ADR in Cross Border Contracts
MENARA ASPEN ADVISORY LTD AUTHORED WORK - NOT FOR REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION
Written by Elaine Obika
ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4538-3259
8th October 2025
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
In the theatre of global commerce, Alternative Dispute Resolution (hereinafter “ADR") is not merely procedural – it is strategic. This essay interrogates the claim that ADR is appropriate for resolving disputes in international trade contracts, arguing that while often effective its suitability is contingent upon dispute type, enforcement architecture and commercial context.
Arbitration and mediation have gained prominence as mechanisms for resolving disputes arising from complex cross-border contracts [1] - particularly those governing the international carriage of goods by sea [2] and the international sale of goods. [3] These contracts are inherently complex, cross-jurisdictional and commercially sensitive, engaging frameworks such as the Hague Visby Rules [4] and the CISG. [5] Both contract types present unique challenges [6] that make the choice of dispute resolution mechanism particularly consequential
Traditional litigation, with its jurisdictional rigidity, public nature and exposure to scrutiny is increasingly viewed as ill-suited to the demands of global trade. [7] In contrast ADR offers flexibility, confidentiality, and procedural autonomy, making it an attractive alternative for commercial actors. [8]
Arbitration has become the dominant method for resolving international trade disputes, [9] supported by institutional frameworks such as the International Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter ICC), [10] the London Court of International Arbitration (hereinafter LCIA) [11] and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (hereinafter SIAC). [12] Its enforceability under the New York Convention (1958) [13] and its adaptability to party choice of law and forum make it especially suitable for contracts involving carriage of goods and sale of goods across borders. Mediation while less prevalent, appears to have gained traction following the Singapore Convention on Mediation (2019), [14] which seeks to make mediated settled agreements enforceable internationally.
However, the appropriateness of ADR mechanisms is not absolute. Their effectiveness depends on jurisdictional culture, enforcement reliability and the nature of the dispute. For example, while arbitration may offer finality [15] and neutrality [16] it can be costly and procedurally complex. [17] [18] Mediation, though cost-effective and collaborative, may lack enforceability in certain jurisdictions and it is often underutilised in high-stakes trade disputes. [19]Andrews notes that mediation remains underused in international commercial contexts due to its voluntary nature and limited enforcement power. [20] ICC statistics similarly show that mediation accounts for fewer than 5% of cases in 2023 [21] and 11% in 2024 [22] administered annually, compared to arbitration’s overwhelming dominance – 95.1% in 2023 and 88.9% in 2024. [23]
Scholars such as S.I. Strong argue that mediation is increasingly preferred due to its perceived efficiency, [24] while Indira Carr describes arbitration as the privatisation of justice. [25] Yet both claims invite scrutiny. Mediation’s success is not universal, and arbitration, though privately structured, remains tethered to national legal systems and public enforcement regimes. Even the most strategically choreographed arbitration — with careful selection of seat, adjudicators, and procedural rules — remains subject to domestic oversight. Ultimately, the choice between ADR mechanisms is not doctrinally fixed but context-dependent.
A nuanced evaluation reveals that ADR is not a universal solution but a context-sensitive tool that demands strategic deployment and doctrinal scrutiny. The analysis proceeds by first examining the legal and commercial context of international trade disputes, followed by a critical comparison of ADR and litigation, and concluding with an assessment of emerging hybrid models and their implications.
SECTION 2: LEGAL AND COMMERCIAL CONTEXT
Understanding the legal and commercial contexts of international trade disputes is essential to evaluating the appropriateness of ADR mechanisms. [26] Contracts involving carriage of and sale of goods often engage intricate regulatory frameworks, [27] jurisdictional tensions and strategic commercial interests. [28]
Such contracts are governed by a complex web of legal instruments, [29] commercial practices, [30] and jurisdictional considerations. [31] [32] Disputes arising from such contracts often involve parties from different legal systems, making the choice of dispute resolution mechanism a matter of strategic importance. [33]
Contracts for the international carriage of goods by sea are typically governed by standardised instruments such as the Hague-Visby Rules, [34] which regulate the rights and obligations of carriers and shippers. These contracts often incorporate arbitration clauses, particularly in charterparties and bills of lading, [35] where parties seek neutral forums and specialist adjudicators. [36] [37] Maritime disputes may involve technical issues such as seaworthiness, [38] demurrage, [39] or cargo damage, [40] which benefit from the expertise of arbitrators familiar with shipping law and practice.
Similarly, contracts for the international sale of goods are frequently governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), [41] which provides a harmonised legal framework for cross-border transactions. Disputes in this context may concern non-conformity of goods, [42] delayed delivery, [43] or payment failures. [44] ADR mechanisms are often preferred in these cases due to their speed, confidentiality, and commercial sensitivity. [45]
The principle of party autonomy [46] affirmed under Rome I, [47] plays a central role in international trade. Parties are free to choose the governing law, forum, and dispute resolution method. [48] This flexibility allows them to tailor dispute resolution clauses to suit the nature of the transaction and the risks involved. [49] Institutions such as the ICC, [50]LCIA, [51] and SIAC [52] offer procedural rules and administrative support that enhance the reliability of ADR processes.
However, the global nature of trade also introduces challenges. Jurisdictional conflicts, enforcement issues, and differing procedural norms can complicate dispute resolution. In a globalised landscape, the choice between ADR and litigation is not merely a matter of law – it is a matter of leverage. As illustrated in Alaska Packers [53] case the workers attempt to renegotiate wages mid-performance was legally void due to lack of new consideration – yet the employer’s initial acquiescence reveals how coercion and situational leverage can distort intent. ADR, especially in commercial contexts, often reflects these asymmetries more than doctrinal purity.
SECTION 3: ADVANTAGES OF ADR
Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms offer several advantages that make them particularly attractive in the context of international trade contracts. [54] Arbitration and mediation, while distinct in process and outcome, share features that respond to the commercial and jurisdictional complexities of cross-border transactions. [55]
3.1 Arbitration
One of the most significant advantages of arbitration is the enforceability of awards. Under the New York Convention (1958), [56] arbitral awards are recognised and enforceable in over 170 jurisdictions, providing parties with a reliable mechanism for cross-border enforcement. This is especially valuable in international carriage of goods by sea, where parties may be located in different continents and enforcement through domestic courts may be impractical or uncertain. [57] Beyond the New York Convention, English law provides alternative enforcement routes, including the common law regime [58] and statutory instruments. [59] The 1996 Act [60] lacked provisions for emergency arbitrators and left court powers over third parties unclear. The 2025 reforms [61] address this: sections 41 and 42 enable enforcement of emergency orders, while section 44 confirms court support against third parties. This layered framework underscores the UK’s pro-enforcement stance and reinforces London’s appeal as a seat for maritime and commercial arbitration. [62]
Arbitration offers both neutrality and party autonomy. Parties can select arbitrators with expertise in maritime or commercial law, choose the seat of arbitration, and agree on procedural rules. This flexibility mitigates perceived bias and allows parties to tailor proceedings to the dispute’s nature. [63] In shipping contracts, for example, parties often prefer arbitrators with technical knowledge of demurrage, laytime, or vessel performance—areas where domestic judges may lack familiarity.
A doctrinal advantage of arbitration is the separability of the arbitration agreement. [64] This principle ensures that the arbitration clause is treated as legally independent from the main contract, allowing arbitration to proceed even if the underlying contract is alleged to be void, terminated, or breached. In international trade, where allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or illegality may arise, separability preserves the parties’ chosen forum and prevents tactical litigation aimed at derailing arbitration. As affirmed in Fiona Trust [65] English courts presume that rational commercial parties intend all disputes arising from their relationship to be resolved by the same tribunal. This enhances procedural stability and reinforces party autonomy in complex cross-border transactions.
