Justice or dispute resolution by way of commercial and investment arbitration is still too frequently delayed and justice thus effectively denied. The procedural calendar is often too protracted. The parties’ submissions are often too numerous and insufficiently focused. The extent of documentary and testimonial evidence is often too cumbersome, thus favoring quantity over quality. And awards are often issued too long after the hearing or the parties’ last submissions.
This article examines practice under the CAS rules for sports arbitration and posits that, whilst not flawless, commercial and investment arbitration practices could greatly benefit by drawing inspiration from CAS when it comes to effectiveness, proving that there is another way of doing things more efficiently while preserving due process and quality safeguards. But this requires that arbitration users, including arbitrators, counsel, parties, institutions and administrative secretaries, be willing to unlearn, to accept that there is and should be another way to conduct arbitrations from start to end in order to save time and costs, to commit to change and to implement these.
BCDR International Arbitration Review