Document Sample
Arbitration Powered By Docstoc

The increasing popularity of arbitration is due in large measure to its advantages over litigation
and because it does not have the disadvantages of litigation. Arbitration is usually faster and less
expensive. Arbitrators who are already familiar with the futures markets may decide your case.

Furthermore, arbitration doesn’t require you to know what the law is to successfully prove your
claim. It is, however, your responsibility to prove that you have incurred a monetary loss and
deserve to be compensated for all or some portion of the loss. And, because arbitration is less
formal and has fewer procedural requirements than litigation, you may not need to hire an
attorney to prepare and present your case. (Even if you do decide to employ an attorney, the
attorney’s bill is likely to be less than with litigation because of the relative speed of arbitration
and its fewer procedural requirements.)

Against this, however, you should weigh what may be drawbacks of arbitration. Once you have
submitted your claim to arbitration, it is rarely possible to change your mind. Therefore, be sure
you are willing to forego the somewhat broader rights to discovery that litigation can provide, the
protection provided by formal rules of evidence and other procedural rights that may not exist in
arbitration, the right to a jury, and the right to appeal the ―rightness of the decision‖ (as opposed
to the fairness of the proceeding).
1°) Another alternative that may be available to you—more formal than arbitration but less
formal than litigation—is to file a reparations claim with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC). This is limited, however, to disputes involving violations of the
Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC Regulations.
2°) Assuming you decide to submit your dispute to arbitration, the next step is to choose an
arbitration forum—the specific organization or agency that will conduct the arbitration
proceedings. Start by obtaining and reviewing the rules of all arbitration forums that have
jurisdiction over your particular type of dispute. If you have previously signed a pre-dispute
arbitration agreement, you should review the rules of all the arbitration
forums available under the agreement.

Parties often seek to resolve their disputes through arbitration because of a number of perceived
potential advantages over judicial proceedings:

    1. when the subject matter of the dispute is highly technical, arbitrators with an appropriate
       degree of expertise can be appointed
    2. arbitration is often faster than litigation in court
    3. arbitration can be cheaper
    4. arbitral proceedings and an arbitral award are generally private
    5. the arbitral process enjoys a greater degree of flexibility than the courts
    6. because of the provisions of the New York Convention 1958, arbitration awards are
       generally easier to enforce abroad than court judgments
    7. in most legal systems, there are limited avenues for appeal of an arbitral award, which can
       mean swifter enforcement and less scope for a party to delay matters.

What is Arbitration?
Arbitration is a private adjudication process. Generally, parties make an agreement either before
or after a dispute exists to engage and use an impartial third party to provide a final and binding
decision with regard to any dispute between the parties. It is characterized by party choice and
participation in the designing and customization of the process to suit their situation. Parties
generally participate in the joint selection and payment of the arbitrator. Parties can identify a
mutually acceptable arbitrator or specify the procedure for the selection of an arbitrator and the
specific experience, background and skills desired in the arbitrator to be selected.
Parties can design the arbitration process and select the rules to be applied. Arbitrators derive
their authority from the agreement of the parties

What are the advantages of arbitration?

1. Choice and expertise of decision maker. Parties are able to choose a decision maker with
technical, professional or business experience who will, hopefully, be more understanding of and
familiar with the customs, terminology and issues of the particular industry or profession
involved and thereby get to the heart of the issues more quickly and fairly.
2. Speed. Arbitrations are generally faster than court proceedings. Simplified procedures and
freedom from procedure-bound court rules and formality allow arbitrations to be completed
within a matter of months.
3. Lower cost. Arbitration is generally less expensive than litigation.
4. Flexible. The arbitration process can be customized, streamlined and simplified according to
the needs of the parties and circumstances.
5. Privacy. Arbitration is a private forum and is not open to the press and public. Parties can
shield their proceedings from public scrutiny and protect reputations from damage caused by a
public adversarial litigation process.
6. Procedural Informality. Parties can select rules and design a process that is simpler, quicker
and more informal than litigation.
7. Finality of Decision. There are fewer and limited grounds for appeal of an arbitrator's award.
Courts have less power to set aside or overturn an arbitrator's award. An arbitrator's award can be
overturned only if (a) the award is procured by "corruption, fraud, or other undue means"; (b)
there was "evident partiality by an arbitrator", "corruption" or "misconduct by an arbitrator
prejudicing the rights of the party"; (c) the arbitrator refuses to postpone a hearing upon sufficient
cause, refuses to consider material evidence or conducts a hearing so as to prejudice substantially
the rights of a party; (d.) the arbitrator exceeds the powers provided under the agreement or
arbitration laws; and (e) the arbitration was conducted without proper notice so as to prejudice
substantially the rights of the party. (See the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, HRS section
658A-23 and the similar, but not identical, provisions of section 10 of the Federal Arbitration
8. Enforceability of award. Awards obtained in arbitration can be fully enforced in a court of law
by means of a relatively simple application to court. Once an award is confirmed by the court, it
can be enforced by all means available for the enforcement of a court judgment.
What are the disadvantages or drawbacks of arbitration?

