Published 19 August 2019
One of the major perceived disadvantages of litigation as the potential mode of dispute resolution in international commercial transactions context is the prospect of ending up in national courts of the defendant state. There is a high risk that foreign state courts may have inherent prejudice towards alien businesses. For that reason, arbitration is now widely recognized as the most favored mechanism for resolving disputes arising out of international commercial transactions - it is usually seen as a more neutral and independent venue and is believed to mitigate parties’ distrust for foreign state courts. This article aims to examine whether states are still in a position to control arbitration, and what specific steps could be made to slow down the process of such rapid growth of the popularity and use of international arbitration by private parties. It is argued that the state’s legal intervention might become an obstacle to further development of international arbitration, whilst, as demonstrated, certain nations had been more successful in implementing such measures of preventive nature than others. Russia is chosen as an example of a state having a consistently negative reaction to arbitration. This article delves into detailed reasons of such a reaction.
This paper will be part of the TDM Special Issue on "The Changing Paradigm of Dispute Resolution and Investment Protection in Post-soviet and Greater Eurasian Space". More information here www.transnational-dispute-management.com/news.asp?key=1745