International arbitration is an alternative to local court procedures. International arbitration has different rules than domestic arbitration, a distinction that is particularly rigid in jurisdictions with "dualist" regimes. For example, in Colombia, procedural incompatibilities arising when a case shifts between domestic and international frameworks can lead to the annulment of the award, and has its own non-country-specific standards of ethical conduct. The process may be more limited than typical litigation and forms a hybrid between the common law and civil law legal systems. For example, the
International Bar Association (IBA)'s Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, revised in 2010, do not adopt common law broad disclosure procedures (discovery) or follow the civil law in eliminating entirely the ability of engaging in some disclosure-related practices. The IBA Rules blend common and civil systems so that parties may narrowly tailor disclosure to the agreement's particular subject matter. David Rivkin, who chaired the committee that drafted the rules, has noted that the wide adoption of these rules in international arbitration has led in practice to an unexpected use by common law practitioners to limit disclosure and by civil law practitioners to expand it. The rules can be further impacted by arbitral rules that may be agreed between the parties. A presumption of confidentiality—whether implied or explicit—exists between the parties to an international commercial arbitration; however, there may be a disconnect between that presumption and the realities of disclosure and publicity imposed by the courts, arbitrators, and even the parties themselves.
Global enforcement Most countries, especially in the developed world, are signatories of the New York Convention. Consequently, judgements can be enforced across the world.
The New York Convention, more formally known as the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, provides for court recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration decisions, allowing arbitration proceedings to piggyback on the authority of domestic jurisdictions across the world. In contrast, there is no equivalent treaty for the international recognition of court decisions with a large membership although the
Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements entered into force in 2015 for the
European Union and Mexico. Similarly, no equivalent treaty exists so far for the international recognition of settlements achieved in
mediation or
conciliation:so far, a meeting of the
UNCITRAL Working Group II in New York has taken place in February 2015 subsequent to a US proposal for that working group to develop a convention on the enforcement of conciliated settlement agreements for international commercial disputes. Within the EU, the enforceability of mediation agreements is ruled by Directive 2008/52/EC.
Protection from lawsuits Under the New York Convention, if a party to arbitration files a lawsuit in breach of an arbitration agreement, the court is obligated to recognize an agreement in writing under which the parties undertake to submit to arbitration. Chapter 2 of the
Federal Arbitration Act sets forth the statutory basis for an American court to direct that arbitration be held.
Enforcement Under the New York Convention, Article III requires courts in contracting states to recognize international arbitral awards as binding and enforce them. Article V provides for seven reasons that a court can use to refuse to enforce the award. == Cases and statistics ==