Another key advantage is confidentiality. [66] Unlike litigation, which is typically public, arbitration proceedings are private. This protects sensitive commercial information and preserves reputational interests, particularly in disputes involving defective goods or contractual breaches. [67] Confidentiality is often a decisive factor for parties engaged in high-value international sales. [68]
Arbitration also provides procedural flexibility and finality. [69] Parties can streamline timelines, limit disclosure, and avoid protracted appeals. While the limited scope for appeal [70]may be seen as a disadvantage in some contexts, it also ensures that disputes are resolved efficiently—an important consideration in fast-moving trade environments. [71]
3.2 Mediation
Mediation offers a different set of advantages, particularly in preserving commercial relationships. [72] As a non-adjudicative process, mediation encourages cooperation and mutual understanding. [73] This is especially valuable in long-term supply arrangements or shipping partnerships, where maintaining goodwill [74] may be more important than securing a legal victory. [75]
Mediation is cost-effective, time-efficient [76] and confidential. [77] [78] [79] Mediation typically involves fewer procedural steps and lower fees than arbitration or litigation. [80] In disputes over delayed delivery or minor contractual breaches, mediation can offer a pragmatic resolution without escalating costs.
Mediation is also flexible and culturally adaptive. [81] Parties can shape the process to reflect their communication styles, cultural norms, and commercial priorities. [82] This adaptability is particularly useful in international sale of goods disputes, where parties may come from jurisdictions with differing legal traditions and negotiation practices. [83] [84]
While mediation outcomes are not binding unless formalised, [85] [86] this can be an advantage in certain contexts. Parties retain control over the resolution and can explore creative solutions that a court or tribunal may not be empowered to impose. [87]
These advantages demonstrate why ADR is often considered appropriate for resolving disputes in international trade contracts. Yet their effectiveness is not automatic; it depends on the dispute’s nature, the parties’ expectations [88]and the legal architecture governing the transaction. [89] The following section offers a critical evaluation of ADR’s limitations and risks.
SECTION 4: LIMITATIONS AND RISKS OF ADR
4.1 Arbitration
While the doctrine of separability preserves access to arbitration, it can entrench procedural asymmetry. Arbitration clauses may survive even when the main contract is void ab initio, insulating dispute resolution from defects in consent. This disproportionately benefits stronger parties who embed arbitration clauses in standard-form contracts, using ADR as a strategic tool rather than a neutral mechanism. The doctrine’s rigidity may frustrate judicial scrutiny of coercive or fraudulent agreements, especially where the clause was not separately negotiated. [90]
Despite its reputation for efficiency, arbitration can be costly and procedurally opaque. Specialist arbitrators are often costly. [91] Institutional proceedings under ICC [92] or LCIA [93] involve significant fees and legal costs, which may outweigh benefits in smaller international sale of goods disputes. Procedural flexibility can also lead to unpredictability, particularly when parties fail to agree on rules or arbitrators adopt inconsistent approaches. Clarifying points of law may still require court intervention. [94]
Finality is another concern. [95] Arbitral awards are generally not subject to appeal, and while this promotes efficiency, it risks unjust outcomes if errors of law or fact occur. [96] Unlike litigation, arbitration offers limited recourse, raising questions about procedural fairness. [97]
Power imbalances further complicate arbitration. Dominant parties may dictate the seat, language, and arbitrator selection, undermining party autonomy and disadvantaging less-resourced parties. [98] Confidentiality, while often seen as a benefit, can obscure disputes involving public interest—such as environmental harm—where transparency and precedent are vital. [99]
The New York Convention facilitates cross-border enforcement, but its effectiveness depends on reservations made by contracting states. The reciprocity reservation, for example, limits enforcement to awards from fellow signatories, reflecting strategic self-interest. [100] The reciprocity reservation, while ostensibly procedural, has tangible commercial consequences. It shapes not only enforcement strategy but also market selection, as businesses may avoid jurisdictions where arbitral awards are unenforceable — effectively transforming legal reservations into informal trade barriers. Parties must be legally literate when drafting arbitration clauses, [101] yet many rely on boilerplate forms. Cuniberti [102] and Baird [103] note that while this promotes uniformity it obscures jurisdictional risks and limits strategic tailoring – particularly when enforcement depends seat selection, asset location or political viability. [104]
This tension is acute in international sale and carriage contracts, where enforcement depends on the seat of arbitration, asset location, and political viability. Even well-drafted clauses can be destabilised by geopolitical shifts, such as trade sanctions. Irdi’s analysis [105] of political risk clauses highlights their limited effectiveness, noting that political behaviour often defies contractual logic and undermines enforcement predictability.
Supranational regimes also constrain arbitration. In West Tankers, [106] the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter “CJEU”) held that English courts could not issue anti-suit injunctions to restrain proceedings in Italy, subordinating arbitration to EU jurisdictional rules. This undermines party autonomy and reveals friction between regional instruments and the New York Convention. [107]
Multi-party contracts pose further challenges. In Jakob Handte, [108] the CJEU held that jurisdiction under Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention applies only where a direct contractual obligation exists. Without explicit ADR clauses extending to all parties, jurisdictional access may be blocked—especially problematic in sale and carriage chains involving intermediaries. [109]
4.2. Mediation
Mediation’s non-binding nature offers flexibility but also limits enforceability. [110] While parties retain control over outcomes, agreements reached are only binding if formalised through consent awards or settlement contracts. [111] In high-stakes commercial disputes, this uncertainty may deter parties from selecting mediation as a primary resolution method.
Cross-border disputes introduce cultural [112] and psychological complexities. [113] Divergent negotiation styles, [114]communication norms, and expectations [115] can hinder consensus. [116] Successful mediation depends on cultural compatibility [117] and mutual trust [118] - often absent in adversarial trade contexts. [119]
Mediation is also ill-suited to disputes requiring legal interpretation or precedent. [120] Issues involving contractual construction, [121] international conventions, or liability often demand authoritative adjudication, which mediation cannot provide due to its facilitative nature. [122]
Additionally, mediation may be vulnerable to misuse. [123] Parties acting in bad faith may exploit the process to delay proceedings or extract information without intent to settle. [124] Without procedural safeguards, mediation risks becoming a tactical manoeuvre rather than a genuine resolution mechanism. [125]
These limitations highlight the need for a context-sensitive approach to ADR. The suitability of mediation or arbitration depends on the dispute’s nature, the governing legal framework, and the strategic interests of the parties. [126] The following section will compare ADR with litigation, evaluating their respective strengths and limitations in resolving international trade disputes.
Ultimately, while ADR mechanisms offer strategic advantages, their effectiveness is contingent upon context - shaped by the dispute’s nature, party expectations, and the legal framework governing the transaction. [127] A critical evaluation must account for procedural, structural, and contextual risks. [128]
SECTION 5: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH LITIGATION
While ADR mechanisms such as arbitration and mediation offer distinct advantages, litigation remains a vital and, in some cases, preferable method for resolving international trade disputes. [129] A comparative analysis reveals that the choice between ADR and litigation depends on factors such as enforceability, [130] procedural safeguards, [131] public accountability, [132] and the nature of the dispute.
5.1 Strengths of Litigation
One of litigation’s key strengths is its contribution to legal precedent and public accountability. Court judgments are typically published and may be cited in future cases, thereby shaping the development of commercial law. [133] This is particularly important in disputes involving novel legal issues or regulatory concerns. For example, in The Starsin [134] , the House of Lords clarified the legal status of bills of lading, influencing subsequent maritime litigation and contract drafting.
Litigation also offers procedural safeguards, noteably, the right to appeal. [135] This ensures that errors of law or fact can be reviewed by higher courts, promoting fairness and consistency. [136] In contrast, arbitration awards are generally final, with limited grounds for challenge under national arbitration laws. [137] For parties seeking legal certainty and the possibility of correction, litigation may be more appropriate.
Moreover, litigation may be preferable in disputes involving public interest [138] or reputational risk. [139] Environmental damage caused by shipping, allegations of fraud in international sales, or breaches of regulatory obligations may require public scrutiny and judicial oversight. [140]ADR’s confidentiality, while beneficial in commercial contexts, may obscure issues that warrant transparency. This was exemplified in Mineral Development, Gauteng, [141]where the Supreme Court of Appeal affirmed that environmental concerns must be considered in administrative decisions, even if not explicitly mandated by statute. The ability to challenge procedural omissions through litigation ensured that constitutional environmental rights were upheld — a safeguard that would likely have been unavailable in a confidential ADR setting.
In certain jurisdictions, litigation may also be more cost-effective than arbitration, particularly in specialised commercial courts where procedures are streamlined and fees are transparent. [142]For disputes arising under international sale or carriage contracts — especially those involving legal interpretation rather than technical fact-finding — litigation may offer a more predictable and efficient process. This was evident in MSC Mediterranean Shipping, [143] where the English Commercial Court resolved a demurrage dispute through doctrinal analysis, avoiding the layered costs of arbitration.
