1

Clayton Utz International Arbitration Lecture 2017

International Arbitration – How Worldly Is It ?

The Hon Sir Bernard Eder Essex Court Chambers, London

1. May I say, at the outset, what a great pleasure it is to be here

– and to have been invited to give this talk this evening.

Australia is one of the great common law jurisdictions of the

world – with a superb independent judiciary and legal

profession. Its legal jurisprudence sets a gold standard.

2. This is the first time that my wife, Claire, and I have visited

Australia – and we have been overwhelmed by the warm

welcome and generous hospitality we have received. So a

huge thank you to everyone.

3. The title of this talk was devised by Professor Doug Jones. I

agreed – or, more accurately, I should say that I succumbed

to his strong-arm tactics.

4. In reality, the title is in the nature of an exam question. And

like all good examinees, it is perhaps convenient if I try to

answer the question by reference to the possible different

meanings of the word “worldly”.

5. At its most basic, “worldly” could simply mean “global”. In that

sense, there is no doubt that international arbitration is now

worldly. Indeed, since I started in practice over 40 years,

international arbitration has become something of a global

2

phenomenon. The traditional centres of arbitration – London,

Paris, New York, Geneva, Stockholm – not only draw in

parties from every corner of the world but, at the same time,

face competition from every corner of the world.

6. I will revert to this later. But at this stage, it is sufficient to note

the rise of vibrant arbitration centres in Singapore, Hong Kong

and Kuala Lumpur to name just three. Other countries are all

keen to follow suit. And so we see new arbitration centres

springing up around the world – for example Mauritius, British

Virgin Islands and Dubai.

7. This is amply confirmed by the statistics which appear from

Table 1. This shows annual arbitration statistics for “new

cases” from various arbitration centres around the world for

the period 2010-2016.

8. As with all statistics, a word of warning.

a. First, there are some important omissions from the

Table e.g. New York and Kuala Lumpur; and the Table

does not include any statistics for non-institutionalised

ad hoc arbitrations. It is also important to bear in mind

the role of other dispute resolution mechanisms –

including mediation and, of course, litigation in, for

example, the London Commercial Court and the

Singapore International Commercial Court.

3

b. Second, I have taken most of the statistics from the

internet. I have not checked all the figures myself. So

the most important part of the Table are the four

characters at the bottom left: E&OE.

c. Third, the information available on the net is sometimes

unclear – and confusing. For example, I am not 100%

sure that the figures are indeed figures for “new cases”

in that particular calendar year – or whether they are

perhaps the total number of “live” cases administered by

the particular centre which would make a very great

difference. It may be that some of the figures are

therefore incorrect or not comparable.

d. Fourth, the figures do not tell you how many awards

were published. I have no doubt that many cases

probably settled in the course of the arbitration and

never led to any award - or may still settle. For example,

the number of awards published in LMAA cases is an

average of approximately 500 per annum.

e. Fifth, some of the figures come with their own health

warning or qualification. For example, the LMAA website

(in the first line of the Table) expressly states that (for

various reasons) the figures are approximate: they may

be higher – or lower.

9. Thus, the figures in Table 1 should not be treated as

necessarily 100% accurate. Nevertheless, putting on one side

4

all these possible difficulties, qualifications and limitations, the

statistics confirm that international arbitration is – and

continues to be – an important mechanism for the resolution

of disputes in different centres throughout the world.

10. The figures also conceal a very important point viz. the

fact that the seats of arbitration are flung wide around the

world. For example, according to its latest report for 2016, ICC

arbitrations were seated in 106 cities in 60 countries. By

contrast in the case of the LCIA, the vast majority of

arbitrations were seated in London. This is perhaps a

reflection of the fact that nearly half of all participants in the

2015 Queen Mary/White & Case International Arbitration

Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International

Arbitration preferred London as a seat, with 42% of

participants linking seat preference to the law governing the

substance of the dispute. But, importantly – nas appears from

Table 2 - the LCIA’s caseload and profile show that only

16.2% of the parties were “nationals” of the UK. The

remainder – almost 88% came from outside the UK.

