Originally from:
AAA/ICDR Handbook on International Arbitration Practice - Electronic
AAA/ICDR Handbook on International Arbitration Practice - Hardcover
Preview Page
CHAPTER 7
SELECTING AN ARBITRAL INSTITUTION
TO ADMINISTER INTERNATIONAL
ARBITRATION: ARE NATIONAL OR REGIONAL
CENTERS A VIABLE OPTION?
John B. Tieder, Jr.∗
I. Introduction
It is generally accepted that international arbitration is the best method
of dispute resolution when parties in a commercial relationship are from
different countries. In the event of a commercial dispute with international
dimensions, the lack of a binding arbitration clause leaves the parties with
no option but to resort to the courts of a country with which one or both of
them are unfamiliar and uncomfortable. Having an arbitration clause in
place at the commencement of the commercial relationship gives the
parties more control over how their dispute will be resolved.
It is also generally accepted that international arbitration should be
conducted under the auspices of an administrative body, instead of being
“ad hoc.” This chapter discusses the considerations involved in deciding
on the institution to administer the dispute, and whether national and
regional centers can reasonably be considered.
John B. Tieder Jr. is a senior partner in Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, L.L.P.,
with offices in Virginia, California, Nevada, Washington and an affiliated office in
Germany. He holds an A.B. from Johns Hopkins University and a J.D. from Syracuse
University and American University. Mr. Tieder is a charter member of the American
College of Construction Lawyers and was voted to the Best Lawyers in America,
Construction Law for 2003-2010 and selected to Chambers USA Top Construction
Lawyers in Virginia for 2004-2009. He has written widely on the subject of Construction
and International Arbitration Law.