5.2 Weaknesses of Litigation
However, litigation is not without its drawbacks. Jurisdictional complexity is a major concern in international trade. Determining the appropriate forum, applying foreign law, and enforcing judgments across borders can be time-consuming and uncertain. [144] Unlike arbitral awards, which benefit from the New York Convention, court judgments may face obstacles to recognition and enforcement. [145]
Litigation is often slower and more formal than ADR. Procedural rules, disclosure obligations, and appeal processes can prolong resolution, which may be commercially damaging in fast-paced trade environments. In disputes over perishable goods or time-sensitive shipments, delay can result in significant losses. [146]
Furthermore, litigation may lack the commercial sensitivity and expertise offered by arbitration. Judges may not have specialist knowledge of maritime operations or international sales practices, leading to decisions that overlook industry norms. In contrast, arbitrators are often selected for their technical expertise and familiarity with trade customs. [147]
Finally, litigation is public, which may deter parties from pursuing claims that involve confidential information or reputational concerns. In high-value commercial disputes, the risk of adverse publicity may outweigh the benefits of judicial resolution. [148]
This comparative analysis underscores that neither ADR nor litigation is universally superior. Each method offers distinct advantages and limitations, and their appropriateness depends on the dispute’s nature, the parties’ priorities, and the legal framework involved. The next section explores emerging hybrid models and technological innovations that seek to reconcile these approaches, offering more adaptable solutions for international trade disputes.
The table in the link below outlines key differences between arbitration and litigation in international trade disputes, especially in carriage and sale contracts.
SECTION 6: EMERGING TRENDS AND HYBRID MODELS
As international trade continues to evolve, so too do the mechanisms for resolving its disputes. Recent developments in hybrid dispute resolution models and digital platforms reflect a growing desire to combine the strengths of arbitration, mediation, and litigation into more adaptive, commercially responsive systems.
6.1 Hybrid Models: Med-Arb and Arb-Med
Hybrid models such as Med-Arb (mediation followed by arbitration) and Arb-Med (arbitration paused for mediation) are gaining traction in international trade. These approaches enable parties to pursue amicable resolution before resorting to binding adjudication, offering both flexibility and finality. Institutions like the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) have formalised procedures for such hybrids. [149]
The appeal lies in their procedural efficiency and relational sensitivity. Parties can preserve commercial relationships through mediation, while retaining the security of enforceable outcomes via arbitration. Deason argues that combining roles may compromise neutrality and confidentiality, particularly when disclosures made during mediation influence arbitral reasoning. [150] The potential for prejudgment or perceived bias must be mitigated through robust procedural safeguards, such as appointing separate neutrals or codifying transition protocols. [151] Similar concerns arise in Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), where the absence of harmonised recognition frameworks and inconsistent treatment of digital awards across jurisdictions undermine enforceability. This legal uncertainty can deter parties from using ODR in high-stakes disputes, particularly where cross-border enforcement is critical and commercial efficiency is paramount. [152]
6.2 Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)
The rise of Online Dispute Resolution (herein after “ODR”) platforms marks a significant shift in how international trade disputes are handled. Enabled by digital infrastructure and accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ODR offers remote access, automated case management, and virtual hearings. UNCITRAL’s Technical Notes on ODR provide a framework for cross-border digital resolution, particularly in e-commerce and low-value international sales. [153]
ODR enhances accessibility and expedites resolution reducing logistical barriers and costs. [154] It is especially useful in disputes involving SMEs or parties in different time zones. [155] However, concerns remain about procedural fairness, data security, and enforceability. [156] Not all jurisdictions recognise digital signatures or remote awards, and the lack of physical presence may affect the dynamics of negotiation and adjudication. [157]
6.3 Institutional Innovation and Customisation
Leading arbitral institutions are also innovating to meet the demands of global trade. The ICC has introduced expedited procedures for smaller claims, [158] while the LCIA [159] and SIAC [160] offer flexible rules for multi-party and multi-contract disputes. While joinder and discontinuance have long existed in arbitral practice, institutions like the LCIA have codified these powers to enhance clarity and procedural efficiency. This reflects a broader shift toward modular dispute resolution - refining familiar tools to meet the demands of complex international trade. Such developments reflect a shift toward customisable, modular dispute resolution, allowing parties to tailor processes to the complexity and value of the dispute.
Such innovations blur the boundaries between traditional ADR and litigation, creating a constellation of options rather than a binary choice. For parties engaged in international carriage of goods or sale of goods, this flexibility is invaluable - allowing them to balance speed, cost, enforceability, and relational dynamics. [161]
These emerging trends suggest that the future of dispute resolution in international trade lies not in choosing between ADR and litigation, but in strategically combining elements of both. The final section will draw together these insights and offer a nuanced conclusion on the appropriateness of ADR in this context.
CONCLUSION
The evaluation of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms in international trade contracts reveals a nuanced and evolving landscape. Arbitration and mediation offer distinct advantages—enforceability, neutrality, confidentiality, and procedural flexibility—that make them attractive in cross-border disputes, particularly those arising from the international carriage of goods by sea and the international sale of goods. Their adaptability and relational sensitivity position them as valuable tools within the global trade ecosystem.
This analysis has considered the differing legal and commercial dynamics of carriage and sale contracts. Maritime disputes often involve technical issues governed by conventions such as the Hague-Visby Rules, while sale contracts may engage harmonised frameworks like the CISG.
The appropriateness of ADR depends not only on procedural efficiency but also on the dispute’s substance and regulatory context therefore ADR is not universally suitable. Arbitration’s cost, limited appeal rights, and procedural opacity must be weighed against its benefits. Mediation may falter where enforceable outcomes or authoritative interpretation are required. Litigation, though slower and more public, retains strengths in precedent-setting, procedural safeguards, and regulatory oversight.
The rise of hybrid models and digital platforms suggests that the future lies not in choosing between ADR and litigation, but in strategically combining elements of both. Med-Arb procedures, online dispute resolution, and institutional innovations offer parties tailored processes aligned with dispute complexity and commercial priorities.
In conclusion, ADR mechanisms are often appropriate for resolving international trade disputes, but their suitability depends on a constellation of factors: contract type, dispute nature, strategic priorities, and legal framework. A context-aware deployment of ADR—possibly in combination with litigation or hybrid models—offers the most effective path forward. The challenge for legal practitioners is not merely to select a method, but to choreograph a resolution strategy aligned with commercial goals, legal integrity, and global enforceability.
REFERENCES
[1] Reyburn W Lominack III ‘Examining Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Business Domain’ (2003) Vol 1 South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business 18.
[2] Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.
[3] Sale of Goods Act 1979.
[4] The Hague Visby Rules as amended by the Protocol of 1979 the Hague Rules 1924.
[5] United Nations on Conventions on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna 11 April 1980) (CISG).
[6] D R Thomas ‘Laytime and Demurrage – Contractual Concepts in a State of Flux’ (2014) Vol 20 The Journal of International Maritime Law 183.
[7] Madeleine Elisabeth Petersen Weiner ‘Whereto Litigation? Litigation and Arbitration Compared as Modern Commercial Dispute Resolution Measures’ [2019] Heidelberger OJS Journals 1, 3.
[8] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 631-633.
[9] Gary Born International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International, 2009).
[10] International Chamber of Commerce < https://iccwbo.org > accessed 29th September 2025.
[11] London Court of International Arbitration < https://www.lcia.org > accessed 29th September 2025.
[12] Singapore International Arbitration Centre < https://siac.org.sg/about-us > accessed 29th September 2025.
[13] United Nations on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 10 June 1958) < https://www.newyorkconvention.org/english > accessed 29th September 2025.
[14] Singapore Convention on Mediation < https://www.singaporeconvention.org > 29th September 2025.
[15] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 632.
[16] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 631.
[17] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 633.
[18] Arbitration Act 1996 s 45(1).
[19] Jaemin Lee ‘Long-Term Relationship Over Litigation: Mediation in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings’ (2025) Vol 24 World Trade Review 50.
[20] Neil H Andrews ‘Mediation: International Experience and Global Trends’ (Legal Studies Research Paper Series Paper No 42/2018, University of Cambridge) 2018.
