- 03-Nov-2025
- public international law
Although international arbitration has become a popular and preferred method for resolving cross-border disputes, it is not without its drawbacks. While it offers numerous advantages, such as neutrality and enforceability of awards, there are certain limitations that parties need to be aware of before choosing it as a dispute resolution mechanism. High costs, procedural complexities, limited options for appeals, and challenges related to enforcement can sometimes outweigh its benefits.
International arbitration can be expensive due to several factors, including arbitrator fees, administrative costs, legal counsel, and venue costs. Large, complex cases involving multiple parties and experts can drive up the overall expense of arbitration.
The costs can be prohibitive, particularly for smaller businesses or individuals with limited resources. The financial burden might make arbitration less accessible for some parties, even though it is often perceived as a cost-effective alternative to litigation.
One of the defining features of arbitration is that its awards are generally final and binding. While this brings efficiency, it also means that there are very limited grounds for appealing an arbitral award—usually only for procedural errors, such as a violation of due process, or on public policy grounds.
The lack of an effective appeal process can be a disadvantage if one party believes the arbitral tribunal made a serious mistake in its decision. In traditional court systems, there is a possibility to appeal to higher courts, which is not available in arbitration (except in limited cases).
While international arbitral awards are generally enforceable across borders under the New York Convention (1958), enforcement can still be problematic in certain jurisdictions. Some countries may refuse to enforce an arbitral award if they believe it violates public policy or if the country is not a signatory to the New York Convention.
This means that even though an award may be granted, it may not be effectively enforced in some regions, leading to a situation where the winning party is unable to collect on the award. This is particularly concerning in countries with unstable legal systems or where corruption is prevalent.
While international arbitration is generally faster than litigation, the process can still be quite time-consuming, especially in complex or large-scale cases. The selection of arbitrators, the gathering of evidence, and the conduct of hearings can take several months, or even years, depending on the complexity of the dispute.
The delay in reaching a final award can lead to frustration and disrupt the operations of the parties involved. In some cases, the delay can even make the arbitration process seem inefficient, especially if the issue at hand is urgent or time-sensitive.
While the confidentiality of international arbitration is generally seen as an advantage, it can also lead to a lack of transparency. The parties involved, and sometimes even the public, are not privy to the details of the dispute or the reasoning behind the arbitral decision.
The lack of transparency can create doubts about the fairness of the process, particularly when parties feel that there may be inconsistent decisions or a lack of accountability. Additionally, the absence of public reasoning can hinder the development of legal principles and the clarification of complex legal issues.
In some international arbitration cases, there may be an imbalance in the bargaining power between the parties. For example, a large corporation with significant resources may have an advantage over a smaller company or individual.
The arbitration process, while theoretically neutral, may be skewed in favor of the party with more resources or more experience in arbitration. This can lead to concerns about the fairness of the process, especially if one party is unable to afford top-tier legal representation or the costs associated with arbitration.
While the flexibility of international arbitration is often an advantage, it can also be a disadvantage in certain situations. Unlike national courts, which operate under established legal procedures, international arbitration may lack uniformity in procedural rules and can vary significantly depending on the arbitrators or arbitration institution.
The absence of a consistent set of rules can result in unpredictability in how cases are handled, which can be frustrating for parties who prefer more structure and certainty. It can also lead to delays or confusion over procedural issues, which can complicate the process.
Because arbitration is often seen as the go-to method for resolving international disputes, some businesses or countries may over-rely on it without fully understanding its limitations or the potential costs involved. The process may not always be suitable for all types of disputes.
Over-reliance on arbitration can result in disputes being settled in a way that may not be the most beneficial or cost-effective for the parties involved. In some cases, alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation or negotiation, may offer better outcomes.
Selecting the right arbitrator or arbitral tribunal is critical in ensuring a fair and efficient process. However, finding impartial and qualified arbitrators, especially in specialized fields, can be difficult. Sometimes, there may be a perception of bias, even if there is none.
If one party perceives that the arbitrator is biased or lacks the necessary expertise, it could undermine confidence in the process and lead to dissatisfaction with the outcome. Additionally, the selection process can be time-consuming and may increase costs.
Arbitration tribunals may not always consider broader public policy concerns in the same way that national courts do. This is because arbitration is often focused on resolving the specific dispute between the parties, without addressing larger societal interests.
In some cases, this can lead to results that may conflict with public policy, consumer protections, or broader legal principles. The lack of an avenue to review the public policy implications of an arbitral decision can be seen as a drawback.
In the well-known case between Yukos Oil and the Russian Federation, international arbitration was used to resolve a massive dispute over the nationalization of Yukos assets. While the arbitration tribunal awarded Yukos $50 billion in damages, the Russian Federation refused to comply with the award, arguing that it violated national sovereignty and public policy.
Despite the international award, enforcement proved difficult in Russia, as the country did not recognize the tribunal's authority, citing national interests.
Both sides incurred significant legal and procedural costs, and the length of the arbitration process added to the expense.
There were few options for Yukos to challenge the decision, despite concerns over the fairness of the award.
While international arbitration offers a range of benefits, including neutrality and enforceability, it also presents several drawbacks, such as high costs, limited appeals, enforcement challenges, and procedural complexities. Parties engaging in international arbitration must carefully weigh these disadvantages against the potential benefits to determine if it is the right mechanism for their dispute.
Answer By Law4u Team
Discover clear and detailed answers to common questions about public international law. Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.
