
Institutional arbitration is the arbitration process conducted under the management of a well- known arbitral body like the Singapore International Arbitration Centre and the International Chamber of Commerce. These institutions offer a form of structure, procedural content templates, administrative assistance, and arbitrator panels as well as mechanisms of oversight to facilitate efficiency and procedural destabilisation.