[21] ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics 2023 < https://iccwbo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/06/2023-Statistics_ICC_Dispute-Resolution_991.pdf > accessed 29th September 2025
[22] ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics 2024 < https://iccwbo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/06/2024-Statistics_ICC_Dispute-Resolution.pdf> accessed 29th September 2025.
[23] ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics 2023 < https://iccwbo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/06/2023-Statistics_ICC_Dispute-Resolution_991.pdf > accessed 29th September 2025;
ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics 2024 < https://iccwbo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/06/2024-Statistics_ICC_Dispute-Resolution.pdf > accessed 29th September 2025.
[24] S I Strong ‘Beyond International Commercial Arbitration? The Promise of International Commercial Mediation’ (2014) Vol 45 Journal of Law and Policy 11.
[25] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 628.
[26] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 499.
[27] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 59.
[28] Stephen Girvin Carriage of Goods by Sea (Third edition, Oxford University Press) 2022, Chapter 18.
[29] United Nations on Conventions on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna 11 April 1980) (CISG); UNITED NATIONS COMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW ‘UNCITRAL, HCCH and UNIDROIT Legal Guide to Uniform Instruments in the Area of International Commercial Contracts, with a Focus on Sales’ < https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/tripartiteguide.pdf > accessed 1st October 2025; HCCH ‘Hague Conference on Private International Law’ HCCH < https://www.hcch.net/en/home > accessed 1st October 2025; International Chambers of Commerce ‘Incoterms 2020’ ICC < https://iccwbo.org/business-solutions/incoterms-rules/incoterms-2020/ > accessed 2nd October 2025; Rome I Regulation (EU).
[30] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Article 26; Mark Abrams ‘UCP 600 and Letters of Credit’ 10th March 2025 Trade Finance Global 2025 Guide < https://www.tradefinanceglobal.com/letters-of-credit/ucp-600/ > accessed 2nd October 2025; International Chambers of Commerce ‘Incoterms 2020’ ICC < https://iccwbo.org/business-solutions/incoterms-rules/incoterms-2020/ > accessed 2nd October 2025.
[31] Chukwuma Samuel, Adesina Okoli and Abubakri Yekini ‘Implied Jurisdiction Agreements in International Commercial Contracts: A Global Comparative Perspective’ (2023) Vol 19 Journal of Private International Law 321, 325-327; Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) pp 650.
[32] Anu Vihervaara ‘The Validity and Relevance of a Jurisdictional Clause in a Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Sea’ (Master’s Thesis, University of Helsinki 2019); Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) pp 225-226.
[33] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 499.
[34] Hague-Visby Rules < http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/legislation/haguevisbyrules.htm > accessed 2nd October 2025.
[35] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 201.
[36] Tamar Mskhvilidze ‘The Legal Nature of Forum Shopping in International Civil Procedure Law’ (2023) Vol 9 Law and World.
[37] Franco Ferrari ‘Forum Shopping: A Plea for A Broad and Value-Neutral Definition’ (2014) New York University School of Law: Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series Working Paper No 14-39 < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2474181 > accessed 2nd October 2025.
[38] Riverstone Meat Company Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Company Ltd [1961] 1 Lloyds Rep 57.
[39] K Line Pte Ltd v Priminds Shipping HK Co Ltd (Eternal Bliss) [2022] EWCA Civ 1712
[40] The Jordan II [2004] UKHL 49.
[41] United Nations on Conventions on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna 11 April 1980) (CISG).
[42] J & H Ritchie Ltd v Lloyd Ltd [2007] UKHL 9.
[43] Bunge Corporation v Tradax Export SA [1981] UKHL 11.
[44] E D & F Man Sugar Ltd v Unicargo Transport [2013] EWCA Civ 1449.
[45] Stephen Girvin Carriage of Goods by Sea (Third edition, Oxford University Press) 2022, Chapter 18.
[46] Symeon Symeonides ‘Party Autonomy in International Contracts and the Multiple Ways of Slicing the Apple’ (2013) Vol 39 Brooklyn Journal of International Law.
[47] Rome I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008).
[48] Symeon C Symeonides Codifying Choice of Law Around the World: An International Comparative Analysis (Oxford University Press 2017).
[49] Ifrah Barge, Saanya Vashishta and Shreya Tiwari ‘Critical Analysis of Forum Shopping in International Commercial Law’ 19th May 2025 Ex Curia International < https://excuriainternational.com/2025/05/19/critical-analysis-of-forum-law-shopping-in-international-commercial-law/#:~:text=Forum%20law%20shopping%20is%2D%20an,of%20the%20legal%20machinery%20itself. > accessed 3rd October 2025.
[50] International Chamber of Commerce < https://iccwbo.org > accessed 29th September 2025.
[51] London Court of International Arbitration < https://www.lcia.org > accessed 29th September 2025.
[52] Singapore International Arbitration Centre < https://siac.org.sg/about-us > accessed 29th September 2025.
[53] Alaska Packers v Domenico (117 F. 99, 9th Cir. 1902).
[54] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 630-632.
[55] International Trade Council ‘Arbitration versus Mediation in International Trade Disputes’ (2023) International Trade Council p 18< https://tradecouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/arbitration-vs-mediation.pdf > accessed 3rd October 2025.
[56] United Nations on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 10 June 1958) < https://www.newyorkconvention.org/english > accessed 29th September 2025.
[57] Nigel Blackaby and Constantine Partasides, Alan Redfern and Martin Hunter Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (Sixth edition, Oxford University Press 2015) chapter 10.
[58] Lawrence Collins et al (eds), Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws (Fourteenth edition, Sweet & Maxwell 2006) rr 59–60.
[59] Administration of Justice Act 1920, s 9.
[60] Arbitration Act 1996.
[61] Arbitration Act 2025, ss 41, 42 and 44.
[62] Lydia Fontes ‘London is the World’s Top Location for International Arbitration, Research Reveals’ 1st May 2025 Legal Cheek < https://www.legalcheek.com/2025/05/london-is-the-worlds-top-location-for-international-arbitration-research-reveals/ > accessed 3rd October 2025; David Edwards and Amy Volz ‘Why International Contracts Still Point to London’ Simpson Thacher Publications in The Law Society Gazette p 28 < https://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=2aa61c48-9a66-48a6-85ff-8eae3d88faba > accessed 3rd October 2025; Nadir Hassan and Tom Wheeler ‘Securing London’s Status as A World Leading Arbitral Seat: The Arbitration Act 2025’ June 2025 Beale & Co < https://beale-law.com/article/securing-londons-status-as-a-world-leading-arbitral-seat-the-arbitration-act-2025/ > accessed 3rd October 2025.
[63] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 631.
[64] Arbitration Act 1996, s 7
[65] Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40.
[66] Ali Shipping Corp v Shipyard Trogir [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 643, p 654.
[67] Hassneh Insurance Co of Israel Ltd v Mew [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 3.
[68] Hans Smit ‘Confidentiality in Arbitration’ (1995) Vol 11 Arbitration International 337.
[69] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 633 and 638.
[70] Arbitration Act 1996 ss 67-69.
[71] Pioneer Shipping Ltd and Others v BTP Tioxide Ltd (The Nema) [1981] 2 All ER 1030.
[72] Tackaberry (ed), International Commercial Arbitration for Today and Tomorrow 1991 Euro Conferences p 41.
[73] Mediate Legal ‘Our Fees: Commercial Mediation Fees’ Mediate Legal<https://mediatelegal.co.uk/our-fees/#:~:text=Commercial%20Mediation%20Fees&text=MediateLegal%20charge%20our%20fee%20at,1%20full%20day%20mediation%20session. > accessed 16th May 2025.
[74] Claire Gill ‘Protecting Your Reputation in Commercial Litigation’ Carter Ruck < https://www.carter-ruck.com/insight/protecting-your-reputation-in-commercial-litigation/ > accessed 14th May 2025.
[75] Ian Carson ‘Types of Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods: Choosing The Best One For Your Business’ 12th April 2021 Harper James < https://harperjames.co.uk/article/choosing-types-of-alternative-dispute-resolution-adr/ > accessed 16th May 2025.
[76] Lucilla MacGregor Charlotte Peacey Georgina Ridsdale Civil Litigation (Fifteenth edition, Oxford University Press) 2022, 55.
[77] Lake Utopia Paper Ltd v Connelly Containers Inc 608 F2d (2dr Cir 1997) p 930.