1. Cost. Although parties generally pay for the services of the arbitrator and/or an arbitration
agency, if one is selected, the speed, efficiency and reduced formality and procedures associated
with arbitration leads to a process that is quicker and cheaper than litigation.
2. Limited rights of appeal. Arbitration statutes provide for limited grounds of appeal and fewer
means to delay, challenge or overturn an arbitrator’s claimed mistake or error.
3. Lack of full formal discovery. In arbitration, all the procedural discovery methods available in
a judicial proceeding, such as, depositions, written interrogatories, requests for admissions and
the like are available only if it is specifically provided for by the agreement of the parties or by
the rules adopted or ―when an arbitrator decides that it is appropriate in the circumstances, taking
into account the needs of the parties… and the desirability of making the proceeding fair,
expeditious, and cost-effective." (See the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, HRS section 658A-
17 (c).)
4. Waiver of right to jury. The constitutionally protected right to a jury trial is a fundamental and
valuable right that is waived when parties select arbitration.
 While the referral of cases to both arbitration and mediation is expected to continue, and indeed
to grow, there exists today a relatively little-known hybrid process that combines the best
attribute of mediation and arbitration, and that promises to become a new giant within the field of
alternative dispute resolution. That process is mediation/arbitration. To appreciate the advantages
that med/arb has to offer to disputants over arbitration or mediation alone. It essential to
understand both the benefits and the perceived drawbacks of arbitration and mediation. The best-
known and most widely implemented system of ADR, both nationally and within New Jersey, is
that of arbitration. In arbitration, the parties to an existing of potential dispute elect to have some
or all of the issues in dispute presented, heard and decided by a privately selected, neutral
decision- maker or panel of decision-makers in a confidential, out-of-court setting. The decision
and award made by the arbitrator typically is final and binding on the parties, and not subject to
judicial review, absent alleged fraud, undue influence or other serious misconduct by the
arbitrator, or indication that the subject matter decided in arbitration exceeded the scope of the
arbitrator’s or the arbitration panel’s authority. See, Trentina Printing, Inc. v. Fitzpatrick &
Associates, Inc.,135 N.J. 349 (1994), adopting the concurring opinion in Pernini Crop. V. Greate
Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 129 N.J. 479 (1992), as the legal standard of New Jersey on the scope
of judicial review of arbitration decisions and awards. The arbitration process generally involves
more relaxed standards than litigation for the presentation of proof by the disputants or their
counsel, and more limited discovery, usually consisting of pertinent documentary evidence and
limited testimony from key witness, but with no written interrogatories or depositions. These
relaxed standards, and the general unappealability of arbitration decisions and awards, usually
yield with a result that is somewhat (albeit not always) faster, less expensive, more flexible, more
private and less formal than litigation.