11. Other statistics also confirm the global reach of

international arbitration – as appears from the handout. For

example, in 2016:

a. Some 80% of all new cases filed with the ICC were

between parties from different countries; and some 66%

of such cases involved parties not only from different

countries but from different regions of the world. There

5

were 966 new cases involving 3,099 parties from 137

countries,

b. In the case of SIAC, 80% of new cases filed were

international in nature; 42% did not involve Singaporean

parties.

c. Of the 199 cases referred to arbitration with the SCC,

52% (103) were “international”.

d. So far as the HKIAC is concerned, parties

from 39 jurisdictions participated in HKIAC

arbitrations. Some 78.4% of new arbitration cases

involved at least one non-Hong Kong party

and 87.2% of new administered arbitrations were

international cases. 49.1% of the arbitration cases filed

had no connection with Hong Kong parties

and 6.6% had no connection with Asia parties.

12. All these statistics again confirm the global reach of

international arbitration.

13. In the last few years, each of the major centres has been

actively developing their rules and introducing new

procedures. These include, for example, various types of

“expedited procedure”; in Singapore the tongue-twister known

as “arb-med-arb”; and the possibility of allowing “joinder” of

parties in certain circumstances.

6

14. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that there is now something

of a frenzy of adaptation, innovation and even aggressive

plagiarism amongst the different arbitration centres. This high-

pitched activity is all propelled by the determination of each

centre to beat the competition and transform itself into the

perfect seat of choice not only in its own particular region but

throughout the world. In my view, this competition is very good

news. It serves to raise standards and ultimately make

international arbitration ever more “worldly”.

15. And, alongside, there has developed an entire industry

of arbitration conferences usually in exotic – or at least

interesting - places which attract sponsors and speakers

galore ready to talk on virtually any topic concerning

international arbitration – almost without end. I think it may be

possible to attend some arbitration conference somewhere in

the world virtually every day of the year.

16. This growth in international arbitration has, in my view,

been driven by two main international instruments.

17. Taking them in reverse chronological order, the first is

the UNCITRAL Arbitral Rules. These were first adopted in

1976 and have since been revised in 2010 and again in 2013.

I have no doubt that they will be very familiar to all of you and

I do not propose to discuss them in any detail. For present

purposes, it is sufficient to note that they have been adopted

widely throughout the world. It is impossible to underestimate

7

the importance of these Rules in providing a general “worldly”

framework for the conduct of international arbitration.

18. The second is, of course, the New York Convention on

the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards which was originally

signed by a small group of countries in 1958 and has now

been adopted by some 158 countries – perhaps more ! It has

been described as the most successful international

convention of all time. Again, I do not propose to discuss this

Convention in any detail. But any businessman or woman

knows that it is useless having a judgment or award unless

there is in place a proper and speedy mechanism for

enforcement at the international level. And that is exactly what

the New York Convention provides.

19. These two instruments stand side by side in the global

firmament of international arbitration. More than that, both

instruments have their own websites1 with up-to-date case-

law collated from courts in different countries all around the

world dealing with topics of direct interest – two fantastic

electronic libraries accessible immediately day and night free

of charge from anywhere in the world with an internet

connection.

20. So, yes. In these senses, there is no doubt that

international arbitration is “worldly”.

1 http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/2010Arbitration_rules.html; http://www.newyorkconvention.org/

8

21. Notwithstanding, it remains the case that many litigants

still prefer to refer their disputes to, for example, the London Commercial Court2 - a Report earlier this year confirmed that

although London faces stiff competition from other centres

around the world, it has maintained its position as the global

dispute resolution centre of choice for a growing number of

international litigants 3 . The Singapore International

Commercial Court is another good example of a Court which

provides an important alternative to international arbitration.

These Courts are often cheaper and quicker; and, if I might

suggest, produce a result which is at least as good as any

arbitration award.

22. It has often been said that Judgments from these (and

other) Courts are less attractive because they do not have the

benefit of relatively easy enforcement under the New York

Convention. It is true that the New York Convention does not

apply to Court Judgments. However, in most common law

jurisdictions and, I understand, many civil law jurisdictions, it

is generally as easy to enforce a Court Judgment where the

determining Court is the subject of a jurisdiction clause agreed

in advance by the parties – quite apart from any special

treaties which might exist.