[78] UNICITRAL Rules, Article 13.
[79] International Chamber of Commerce ‘ADR Rules 2001, Article 9 Confidentiality’ < https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-services/adr/mediation/mediation-rules/ > accessed 5th October 2025.
[80] RICS ‘Your Essential Guide to Alternative Dispute Resolutions’ RICS < https://www.rics.org/dispute-resolution-service/alternative-dispute-resolution > accessed 14th May 2025.
[81] Daniela Bushe ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution – The Main Options’ July 2015 Gaby Hardwicke Solicitors <https://www.gabyhardwicke.co.uk/briefing-notes-and-faqs/alternative-dispute-resolution-the-main-options/#:~:text=It%20is%20both%20voluntary%20and,their%20side's%20point%20of%20view. > accessed 14th May 2025.
[82] Lucilla MacGregor Charlotte Peacey Georgina Ridsdale Civil Litigation (Fifteenth edition, Oxford University Press) 2022, 52.
[83] R Lalthasangzeli and Jyotirmoy Banerjee ‘Comprehensive Study on the Evolving Role of Mediation in Resolving Cross Border Commercial Disputes’ (2025) Vol 4 International Journal of Human Rights Law Review 554 < https://humanrightlawreview.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Comprehensive-Study-on-the-Evolving-Role-of-Mediation-in-Resolving-Cross-Border-Commercial-Disputes.pdf > accessed 5th October 2025.
[84] Carrie Menkel-Meadow ‘The History and Development of “A”DR (alternative/appropriate dispute resolution)’1st July 2016 Volkerrechtsblog – International Law and International Legal Thought <https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/the-history-and-development-of-a-dr-alternativeappropriate-dispute-resolution/ >accessed 14th May 2025.
[85] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 664.
[86] CEDR ‘Am I Required to Sign the Settlement Agreement?’ Center for Effective Dispute Resolution < https://learn.cedr.com/knowledge-base/am-i-required-to-sign-the-settlement-agreement > accessed 5th October 2025.
[87] CEDR ‘What if the Other Side Doesn’t Perform Their End of the Settlement?’ Center for Effective Dispute Resolution < https://learn.cedr.com/knowledge-base/what-if-the-other-side-doesnt-perform-their-end-of-the-settlement > accessed 5th October 2025.
[88] Sam Leaver ‘Effective Approaches to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Five Key Pointers for Success’ 23rd July 2025 Howes Percival < https://www.howespercival.com/effective-approaches-to-alternative-dispute-resolution-adr-five-key-pointers-for-success/ > accessed 5th October 2025.
[89] Aaron Hall ‘Enforcing ADR Clauses in International Business Contracts’ Aaron Hall Attorney < https://aaronhall.com/enforcing-adr-clauses-in-international-business-contracts/ > accessed 5th October 2025.
[90] Gary Born International Commercial Arbitration (Third edition, Kluwer Law International) chapter 5.
[91] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 633.
[92] International Chambers of Commerce ‘Arbitration Costs and Fees 2025’ ICC < https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/costs-and-payment/ > accessed 5th October 2025.
[93] London Court of International Arbitration ‘Schedule of Arbitration Costs 2023’ LCIA < https://www.lcia.org/dispute_resolution_services/schedule-of-arbitration-costs-2023.aspx > accessed 5th October 2025.
[94] Arbitration Act 1996 s 45(1).
[95] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 642.
[96] The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process and Industrial Developments Ltd [2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm) [574]-[591] (Knowles LJ).
[97] ICC Arbitration Rules Article 19(1).
[98] Giles Cuniberti Rethinking International Commercial Arbitration Towards Default Arbitration (Edward Elgar, 2017) ch 3.
[99] Harsh Verma ‘Confidentiality vs Public Interest in Arbitration’ 10th September 2024 The Legal Quorum < https://thelegalquorum.com/confidentiality-vs-public-interest-in-arbitration/ > accessed 5th October 2025.
[100] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 648.
[101] Jane Parsons ‘Don’t Be A Midnight Cowboy: Avoiding Common Pitfalls When Drafting and Negotiating Arbitration Clauses’ 1st November 2018 Thomson Reuters < http://arbitrationblog.practicallaw.com/dont-be-a-midnight-cowboy-avoiding-common-pitfalls-when-drafting-and-negotiating-arbitration-clauses/ > accessed 13th May 2025.
[102] Giles Cuniberti Rethinking International Commercial Arbitration Towards Default Arbitration (Edward Elgar, 2017).
[103] Douglas G Baird and Rober Weisberg ‘Rules Standards and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of s 2-207’ (1982) Vol 68 Virginia Law Review 1217, 1229-1230.
[104] Indian Organic Chemicals v Chemtex Fibres (1978) 65 A.I.R Bom 108.
[105] Beniaminio Irdi ‘Geopolitical Analysis Can – and Should – Affect Legal Risk Review’ 26th February 2024 Bloomberg Law < https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/geopolitical-analysis-can-and-should-affect-legal-risk-review > accessed 14th September 2025.
[106] West Tankers v Allianz (C-185/07) [2009] AC 1138.
[107] Holly Stebbing and India Furse ‘West Tankers Stays on Course in Recent Anti-Suit Decision’ December 2018 Norton Rose Fulbright < https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/88cad768/west-tankers-stays-on-course-in-recent-anti-suit-decision > accessed 6th October 2025.
[108] Jakob Handte & Co GmbH v Traitements Mécano-Chimiques des Surfaces SA (TMCS) (C-26/91) ECR 1992 page I-03967.
[109] Westlaw ‘Jakob Handte & Co GmbH v Traitements Mécano-Chimiques des Surfaces SA (TMCS) (C-26/91) ECR 1992 page I-03967’ Thomson Reuters Westlaw Edge UK paras 14 to 17 <https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I5763297C72E745D6B5BD00F23BDD2467/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) > accessed 6th October 2025.
[110] Courtney and Fairburn Ltd v Toilani Brothers (Hotels) Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 716 (Lord Denning); Walford v Miles [1992] 1 All ER (Comm) 303 [462] (Lord Ackner).
[111] CEDR ‘Am I Required to Sign the Settlement Agreement?’ Center for Effective Dispute Resolution < https://learn.cedr.com/knowledge-base/am-i-required-to-sign-the-settlement-agreement > accessed 5th October 2025.
[112] Daniel Q Posin ‘Mediating International Business Disputes’ (2004) Vol 9 Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law 449, 466 < https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/ctccs/projects/translating-cultures/documents/journals/mediating-international-business-disputes.pdf > accessed 6th October 2025.
[113] Jaemin Lee ‘Long-Term Relationship Over Litigation: Mediation in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings’ (2025) Vol 24 World Trade Review 50, 56.
[114] Daniel Q Posin ‘Mediating International Business Disputes’ (2004) Vol 9 Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law 449, 471 < https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/ctccs/projects/translating-cultures/documents/journals/mediating-international-business-disputes.pdf >
[115] Jaemin Lee ‘Long-Term Relationship Over Litigation: Mediation in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings’ (2025) Vol 24 World Trade Review 50, 74.
[116] Geert Hoftede Cultural Consequences (SAGE Publications, 1984) pp 92, 153, 213 and 261.
[11718] Cynthia A Savage ‘Culture and Mediation: A Red Herring’ [1996] Journal of Gender And The Law 269 < https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1239&context=jgspl > accessed 6th October 2025.
[119] Dean Allen Foster Bargaining Across Borders – How to Negotiate Business Successfully Anywhere in the World (McGraw-Hill, 1992) pp 264-70.
[120] Michael Edwards ‘Mediation in International and Commercial Disputes: Benefits and Challenges’ Michael Edwards < https://michaeledwards.uk/mediation-in-international-commercial-disputes-benefits-and-challenges/ accessed 6th October 2025.
[121] Jacqueline M Nolan-Haley ‘Court Mediation and the Search for Justice through Law’ (1996) Vol 74 Washington University Law Quarterly 47, 81.
[122] Lucilla MacGregor Charlotte Peacey Georgina Ridsdale Civil Litigation (Fifteenth Edition, Oxford University Press) 2022, 61.
[123] Lucilla MacGregor Charlotte Peacey Georgina Ridsdale Civil Litigation (Fifteenth Edition, Oxford University Press) 2022, 62 (5.8.1).
