Courting Global Commerce: The Shifting Dynamics Between International Arbitration and International Commercial Courts - Journal of International Arbitration View Courting Global Commerce: The Shifting Dynamics Between International Arbitration and International Commercial Courts by - Journal of International Arbitration Courting Global Commerce: The Shifting Dynamics Between International Arbitration and International Commercial Courts 42 2

Globalization continues to flourish through international trade and interconnected economies, despite the rise of economic nationalism. Even as trends like onshoring gain traction, the importance of global trade and effective dispute resolution remains unchanged. Businesses still demand swift, cost-effective, and enforceable outcomes, which is where International Commercial Courts (ICCs) play a role. These courts fall into three categories: Global (e.g., Singapore’s SICC), National (e.g., China’s CICC), and Hybrid (e.g., those in Gulf financial zones), each focused on supporting cross-border commerce in distinct ways. Though arbitration is largely insulated from judicial intervention, it still depends on court cooperation for enforcement. Arbitration enjoys strong support in commercial hubs, where judicial interference is typically limited to extreme cases. However, systemic challenges persist, including the lack of uniform ethical standards and effective enforceability mechanisms for professional lapses. While ICCs prioritize transparency and discharge public functions, arbitration remains a private process that benefits only the involved parties, with no authoritative public case law generated. Both systems share a common goal of providing effective justice, aligned with commercial norms, but they offer complementary advantages that support global trade. This dual approach allows businesses to choose between public judicial mechanisms and the confidentiality and flexibility of private arbitration. Arbitration’s unique strengths – confidentiality, procedural adaptability, expert arbitrators, and broad enforceability under the New York Convention, which is recognized by 172 countries – make it unlikely to be replaced by commercial courts. Arbitration awards are often easier to enforce than court judgments, which can face significant hurdles. Additionally, the neutrality of arbitration addresses concerns about bias in national courts, reinforcing its status as the preferred method for resolving international commercial disputes. While ICCs strive for similar neutrality, they have yet to match arbitration’s global enforceability, unless conventions like the Hague Judgments Convention gain broader adoption. Arbitration processes and ICCs complement each other but do not directly engage each other on the prevailing creases. To iron this out, the establishment of a forum where arbitrators and judges collaborate could drive innovation in cross-border disputes, enhance the synergy between arbitration and judicial systems, and strengthen global commerce

Journal of International Arbitration