23. Moreover, enforcement of Court Judgments is

becoming increasingly easy as a result of the Hague

2 See speech of Lord Thomas of https://judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/lcjspeech-national-judges-college-beijing-april2017.pdf “The strength of English law and the UK jurisdiction”: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08legaluk-strength-of-englkish-law-draft-4-FINAL.pdf 3 https://portland-communications.com/publications/who-uses-the-commercial-court-2017/

9

Convention on Choice of Court Convention (2005) which now

has some 30 signatories. These include most European

countries – and there is increasing take-up. Singapore signed

the Convention and brought in enacting legislation last year.

And China became a contracting party only a few weeks ago.

I think that this is a very important development.

24. It is perhaps also worth mentioning that I received

notification only a few hours ago that the Supreme People’s

Court in China published proposals for the creation of a new

dedicated court along the lines of the Singapore International

Commercial Court.

25. So, international arbitration faces stiff competition.

26. But being “worldly” – the concept of “worldliness” – has

a much broader reach. Is international arbitration “of this

world”? Is it sophisticated ? Is it “street-wise”? Is it fulfilling the

demands expected by the world? Does it serve and respond

adequately to the needs of the international business

community? And what of the future?

27. Now these are much more difficult questions – and they

are important not only because of the competition with Court

litigation but also between arbitration centres. One possible

answer may be that the growth of international arbitration is

itself proof of its worldliness in this sense. We are not allowed

to use latin any more but I am sure that the latinists would say:

res ipsa loquitur. If it were not worldly, it would not have

10

expanded so rapidly and with such apparent success around

the globe.

28. But this is too simplistic. In answering the questions

which I posed, the entire focus must, in my view, be the needs

of the business community. There can be no room for

complacency. If international arbitration is to continue to be

sustainable and, indeed, to grow, the fulfilment of those needs

and expectations are and must be paramount. But how best

can that be achieved? In answering that broad question, it is

perhaps convenient to consider the main stages of an

arbitration.

29. Let us begin at the beginning – the start of an arbitration.

30. When I started off in practice over 40 years ago,

arbitration was largely non-institutional. Most arbitrations

kicked off on the basis of a fairly rudimentary clause in a

contract of some kind or another which said something like:

“Arbitration in X”. If X were London, what was then the

Arbitration Act 1950 provided the relevant brief statutory

framework as to the number of arbitrators, the general

procedure for appointment and what was to happen in the

case of default. It was all relatively simple.

31. Since then, there has been a radical change. Most

modern international arbitrations are, by agreement, now

governed by institutional rules notably those of the ICC, the

LCIA and SIAC. The appointments procedure is now closely

11

scrutinised by the relevant bodies in order – so far as possible

- to eliminate the risk of conflict of interest often by reference

to, for example, the IBA Guidelines.

32. The result is often much delay in getting the arbitration

off the ground. That delay is often increased by the time that

is sometimes spent in appointment of the third arbitrator. In

the old days, that would almost always be left entirely to the

two arbitrators who would normally arrange the appointment

very promptly indeed. Today, that process is often delayed by

the parties seeking to become involved in that selection

process – perhaps by drawing up an agreed short-list of some

kind. I have done a number of cases where that process has

taken a number of months to resolve. The delay in getting the

arbitration off the ground is then exacerbated by the

requirement by some of the institutions to carry out further

procedural steps – all of which may take a further couple of

months or more to complete.

33. I well understand the reasons for these recent

developments and I do not want to be over-critical but it seems

to me important to recognise the downside viz. the delay and

extra costs caused by these developments. And I have to say

they often also cause me to hanker after the good-ole-days.

34. On the plus side, the result is – one would hope - that

the parties will get a tribunal which is both independent and

experienced – and very often made up of arbitrators from

different nationalities, backgrounds and legal cultures. So, for

12

example, a few weeks ago, I was sitting in Delhi with Doug

Jones and a former Chief Justice of Punjab. In the case of the

ICC, a total of 1,411 arbitrators, representing 76 nationalities

were appointed or confirmed in 2016. The diversity of the

members of an arbitral tribunal is, in my view, one of the great

advantages of international arbitration – and helps to ensure

that the proceedings are conducted in a manner which can

properly be described as “worldly”.

35. It is fair to say – and I readily acknowledge – that the

system is not perfect. Ideally, one would want to see a wider

pool of arbitrators including more female arbitrators. But that

is a topic for another day.

36. I also put on one side the jurisdictional objections that

may be raised by a Respondent. The resolution of such

disputes can often delay the arbitral process – but that is yet

another topic for another day.