[124] Marta Urbane ‘Opportunities and Challenges of Mediation in International Commercial Disputes’ Faculty of European Studies Latvia 292, 297-298 < https://www.apgads.lu.lv/fileadmin/user_upload/lu_portal/apgads/PDF/Konferences/2022/iscflul-8-1/iscflul.8.1.26-urbane.pdf > accessed 6thOctober 2025.
[125] Mediate Legal ‘Our Fees: Commercial Mediation Fees’ Mediate Legal<https://mediatelegal.co.uk/our-fees/#:~:text=Commercial%20Mediation%20Fees&text=MediateLegal%20charge%20our%20fee%20at,1%20full%20day%20mediation%20session. > accessed 16th May 2025.
[126] Jacqueline M Nolan-Haley ‘Court Mediation and the Search for Justice through Law’ (1996) Vol 74 Washington University Law Quarterly 47, 95-97.
[127] Daniel Q Posin ‘Mediating International Business Disputes’ (2004) Vol 9 Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law 449, 467-470 < https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/ctccs/projects/translating-cultures/documents/journals/mediating-international-business-disputes.pdf > accessed 6th October 2025.
[128] Frost v Wake Smith and Tofield Solicitors [2013] EWCA Civ 772.
[129] Harry Perrin ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) – An Overview of Some Common Mechanisms, And Their Strengths and Weaknesses in Context’ (2014) Vol 6 Plymouth Law and Criminal Justice Review 70, 76.
[130] Lucilla MacGregor Charlotte Peacey Georgina Ridsdale Civil Litigation (Fifteenth Edition, Oxford University Press) 2022, 61 (5.6).
[131] Halifax Financial Services v Intuitive Systems Ltd [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 303.
[132] Jacqueline M Nolan-Haley ‘Court Mediation and the Search for Justice through Law’ (1996) Vol 74 Washington University Law Quarterly 47, 90.
[133] Claire Gill ‘Protecting Your Reputation in Commercial Litigation’ Carter Ruck < https://www.carter-ruck.com/insight/protecting-your-reputation-in-commercial-litigation/ > accessed 14th May 2025.
[134] Bruno Deffains, Dominique Demougin, Claudine Desrieux ‘Choosing ADR or Litigation’ [2016] International Review of Law and Economics 33, 34.
[135] Homburg Hutimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (The Starsin) [2003] UKHL 12.
[136] Adam Brown ‘Utilising Procedural Mechanisms’ Simmons & Simmons < https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/features/parallel-proceedings/ck1t3w1rz2c0j0b1998xzicy7/utilising-procedural-mechanisms > accessed 6th October 2025.
[137] Scott Slorach, Judith Embley, Peter Goodchild, Catherine Shephard Legal Systems and Skills (Fourth edition Oxford University Press, 2020) 44.
[138] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 632.
[139] Harsh Verma ‘Confidentiality vs Public Interest in Arbitration’ 10th September 2024 The Legal Quorum < https://thelegalquorum.com/confidentiality-vs-public-interest-in-arbitration/ > accessed 5th October 2025
[140] Claire Gill ‘Protecting Your Reputation in Commercial Litigation’ Carter Ruck < https://www.carter-ruck.com/insight/protecting-your-reputation-in-commercial-litigation/ > accessed 14th May 2025.
[141] Beverley Agbakoba-Onyejianya, Emmanuel Agherario, Chukunonyenim Okoh ‘The Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Environmental and Community Disputes’ 11th March 2025 Olisa Agbakoba Legal < https://oal.law/the-use-of-alternative-dispute-resolution-in-environmental-and-community-disputes/ > accessed 6th October 2025.
[142] Director: Mineral Development, Gauteng v Save the Vaal Environment, 2 All SA 381 (A) 12th March 1992
[142] Part 58 Commercial Court < https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part58 > accessed 6th October 2025.
[143] MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Cottonex Anstalt [2016] EWCA Civ 789.
[144] Min Kyung Kim Comparative Research on the Treatment of Overriding Mandatory Rules of a Third Country (Hart Publishing 2025) pp 96 and 99.
[145] West Tankers v Allianz (C-185/07) [2009] AC 1138.
[146] Pepperdine Law Blog ‘Arbitration v Litigation: Choosing the Right Path’ 4th April 2024 Pepperdine Caruso School of Law < https://law.pepperdine.edu/blog/posts/arbitration-vs-litigation-choosing-the-right-path.htm > accessed 6th October 2025.
[147] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 631.
[148] Hans Smit ‘Confidentiality in Arbitration’ (1995) Vol 11 Arbitration International 337.
[149] Eunice Chua ‘The Singapore Convention on Mediation and the New York Convention on Arbitration: Comparing Enforcement Mechanisms and Drawing Lessons for Asia’ (2020) Vol 16 Asian International Arbitration Journal 113 < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3802242 > accessed 6th October 2025.
[150] Ellen E Deason ‘Combinations of Mediation with Arbitration with the Same Neutral: A Framework for Judicial Review’(2013) Vol 5 Arbitration Law Review 218 < https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1091&context=arbitrationlawreview > accessed 6th October 2025.
[151] Kristen M Blankley ‘Keeping a Secret from Yourself? Confidentiality When the Same Neutral Serves Both As Mediator and as Arbitrator in the Same Case’ < https://litigationethicsconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/SSRN-id1793515.pdf > accessed 6th October 2025.
[152] Weixia Gu ‘Hybrid Dispute Resolution Beyond the Belt and Road: Toward a New Design of Chinese Arb-Med (Arb) and its Global Implications’ (2019) Vol 29 Washington Internation Law Journal < https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1827&context=wilj > accessed 6th October 2025.
[153] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 665.
[154] eBay Inc v Bidder’s Edge Inc 100 F Supp 2d 1058 (ND Cal 2000)
[155] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ‘Online Dispute Resolution’ < https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/onlinedispute > accessed 6th October 2025.
[156] Ethan Katsh and Colin Rule ‘What We Need to Know About Online Dispute Resolution’ (2016) Vol 67 South Carolina Law Review 328 < https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4166&context=sclr&hl=en-US > accessed 6th October 2025.
[157] Pablo Cortez Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the European Union (Routledge Research in IT and E-Commerce Law, 2010) 1.5-1.6 and 5.1-5.4 < https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/181972/1/391038.pdf > accessed 6th October 2025.
[158] International Chamber of Commerce ‘Expedited Procedure Provisions’ ICC < https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/rules-procedure/expedited-procedure/ > accessed 6th October 2025.
[159] London Court of International Arbitration ‘Arbitration Rules 2020, Articles 22.1(x) and 22.1(xi)’ < https://www.lcia.org/Dispute_Resolution_Services/lcia-arbitration-rules-2020.aspx#Article%2022 > accessed 6th October 2025.
[160] SIAC ‘Expedited Procedure – Rule 5’ < https://siac.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/SIAC-Rules-2016-English_28-Feb-2017.pdf > accessed 6th October 2025.
