International commercial arbitration between traders of different countries has long been recognized by the business community and the legal profession as a suitable means of settling trade controversies out of court. The procedure in international commercial arbitration is basically the same as in domestic arbitration. In the mid-1960s, in order to establish more uniformity in procedure and to make access to arbitration facilities more easily available, the United Nations economic commissions published new rules applying to international arbitration for Europe and Asia.

The development of international commercial arbitration was furthered by uniform arbitration legislation prepared by the UN Conference on International Commercial Arbitration in 1958 and by the Council of Europe and the Inter-American Juridical Committee of the Organization of American States. One particularly difficult problem of international commercial arbitration is the enforcement of awards in a country other than the one in which they were rendered. Statutory municipal laws usually do not contain provisions for the enforcement of foreign awards, and parties are faced with uncertainty about the law and practice of enforcement procedure in a country other than their own.

International agreements facilitate the enforcement of foreign awards to the extent that no further action is necessary in the country in which the award was rendered; the opposing debtor must establish that the award has been set aside or that its effects have been suspended by a competent authority, which thus shifts the burden of proof of the nonbinding character of the award to the losing party. Further development of international commercial arbitration has been encouraged by the UN Commission on International Trade Law, which aims at promoting the harmonization and unification of laws in the field of international commercial arbitration.

Arbitration of rights

Arbitration of rights under the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement is employed in the United States far more frequently than in most other countries. Outside the United States, labour courts, industrial courts, or conciliation and arbitration commissions perform the function of arbitrating rights. These bodies usually are appointed by the government, and recourse to them is frequently compulsory.

More than 90 percent of the collective-bargaining agreements in the United States provide for arbitration as a last step in the grievance procedure. For example, employees, through their union, may present for arbitration complaints concerning such matters as discipline, discharge, and violations of working conditions. Other issues frequently submitted to arbitration customarily concern premium payments and incentive rates, overtime and vacations, holiday bonuses, seniority rights, and fringe benefits, such as pension and welfare plans.

The arbitrator’s decision must be based on the collective-bargaining agreement, which provides for the application of an existing contract to the grievance presented. The arbitrator, not the court, usually is responsible for determining whether the various steps in the grievance procedure have been complied with before the initiation of the arbitration process. However, the question of whether the disputed issue is covered by the collective-bargaining agreement is determined by a court and not by the arbitrator. In the United States, this authority of the courts was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1960.

The choice of arbitrator is made either by naming him in the agreement or, more often, by leaving the choice open until a dispute has arisen. Frequently, only a single arbitrator is appointed—usually an expert in the field of industrial relations. Alternatively, tripartite arbitration boards can be established, with each party appointing its own arbitrator, who acts somewhat as an advocate. A neutral chairman is selected either by the parties or by the two party-appointed arbitrators.

A further technique of arbitration of rights is the appointment of a single permanent arbitrator to resolve disputes for the duration of the collective-bargaining agreement. This type of arbitrator is intimately acquainted with the various economic, financial, and other aspects of the particular industry and is familiar with the past relationship between management and union. This permanent system originated in the United States in the anthracite-coal industry at the beginning of the 20th century and has been employed in other industries (e.g., newspaper publishing and clothing).

Labour arbitrators render binding decisions and are not bound by strict rules of court procedure, especially as regards burden of proof and the presentation of evidence. Arbitrators have the power to subpoena persons and written evidence. They tend to evaluate factual evidence rather freely and often reduce penalties imposed upon employees by the management for breach of the labour contract. In order to establish precedents in the operation of the plant, even minor questions, such as the use of company time by employees for breaks, are submitted to arbitration. However, arbitrators generally are not bound to follow previous decisions. Decisions of labour arbitrators are seldom reviewed by the courts, as awards are usually fully complied with by both parties.

Arbitration of interests

Arbitration of the terms of a new contract, referred to as arbitration of interests, may be instituted if management and the labour union are unable to agree on a new contract. However, in most countries, management and union are seldom inclined to resort to lockouts and strikes in an attempt to obtain favourable new contracts, and interest arbitration is thus rarely used.

Compulsory arbitration, directed by legislative fiat, has been a controversial issue in the settlement of industrial disputes. It has been favoured in disputes in the transportation industry, which may involve great public inconvenience, and in disputes in the public-utilities sector when an immediate danger to public health and safety might occur. Compulsory arbitration has been declared unconstitutional in some states of the United States, though it has been adopted as a regular procedure for the settlement of disputes with municipal employees in some U.S. cities.