Arbitration’s Drawbacks

When compared to mediation, however, a number of drawbacks of the arbitration process
become apparent, including, significantly, the lack of control that disputants have over the
outcome of the dispute. Rather than retain such control for themselves, the disputants instead vest
in the arbitrator all the authority to determine how dispute ultimately is resolved. Then, once the
arbitrator renders a decision on behalf of the parties, that are bound by it and it generally is not
subject to appeal, even if the arbitrator’s decision is based on a mistake or misapplication of law
or fact. Id. These factors have in recent years, caused a number of disputants to opt for mediation
over arbitration as the preferred means for resolving their disputes. Mediation, on the other hand,
is a nonadversarial, nonbinding dispute resolution process in which the disputing parties, either
with or without their attorney present, meet with a third neutral party (the mediator) in a good
faith effort to achieve a prompt, economical, confidential, fair and mutually desirable resolution
of some or all disputed issues. Through the intervention and supervision of a trained, professional
mediator, who serves as a facilitator of communication between the parties and as a catalyst for
reaching agreement between the opposing interests, the parties become active participants in the
dispute resolution process, and help forge the terms and conditions of their own settlement. Thus,
unlike litigation or arbitration, the mediation process encourages the parties to work together to
reach, with assistance from the mediator, an amicable resolution of their disputes, and to
determine for themselves –with the input and advice of counsel– the result or range of the results
that the parties believe is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The mediator, then,
controls only the dispute resolution process; he or she renders no decision with the respect to the
substance of the dispute. Instead, the parties themselves determine that result. And, once the
parties reach agreement, the settlement terms are reviewed by independent counsel before they
become final and binding upon the parties. The voluntary, nonbinding mature of mediation is the
target of one of the few criticisms leveled against the process by parties who seek the kind of
finality of result that arbitration offers. Arbitration, while final and binding, also wrenches control
over the outcome of the dispute away from the disputants, places it in the hands of a third party
decision-maker and reduces the disputants to the role of observer rather than active participants in
the process of resolving their own dispute.


Despite the above benefits, arbitration is not a panacea for all of the ills associated with litigation. Some

disadvantages should be considered before adopting an arbitration program.

For example, because of the benefits they gain, including confidentiality, reduced costs, and quicker resolution,

employees may be more likely to assert claims against their employers under an arbitration scheme than if they

were forced to file a lawsuit. In fact, employees may be encouraged to challenge even the most minor decisions or

practices of their employers. As a result, the time and money spent on arbitration could outweigh the costs of


In addition, arbitration schemes may, in effect, lead to the delegation of management decision-making to third

parties. With arbitration proceedings, each time an employee challenges an employer's decision, the arbitrator

decides the appropriateness of that decision. Finally and significantly, the results of an arbitration proceeding are
difficult to challenge in court. Arbitration awards are usually not appealable, even if the decision-maker misapplied

the law.

L'arbitrage fait partie des modes alternatifs de résolution des conflits. L'arbitre est celui qui
intervient pour prendre les décisions.

Définition [modifier]

L'arbitrage (mode non étatique de règlement des litiges) est la résolution de conflit par
l'intermédiaire d'un tribunal arbitral composé d'un ou plusieurs arbitres (en général trois).
L'arbitre est un véritable juge dont la décision s'impose aux plaideurs. L'arbitrage permet donc de
régler un litige (sans passer par les tribunaux de l'État mais par une juridiction arbitrale), en
confiant le différend à un ou plusieurs particuliers choisis par les parties.

Qui peut en bénéficier ? [modifier]

Toute personne privée ou toute entreprise confrontée à un litige à condition que les parties soient
d'accord toutes les deux pour recourir à l'arbitrage. Les deux modes de recours à l'arbitrage :

          soit par une clause compromissoire ; il s'agit d'une clause qui prévoit le recours à
           l'arbitrage. Le recours à l'arbitrage peut dont être prévu à l'avance, avant tout litige. La
           clause compromissoire préexiste au litige.
          soit à la conclusion d'un accord d'arbitrage ; dit compromis (un compromis est l'échange
           de promesses entre deux personnes ou plus. C'est le résultat d'une négociation entre les
           parties en présence où chacune aura fait des concessions pour arriver à une solution
           commune qu'elles devront conjointement exécuter). Il s'agit d'une convention passée entre
           les parties, mais à la différence de la clause compromissoire , une fois que le litige est né :
           le litige préexiste au compromis. Les parties vont se mettre d'accord pour soumettre le
           litige aux arbitres.

Cependant, il n'est pas possible de compromettre (au sens juridique) sur les droits dont on n'a pas
la libre disposition, ce qui est très souvent le cas en droit de la famille par exemple (divorce,
filiation, etc...).