[161] Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (Third edition Kluwer Law International, 2021) Vol I, chapters 5, 15–16.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Cases
Ali Shipping Corp v Shipyard Trogir [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 643
Bunge Corporation v Tradax Export SA [1981] UKHL 11
Courtney and Fairburn Ltd v Toilani Brothers (Hotels) Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 716
E D & F Man Sugar Ltd v Unicargo Transport [2013] EWCA Civ 1449
Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40
Frost v Wake Smith and Tofield Solicitors [2013] EWCA Civ 772
Halifax Financial Services v Intuitive Systems Ltd [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 303
Hassneh Insurance Co of Israel Ltd v Mew [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 3
Homburg Hutimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (The Starsin) [2003] UKHL 12
J & H Ritchie Ltd v Lloyd Ltd [2007] UKHL 9
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Cottonex Anstalt [2016] EWCA Civ 789
Pioneer Shipping Ltd and Others v BTP Tioxide Ltd (The Nema) [1981] 2 All ER 1030
The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process and Industrial Developments Ltd [2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm)
The Jordan II [2004] UKHL 49
Walford v Miles [1992] 1 All ER (Comm) 303
International cases
Alaska Packers v Domenico (117 F. 99, 9th Cir. 1902)
Director: Mineral Development, Gauteng v Save the Vaal Environment, 2 All SA 381 (A) 12th March 1992
eBay Inc v Bidder’s Edge Inc 100 F Supp 2d 1058 (ND Cal 2000)
Indian Organic Chemicals v Chemtex Fibres (1978) 65 A.I.R Bom 108
Jakob Handte & Co GmbH v Traitements Mécano-Chimiques des Surfaces SA (TMCS) (C-26/91) ECR 1992
K Line Pte Ltd v Priminds Shipping HK Co Ltd (Eternal Bliss) [2022] EWCA Civ 1712
Lake Utopia Paper Ltd v Connelly Containers Inc 608 F2d (2dr Cir 1997)
Riverstone Meat Company Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Company Ltd [1961] 1 Lloyds Rep 57
West Tankers v Allianz (C-185/07) [2009] AC 1138
Legislation
Administration of Justice Act 1920
Arbitration Act 1996
Arbitration Act 2025
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992
Sale of Goods Act 1979
International Legislation
HCCH ‘Hague Conference on Private International Law’ HCCH
Hague-Visby Rules
International Chambers of Commerce Rules
Rome I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008)
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)
Secondary Sources
Abrams M ‘UCP 600 and Letters of Credit’ 10th March 2025 Trade Finance Global 2025 Guide < https://www.tradefinanceglobal.com/letters-of-credit/ucp-600/ > accessed 2nd October 2025
Agbakoba-Onyejianya B, Agherario E, Okoh C ‘The Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Environmental and Community Disputes’ 11thMarch 2025 Olisa Agbakoba Legal < https://oal.law/the-use-of-alternative-dispute-resolution-in-environmental-and-community-disputes/ > accessed 6th October 2025
Allen D Foster Bargaining Across Borders – How to Negotiate Business Successfully Anywhere in the World (McGraw-Hill, 1992)
Andrews N H ‘Mediation: International Experience and Global Trends’ (Legal Studies Research Paper Series Paper No 42/2018, University of Cambridge) 2018
Barge I et al ‘Critical Analysis of Forum Shopping in International Commercial Law’ 19th May 2025 Ex Curia International < https://excuriainternational.com/2025/05/19/critical-analysis-of-forum-law-shopping-in-international-commercial-law/#:~:text=Forum%20law%20shopping%20is%2D%20an,of%20the%20legal%20machinery%20itself. > accessed 3rd October 2025
Baird D G and Weisberg R ‘Rules Standards and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of s2-207’ (1982) Vol 68 Virginia Law Review 1217
Blackaby N et al, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (Sixth edition, Oxford University Press 2015)
Blankley K M ‘Keeping a Secret from Yourself? Confidentiality When the Same Neutral Serves Both As Mediator and as Arbitrator in the Same Case’ < https://litigationethicsconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/SSRN-id1793515.pdf > accessed 6th October 2025
Born G, International Commercial Arbitration (Third edition Kluwer Law International, 2021)
Brown A ‘Utilising Procedural Mechanisms’ Simmons & Simmons < https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/features/parallel-proceedings/ck1t3w1rz2c0j0b1998xzicy7/utilising-procedural-mechanisms > accessed 6th October 2025
Bushe D ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution – The Main Options’ July 2015 Gaby Hardwicke Solicitors <https://www.gabyhardwicke.co.uk/briefing-notes-and-faqs/alternative-dispute-resolution-the-main-options/#:~:text=It%20is%20both%20voluntary%20and,their%20side's%20point%20of%20view. > accessed 14th May 2025
Carr I and Stone P International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018)
Carson I ‘Types of Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods: Choosing The Best One For Your Business’ 12th April 2021 Harper James < https://harperjames.co.uk/article/choosing-types-of-alternative-dispute-resolution-adr/ > accessed 16th May 2025
CEDR ‘Am I Required to Sign the Settlement Agreement?’ Center for Effective Dispute Resolution < https://learn.cedr.com/knowledge-base/am-i-required-to-sign-the-settlement-agreement > accessed 5th October 2025
CEDR ‘What if the Other Side Doesn’t Perform Their End of the Settlement?’ Center for Effective Dispute Resolution < https://learn.cedr.com/knowledge-base/what-if-the-other-side-doesnt-perform-their-end-of-the-settlement > accessed 5th October 2025
Chua E ‘The Singapore Convention on Mediation and the New York Convention on Arbitration: Comparing Enforcement Mechanisms and Drawing Lessons for Asia’ (2020) Vol 16 Asian International Arbitration Journal 113 < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3802242 > accessed 6th October 2025
Collins L et al (eds), Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws (Fourteenth edition, Sweet & Maxwell 2006)
Cortez P Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the European Union (Routledge Research in IT and E-Commerce Law, 2010) <https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/181972/1/391038.pdf > accessed 6th October 2025
Cuniberti G Rethinking International Commercial Arbitration Towards Default Arbitration (Edward Elgar, 2017)
Deason E E ‘Combinations of Mediation with Arbitration with the Same Neutral: A Framework for Judicial Review’(2013) Vol 5 Arbitration Law Review 218 < https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1091&context=arbitrationlawreview > accessed 6th October 2025
Deffains B, Demougin D, Desrieux C ‘Choosing ADR or Litigation’ [2016] International Review of Law and Economics 33
Edwards M ‘Mediation in International and Commercial Disputes: Benefits and Challenges’ Michael Edwards < https://michaeledwards.uk/mediation-in-international-commercial-disputes-benefits-and-challenges/ accessed 6th October 2025
Edwards D and Volz A ‘Why International Contracts Still Point to London’ Simpson Thacher Publications in The Law Society Gazette p 28 < https://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=2aa61c48-9a66-48a6-85ff-8eae3d88faba > accessed 3rd October 2025
Ferrari F ‘Forum Shopping: A Plea for A Broad and Value-Neutral Definition’ (2014) New York University School of Law: Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series Working Paper No 14-39 < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2474181 > accessed 2nd October 2025
Fontes L ‘London is the World’s Top Location for International Arbitration, Research Reveals’ 1st May 2025 Legal Cheek < https://www.legalcheek.com/2025/05/london-is-the-worlds-top-location-for-international-arbitration-research-reveals/ > accessed 3rd October 2025
Gill C ‘Protecting Your Reputation in Commercial Litigation’ Carter Ruck < https://www.carter-ruck.com/insight/protecting-your-reputation-in-commercial-litigation/ > accessed 14th May 2025
Girvin S Carriage of Goods by Sea (Third edition, Oxford University Press) 2022
Gu W ‘Hybrid Dispute Resolution Beyond the Belt and Road: Toward a New Design of Chinese Arb-Med (Arb) and its Global Implications’ (2019) Vol 29 Washington Internation Law Journal < https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1827&context=wilj > accessed 6th October 2025
Hall A ‘Enforcing ADR Clauses in International Business Contracts’ Aaron Hall Attorney < https://aaronhall.com/enforcing-adr-clauses-in-international-business-contracts/ > accessed 5th October 2025
Hassan N and Wheeler T ‘Securing London’s Status as A World Leading Arbitral Seat: The Arbitration Act 2025’ June 2025 Beale & Co < https://beale-law.com/article/securing-londons-status-as-a-world-leading-arbitral-seat-the-arbitration-act-2025/ > accessed 3rd October 2025
Hoftede G Cultural Consequences (SAGE Publications, 1984)
ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics 2023 < https://iccwbo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/06/2023-Statistics_ICC_Dispute-Resolution_991.pdf > accessed 29th September 2025
ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics 2024 < https://iccwbo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/06/2024-Statistics_ICC_Dispute-Resolution.pdf > accessed 29th September 2025
International Chamber of Commerce < https://iccwbo.org > accessed 29th September 2025