37. So - once the tribunal is fully constituted and any

jurisdictional disputes addressed, one hopes that the

arbitration proper can start. In my view, worldliness demands

that the arbitration is conducted with reasonable speed and

efficiency. I doubt that anyone would disagree with that. But,

drilling down, what does that mean in practice?

38. Let me start with reasonable speed. This has been – and

continues to be - a major problem in modern international

arbitration. However, the truth is it has always been a problem

13

in any process of dispute resolution. The problems we discuss

endlessly today bedeviling arbitration are not new. On the

contrary, they are as old as the hills. Anyone who has any

doubt about this need only read Charles Dickens’ great book

Bleak House or the first few pages of Volume 1 of an old set

of law reports called Commercial Cases which describe the

reasons why the Commercial List was first established in

London in 1895.

39. So far as modern international arbitration is concerned,

various attempts have been made to speed things up. For

example, since January 2016, the ICC has stated that

arbitrators will be expected to submit awards to the ICC Court

for scrutiny within three months of the final substantive

submission, on pain of a financial penalty in the form of a

discount to the ad valorem fees, to be paid to the arbitrators

unless the delay can be justified.

40. However, that just addresses the very last stage of the

process. My own view is that with proper case management,

most cases can – and should - be completed within 12

months. That is from start to finish - and that includes the

publication of an Award. Now, I suspect that many of you may

think that that is absurd – or at least that that is the exception

rather than the rule. I disagree. And if international arbitration

is to be truly worldly – that should, at the very least, be the

aim.

14

41. Yes – I recognise that there will be cases where that

cannot happen. For example, it may be appropriate to focus

on a number of preliminary issues or to divide the case into

different “parts”. Of course, that may be so. But, on the whole,

I think that 12 months should be the general target.

42. An examination of the statistics from a number of the

arbitration centres demonstrates that this target is achieved in

a very large proportion of the cases. For example, the

statistics for the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce show that

55% of arbitrations were completed within 12 months, 85%

within 2 years. According to a study performed by SIAC for

cases conducted under its former 2013 Rules, the mean

duration of cases was13.8 months, and the median duration

was 11.7 months. So that is not far off my 12 month target.

43. It is interesting to note that India has recently introduced

legislation requiring an award to be made within a period of

twelve months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon

the reference 4 . Yes, that period can be extended by

agreement and, in appropriate cases, further extended by an

order of the Court. We must wait and see whether this 12

month period will be achievable in practice. But my own first-

hand experience tells me that, at the very least, it has become

a very important consideration for any arbitration in India. And

if in India – why not elsewhere? Why should it not become the

norm?

4 s.29A of The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

15

44. What is needed is robust active case management with

tight deadlines set at the beginning including a hearing date;

and further case management conferences by phone, video

or in person if appropriate at regular intervals. Of course, this

is subject to considerations of party autonomy and the

agreement of the parties; and the Tribunal must above all

ensure that the proceedings are conducted fairly.

45. In truth, none of this is rocket science or should be a

surprise to anyone who is keen to ensure that international

arbitration is worldly.

46. In expressing these views, I do not underestimate some

of the difficulties that sometimes occur along the way.

Jurisdictional objections may be raised and will have to be

addressed. The process of documentary disclosure is often

problematic. The scope of disclosure may raise particular

difficulties. The use of the Redfern Schedule may assist – but

it is often not the ideal tool in many cases.

47. However, whilst recognising these difficulties, the

answer is, in large part, flexbility – a willingness – indeed a

keen determination - on the part of the Tribunal to adopt

flexible procedures adapted as necessary to the needs of

particular cases.

48. Eventually, you get to the hearing. The actual conduct

of the hearing in an efficient way is important and indeed

16

crucial. That is yet another topic for another day. But, this is

an opportunity to say that I am often surprised – and

sometimes appalled – by the length of opening written briefs

(an unfortunate misnomer) as well as closing written

submissions. They are often riddled with exaggerated

language and a morass of irrelevant material that has little, if

anything, to do with the issues which the tribunal must decide.

I have said it before but it bears repeating: brevity is the

advocate’s strongest weapon. There are exceptions – but,

generally speaking, if it is long, it is wrong. It shows laziness.