Depuis une loi du 15 mai 2001, la clause compromissoire est en principe valable dans tous les
« contrats conclus à raison d'une activité professionnelle » (C. civ., art. 2061) commerciale ou

Peuvent donc être soumis à l'arbitrage des conflits relatifs à la consommation (litige avec un
commerçant), au règlement d'une succession, mais aussi des conflits entre locataires et bailleurs,
certains conflits entre employés et employeurs, etc.
Quel est l'avantage de cette procédure ? [modifier]

L'avantage principal de l'arbitrage est la facilité de faire exécuter les sentences dans un contexte
international, la plupart des pays ayant ratifié la Convention de New York de 1958 qui reconnaît
la même valeur à une sentence arbitrale qu'à un jugement national.

L'affaire n'est pas jugée par un tribunal mais par un ou plusieurs particuliers appelés « arbitres » ;
chacune des parties désigne son arbitre

Dans le cas où les parties leur ont donné des pouvoirs d'amiable composition, les arbitres sont
dits amiables compositeurs et peuvent se dispenser d'appliquer au fond du litige les règles
juridiques applicables devant les tribunaux de l'État. Mais ils restent tenus d'appliquer les
principes directeurs du procès civil et de respecter l'ordre public; de plus, l'amiable composition
les oblige à statuer en équité et à se référer explicitement à l'équité comme la cause
déterminante de leur décision, dans le texte de celle-ci.

Tous les arbitres se doivent d'être impartiaux et indépendants des parties puisqu'ils participent de
la fonction juridictionnelle, comme le feraient des juges. Ils rendent en effet une sentence,
assimilable à un jugement, de nature juridictionnelle.

A peu près n'importe qui peut être arbitre, mais ce sont généralement des personnes dont la
profession ou l'expérience leur confère une compétence certaine en droit ou des experts

Cette procédure par rapport aux voies de recours ordinaires (procédures devant les tribunaux)
présente des avantages : plus rapide, plus discrète et moins coûteuse.

Les avantages de l'arbitrage: mythe ou réalité? [modifier]

      confidentialité ; c'est un des avantages importants de l'arbitrage qui conduit en pratique de
       nombreux hommes (ou femmes) d'affaires à le stipuler dans les contrats; néanmoins, en
       cas de recours devant les juridictions étatiques, la confidentialité est réduite ou annulée.
      rapidité ; c'est un avantage habituel de l'arbitrage, bien que certains arbitrages soient
       parfois aussi lents qu'une procédure devant une juridiction étatique, du fait de multiples
       recours. Remarque : les parties peuvent s'interdire d'interjeter appel et si les parties
       renoncent à l'appel réformation, c'est plus rapide. En revanche, en France, contrairement à
       la Belgique ou la Suisse, on ne peut pas s'interdire l'appel nullité. Mais ce dernier n'est
       recevable, contrairement à l'appel réformation, que pour examiner des moyens de recours
       codifiés et en nombre limité.
      le coût ; dans la justice étatique, on ne paie pas les juges, dans l'arbitrage, il faut le plus
       souvent payer les arbitres. Leurs honoraires sont élevés, mais sans rapport avec les enjeux
       des litiges moyens ou grands, ce qui fait que le coût est souvent un faux problème
      la technicité des arbitres d'origine juridique; dans la pratique, beaucoup d'arbitres sont
       des juristes de très haut niveau: lorsque le fond du litige est juridique, ils apportent une
       compétence déterminante; mais lorsque, pour trancher le litige, il convient de comprendre
       des faits très techniques (ce qui est fréquent dans les litiges d'affaires) ils font appel à des
       experts extérieurs au Tribunal arbitral: on peut alors se demander où est leur valeur
       ajoutée qui est censée justifier leur rémunération. Le remède consiste dans une
       composition adéquate du Tribunal arbitral en y intégrant les compétences nécessaires (ce
       qui est trop souvent omis).

En fait c'est une excellente méthode dans la vie des affaires, à condition de bien la connaître: de
nombreux déboires viennent de ce qu'elle est régulièrement pratiquée par des gens qui n'en
maîtrisent pas les particularités.