The Lost Precedents of Arbitration

Abstract

Concerns have been expressed that commercial common law is not developing as it should due to disputes being resolved by confidential international commercial arbitration where the majority of awards are not published, and the resultant lack of precedents. This has contributed to questions of the legitimacy of international commercial arbitration and whether the rule of law is being undermined by the non-publication of awards or by the diversion of disputes to arbitration rather than litigation. This article examines the meaning of precedents in this context and the approximate number being ‘lost’ to international commercial arbitration compared to those made in authoritative common law superior courts of record. It suggests that the number of awards of precedential value (APV) is small compared to the volume of commercial judgments of those courts, and that the perceived loss of precedents does not support either publication of awards nor determination of disputes by courts rather than by tribunals. Precedent might instead be enhanced by a wider right of appeal from awards and by publication of the appeal decisions. precedent, precedential value, award publication, arbitration appeals, law development, settlement pressures, litigation vs arbitration, court reporting, Lindley principles, rule of law