It is “unworldly”. It brings to mind the old adage attributed to

Blaise Pascal or Mark Twain when he said: “I didn't have time

to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead” I do not

know how many culprits are present in this room. I hope none

– or at least very few.

49. Once the hearing is concluded, you should, at some

stage, get an award. Now here, the tribunal may well itself be

guilty of “unworldlinees” – at least in part - in terms of the time

taken to produce an award. In fairness, the delay may be

because the poor arbitrators will have had to plough through

the parties’ long written closing submissions; and sometimes

it is due to the fact that the arbitrators may disagree. I have

known it happen that no one agrees with anyone and so it may

take time to try to resolve the impasse. Unlike the jury system

in England, I do not think that the world of international

arbitration has yet come to adopt the notion of a “retrial” in the

case of the failure to agree. But some delays are simply

inexcusable – and “unworldly”.

17

50. And so the award is born. What then? It is at this stage

that the worldliness of international arbitration is potentially

under its greatest threat. The big question is: Will the losing

party be able successfully to challenge the award before the

domestic courts where the arbitration is seated? How easy or

difficult is that to do? If it is easy to do, the whole process of

international arbitration is arguably undermined. International

arbitration cannot be worldly if it is subject to the overreaching

claws of an interventionist domestic court.

51. Take England, for example. Until 1979, it is fair to say

that the English Courts were extremely interventionist. As

Scrutton LJ famously stated in Czarnikow v Roth, Schmidt &

Co.5

“[The Courts] do not allow the agreement of private parties to oust the jurisdiction of the King's Courts. Arbitrators, unless expressly otherwise authorized, have to apply the laws of England. When they are persons untrained in law, and especially when as in this case they allow persons trained in law to address them on legal points, there is every probability of their going wrong, and for that reason Parliament has provided in the Arbitration Act that, not only may they ask the Courts for guidance and the solution of their legal problems in special cases stated at their own instance, but that the Courts may require them, even if unwilling, to state cases for the opinion of the Court on the application of a party to the arbitration if the Courts think it proper. This is done in order that the Courts may insure the proper administration of the law by inferior tribunals. In my view to allow English citizens to agree to exclude this safeguard for the administration of the law is contrary to public policy. There must be no Alsatia in England where the King's writ does not run.” (emphasis added)

5 [1922] 2 K.B. 478

18

52. But that was in 1922 - almost a hundred years ago.

There are few proper statistics but there is no doubt that many

arbitration awards took the form of what was known as a

“special case” and then spent years trundling through the High

Court up to the Court of Appeal without any filtering process

of any kind.

53. However, all that has now changed. In truth, there has

been a revolution. The English Arbitration Act 1979 and the

guidelines laid down by the House of Lords in The Nema6

swept all that away by severely restricting the right of appeal

and, in effect, creating a modern, efficient system of arbitration

to meet “worldly” standards. The Arbitration Act 1996

effectively enshrined those Nema guidelines in the statute

book and further streamlined the arbitral process.

54. The position in England today is thus radically different

from what it was at the time of Czarnikow v Roth, Schmidt &

Co – or even when I started in practice. I often hear from

arbitrators around the world that nothing really has changed

in England; that, the English Courts adopt an interventionist

approach which is contrary to the underlying spirit of

international arbitration. I say to them – and I say to you – that

that is completely untrue.

55. This is demonstrated by Table 3 which is a summary

analysis of the cases reported on the BAILLI website during

6 [1982] AC 724

19

the 5-year period 2012-2016 concerning challenges to an

arbitration award with the seat of the arbitration in England.

Once again, a word of warning. I do not pretend that the

figures are necessarily 100% accurate but they are sufficiently

accurate for present purposes. The figures are grouped under

three main headings being the three main grounds in England

for challenging an award under the main statute viz The

Arbitration Act 1996 ie. s.67 (no jurisdiction), s.68 (serious

irregularity) and s69 (appeal on a question of law). Before

turning to the figures themselves, it is important to have at

least some idea of the total number of awards published in

England during any calendar year. The truth is: no one really

knows. I put on one side what I imagine is a large number of

domestic consumer arbitrations etc. However, focusing on

international arbitration, I would guess that there are on

average probably somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000

awards published annually in England. Even assuming the

lower of those figures, this would mean that there were at least

some 5,000 awards published over a 5 year period.

