Ad Hoc or Institutional Arbitration - A Clear-Cut Distinction? A Closer Look at Borderline Cases

Ulrich G. Schroeter
Additional contact information
Ulrich G. Schroeter: University of Basel

No bmeur_v1, LawArchive from Center for Open Science

Abstract: It is generally accepted in both theory and practice of arbitration that there are two basic forms of arbitration, ad hoc and institutional. This long established dichotomy has rarely been questioned, and it has mostly worked well in international arbitration practice. The present contribution investigates the traditional distinction between ad hoc and institutional arbitration in more detail by looking at "borderline cases", i.e. constellations that cannot easily be allocated to one of these two categories. Four groups of borderline cases are discussed: (1) UNCITRAL arbitrations, in particular those administered by arbitral institutions; (2) cases in which the parties have chosen institutional rules, but not the issuing institution (and vice versa), (3) the modification of institutional rules by the parties and the identification of a possible "mandatory" core of institutional rules, and (4) "mix and match" (or "hybrid") arbitrations combining one arbitral institution's rules with the case's administration by a different arbitral institution. By identifying the factors that were decisive for these borderline cases being regarded as institutional or ad hoc, the article is trying to gain insight into the core characteristics underlying each arbitration category. Drawing on these insights, it develops and explains a novel definition of "institutional arbitration".

Date: 2017-12-11
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://osf.io/download/5a2eb6235a8b4c000f50dab2/

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:osf:lawarc:bmeur_v1

DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/bmeur_v1

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in LawArchive from Center for Open Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by OSF ().