International Chamber of Commerce < https://iccwbo.org > accessed 29th September 2025
International Chambers of Commerce ‘Arbitration Costs and Fees 2025’ ICC < https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/costs-and-payment/ > accessed 5th October 2025
International Chamber of Commerce ‘ADR Rules 2001, Article 9 Confidentiality’ < https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-services/adr/mediation/mediation-rules/ > accessed 5th October 2025
International Chamber of Commerce ‘Expedited Procedure Provisions’ ICC < https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/rules-procedure/expedited-procedure/ > accessed 6th October 2025
International Chambers of Commerce ‘Incoterms 2020’ ICC < https://iccwbo.org/business-solutions/incoterms-rules/incoterms-2020/ > accessed 2nd October 2025
International Trade Council ‘Arbitration versus Mediation in International Trade Disputes’ (2023) International Trade Council < https://tradecouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/arbitration-vs-mediation.pdf > accessed 3rd October 2025
Irdi B ‘Geopolitical Analysis Can – and Should – Affect Legal Risk Review’ 26th February 2024 Bloomberg Law < https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/geopolitical-analysis-can-and-should-affect-legal-risk-review > accessed 14th September 2025
Katsh E and Rule C ‘What We Need to Know About Online Dispute Resolution’ (2016) Vol 67 South Carolina Law Review 328 < https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4166&context=sclr&hl=en-US > accessed 6th October 2025
Kyung Kim M Comparative Research on the Treatment of Overriding Mandatory Rules of a Third Country (Hart Publishing 2025)
Lalthasangzeli R and Banerjee J ‘Comprehensive Study on the Evolving Role of Mediation in Resolving Cross Border Commercial Disputes’ (2025) Vol 4 International Journal of Human Rights Law Review 554 < https://humanrightlawreview.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Comprehensive-Study-on-the-Evolving-Role-of-Mediation-in-Resolving-Cross-Border-Commercial-Disputes.pdf > accessed 5th October 2025
Leaver S ‘Effective Approaches to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Five Key Pointers for Success’ 23rd July 2025 Howes Percival < https://www.howespercival.com/effective-approaches-to-alternative-dispute-resolution-adr-five-key-pointers-for-success/ > accessed 5th October 2025
Lee J ‘Long-Term Relationship Over Litigation: Mediation in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings’ (2025) Vol 24 World Trade Review 50
Lominack R W ‘Examining Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Business Domain’ (2003) Vol 1 South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business 18
London Court of International Arbitration < https://www.lcia.org > accessed 29th September 2025
London Court of International Arbitration ‘Arbitration Rules 2020, Articles 22.1(x) and 22.1(xi)’ < https://www.lcia.org/Dispute_Resolution_Services/lcia-arbitration-rules-2020.aspx#Article%2022 > accessed 6th October 2025
London Court of International Arbitration ‘Schedule of Arbitration Costs 2023’ LCIA < https://www.lcia.org/dispute_resolution_services/schedule-of-arbitration-costs-2023.aspx > accessed 5th October 2025
MacGregor L, Peacey C, Ridsdale G Civil Litigation (Fifteenth Edition, Oxford University Press) 2022
Mediate Legal ‘Our Fees: Commercial Mediation Fees’ Mediate Legal<https://mediatelegal.co.uk/our-fees/#:~:text=Commercial%20Mediation%20Fees&text=MediateLegal%20charge%20our%20fee%20at,1%20full%20day%20mediation%20session. > accessed 16th May 2025
Menkel-Meadow C ‘The History and Development of “A”DR (alternative/appropriate dispute resolution)’ 1st July 2016 Volkerrechtsblog – International Law and International Legal Thought <https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/the-history-and-development-of-a-dr-alternativeappropriate-dispute-resolution/ > accessed 14th May 2025
Mskhvilidze T ‘The Legal Nature of Forum Shopping in International Civil Procedure Law’ (2023) Vol 9 Law and World
Nolan-Haley J M ‘Court Mediation and the Search for Justice through Law’ (1996) Vol 74 Washington University Law Quarterly 47
Parsons J ‘Don’t Be A Midnight Cowboy: Avoiding Common Pitfalls When Drafting and Negotiating Arbitration Clauses’ 1st November 2018 Thomson Reuters < http://arbitrationblog.practicallaw.com/dont-be-a-midnight-cowboy-avoiding-common-pitfalls-when-drafting-and-negotiating-arbitration-clauses/ > accessed 13th May 2025
Part 58 Commercial Court < https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part58 > accessed 6th October 2025
Pepperdine Law Blog ‘Arbitration v Litigation: Choosing the Right Path’ 4th April 2024 Pepperdine Caruso School of Law < https://law.pepperdine.edu/blog/posts/arbitration-vs-litigation-choosing-the-right-path.htm > accessed 6th October 2025
Perrin H ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) – An Overview of Some Common Mechanisms, And Their Strengths and Weaknesses in Context’ (2014) Vol 6 Plymouth Law and Criminal Justice Review 70
Posin D Q ‘Mediating International Business Disputes’ (2004) Vol 9 Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law 449, 467-470 < https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/ctccs/projects/translating-cultures/documents/journals/mediating-international-business-disputes.pdf > accessed 6th October 2025
RICS ‘Your Essential Guide to Alternative Dispute Resolutions’ RICS < https://www.rics.org/dispute-resolution-service/alternative-dispute-resolution > accessed 14th May 2025
Samuel C et al ‘Implied Jurisdiction Agreements in International Commercial Contracts: A Global Comparative Perspective’ (2023) Vol 19 Journal of Private International Law 321
Savage C A ‘Culture and Mediation: A Red Herring’ [1996] Journal of Gender and the Law 269
< https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1239&context=jgspl > accessed 6th October 2025
Singapore Convention on Mediation < https://www.singaporeconvention.org > 29th September 2025
Singapore International Arbitration Center < https://siac.org.sg/about-us > accessed 29th September 2025
Singapore International Arbitration Center ‘Expedited Procedure – Rule 5’ < https://siac.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/SIAC-Rules-2016-English_28-Feb-2017.pdf > accessed 6th October 2025
Slorach S, Embley J, Goodchild P, Shephard C Legal Systems and Skills (Fourth edition Oxford University Press, 2020)
Smit H ‘Confidentiality in Arbitration’ (1995) Vol 11 Arbitration International 337
Stebbing H and Furse I ‘West Tankers Stays on Course in Recent Anti-Suit Decision’ December 2018 Norton Rose Fulbright < https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/88cad768/west-tankers-stays-on-course-in-recent-anti-suit-decision > accessed 6th October 2025
Stephen Girvin Carriage of Goods by Sea (Third edition, Oxford University Press) 2022
Strong S I ‘Beyond International Commercial Arbitration? The Promise of International Commercial Mediation’ (2014) Vol 45 Journal of Law and Policy 11
Symeon C Symeonides Codifying Choice of Law Around the World: An International Comparative Analysis (Oxford University Press 2017)
Symeon Symeonides ‘Party Autonomy in International Contracts and the Multiple Ways of Slicing the Apple’ (2013) Vol 39 Brooklyn Journal of International Law
Tackaberry (ed), International Commercial Arbitration for Today and Tomorrow 1991 Euro Conferences
Thomas D R ‘Laytime and Demurrage – Contractual Concepts in a State of Flux’ (2014) Vol 20 The Journal of International Maritime Law 183
United Nations on Conventions on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna 11 April 1980) (CISG)
UNITED NATIONS COMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW ‘UNCITRAL, HCCH and UNIDROIT Legal Guide to Uniform Instruments in the Area of International Commercial Contracts, with a Focus on Sales
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ‘Online Dispute Resolution’ <https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/onlinedispute > accessed 6th October 2025
United Nations on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 10 June 1958) < https://www.newyorkconvention.org/english > accessed 29th September 2025
Urbane M ‘Opportunities and Challenges of Mediation in International Commercial Disputes’ Faculty of European Studies Latvia 292 < https://www.apgads.lu.lv/fileadmin/user_upload/lu_portal/apgads/PDF/Konferences/2022/iscflul-8-1/iscflul.8.1.26-urbane.pdf > accessed 6thOctober 2025
Verma H ‘Confidentiality vs Public Interest in Arbitration’ 10th September 2024 The Legal Quorum < https://thelegalquorum.com/confidentiality-vs-public-interest-in-arbitration/ > accessed 5th October 2025
Vihervaara A ‘The Validity and Relevance of a Jurisdictional Clause in a Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Sea’ (Master’s Thesis, University of Helsinki 2019)
Weiner M E P ‘Where to Litigation? Litigation and Arbitration Compared as Modern Commercial Dispute Resolution Measures’ [2019] Heidelberger OJS Journals 1
Westlaw ‘Jakob Handte & Co GmbH v Traitements Mécano-Chimiques des Surfaces SA (TMCS) (C-26/91) ECR 1992 page I-03967’ Thomson Reuters Westlaw Edge UK paras 14 to 17 <https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I5763297C72E745D6B5BD00F23BDD2467/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) > accessed 6th October 2025