56. With that in mind, one can then look at the figures in

Table 3. What do they show?

a. So far as s.67 (no jurisdiction) is concerned, the number

of cases that came before the Court during that 5 year

period was 35. That represents substantially less than

1% of all cases. Of those, the vast majority (27 or

approximately 75% of the challenges) were rejected. 8

20

succeeded ie less than 0.2% of all cases. There were

four appeals to the Court of Appeal. All rejected.

b. So far as s.68 (serious irregularity) is concerned, the

number of cases that came before the Court during that

5 year period was 39. That again represents

substantially less than 1% of all cases. But here, the

rejection rate was much higher. Some 35 – or

approximately 90% were rejected with only 1 appeal

which was also rejected. Only 4 cases succeeded – less

than 0.01% of all cases.

c. So far as s69 (appeal on a question of law) is concerned,

it is important to note two things. First, the figures are for

actual appeals that came before the Court. However,

contrary to common belief, there is no unfettered “right”

of appeal on a question of law. It is always open to the

parties to exclude any appeal. And even where the

parties do no exlude the possibility of an appeal, leave

is required – so there is an important filtering process.

During this period, the figures show a total of 55 appeals

of which about half were allowed - higher than the

figures for ss67 and 68 but still below 1% of all cases. It

is also important to bear in mind that the vast majority of

these appeals concern shipping disputes where there is

a long tradition of keeping open the possibility of an

appeal and resorting to the Courts for a final

determination. There were 9 further appeals to the Court

of Appeal – all reject apart from one.

21

57. In my view, these figures demonstrate clearly that it is

quite wrong to suggest that the English Courts intervene too

much in arbitration in England.

58. Finally, I would like to consider a further aspect of

“worldiness”. There is, I think, no doubt that the huge growth

in arbitration and the relatively small number of appeals in

England (as well as in most other countries around the world)

has an important consequence viz a reduction in the potential

for the courts to develop and explain the law. In an important

speech last year7, the former Lord Chief Justice of England

and Wales, Lord Thomas, observed that this consequence

provides fertile ground for transforming the common law into

what he described an “ossuary”. That is not good. As Lord

Thomas stated, decision making in the Courts plays a vitally

important role in commercial law as in other spheres: it

enables the law to develop in the light of reasoned argument

which is itself refined and tested before a number of tiers of

judiciary; it enables public scrutiny of the law as it develops;

and it ensures, as a necessary underpinning to public scrutiny,

that the law’s development is not hidden from view.

59. That is a theme which others have also commented

upon. For example, Sir Bernard Rix in a lecture in Singapore

in 2015 stated8:

7 The Bailii Lecture 2016 (9 March 2016): “Developing commercial law through the courts: rebalancing the relationship between the courts and arbitration”. 8 “Confidentiality in International Arbitration:Virtue or Vice?” Jones Day Professorship in Commercial Law Lecture, SMU, Singapore, 12 March 2015

22

“Once however we come to awards which are concerned with standard forms of contracts, or jurisdictional issues, or principles of law, or important forms of interim relief, the lack of publication, the lack of transparency, the difficulty or impossibility of getting such awards into the public domain, a fortiori in the light of institutional rules which bar any challenge or appeal to the courts whatsoever, mean that our commercial law is going underground. As more and more international commercial cases go to arbitration rather than the courts, we are more and more losing sight of the basic feedstock of our commercial law. In such circumstances, it is in my opinion inevitable that the public interest is being and will increasingly be damaged as more and more decisions on areas of commercial law become inaccessible to the public arena.” (emphasis added)

60. The irony is that as international arbitration as a dispute

resolution mechanism has become more “worldly”, what Sir

Bernard Rix has described as the “feedstock” of our

commercial law has become increasingly inaccessible to the

public arena – and therefore, I would suggest, very much less

worldly. This is not only unfortunate from an intellectual point

of view but, more importantly, reduces the predictability of the

outcome of any particular case. The result is uncertainty and

inconsistency – the enemies of any system of dispute

resolution.

61. So, what of the future? I have no doubt that London and

the other traditional centres will continue to play an important

role in international arbitration. However, I equally have no

doubt that as finance and trade move eastwards, international

arbitration in Asia and Australasia will continue to grow and

thereby become even more “worldly” than it is now. I also

23

believe, that there is a huge opportunity for Australia to

participate in that future growth of international arbitration.

62. Thank you

Bernard Eder