In order to support ad hoc arbitration tribunals, rules have been established for the assistance of the international arbitral tribunal to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation for arbitration proceedings based on the UNCSD Arbitration Rules. These rules were approved by the President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation on 9 December 1999 and entered into force on 1 January 2000. Institutional arbitration avoids the parties and their lawyers engaging in the determination of the arbitration and establishing an arbitration clause that will be made available by the institution. Once the parties have selected an establishment, they may include in their contract the draft clause of that establishment. In some circumstances, you want to add other elements to the clause – for more information, see our separate OUT-LAW guide for drafting an arbitration clause. These clauses may be amended from time to time by the institution, building on experience gained in the due conduct of arbitration proceedings and ensuring that there is no ambiguity as to the arbitration. Often, the contract between two parties contains an arbitration clause that designates a specific institution as arbitrator. Where institutional administrative costs are not a problem for the parties, this approach is generally preferred to less formal “ad hoc” arbitration proceedings. The parties should carefully choose an appropriate applicable law.
The applicable law of a contract may be decisive not only for its creation and validity, but also for whether disputes arising out of or related to the contract may be subject to arbitration and what remedies may be granted by arbitrators. It is therefore always advisable to indicate the legislation in force when designing the contract. If the parties do not choose an applicable law, the choice is made for them by the arbitrators. Third, in complex cases, the Tribunal may attempt to appoint a secretary to deal with red tape. The additional cost of secretarial fees increases the cost of arbitration. One of the perceived advantages of arbitration in general is that it offers a final and binding arbitral award that cannot be appealed. However, there is an inherent risk that an error made by a court cannot be corrected at a later date. To counter this risk, some institutional rules provide for a review of the draft arbitral award before the final award is awarded. A disgruntled party could then appeal to an arbitral tribunal of second instance that would be able to confirm, amend, amend or set aside the draft arbitral award.
Less formal processes do not offer such an option. “All disputes, controversies or claims arising out of or related to this Treaty, including the conclusion, interpretation, breach or termination of this Agreement, including whether the claims asserted are arbitral, shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the International Arbitration Rules and shall be finally settled. The tribunal shall be composed of [three arbitrators/one arbitrator]. The place of arbitration shall be [Atlanta, Fulton County, State of Georgia, United States of America]. The language to be used in the arbitration proceedings is [language]. The judgment on the arbitral award of the arbitrator may be rendered in any court of competent jurisdiction.”; In general, parties can rely on legislation based on the Model Law (although some countries have introduced amendments that deviate significantly from the Model Law). However, if the local arbitration law is not based on the model law, the parties should not choose the location without first considering the likely effects of its arbitration law. For example, local law may require the implementation of binding procedures; courts may intervene excessively during the arbitration proceedings; and there may be obstacles to the enforcement of awards, including the possibility of multiple remedies. . . .