'India must be seen as arbitration-friendly'

laudia Salomon is the President of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC Court), the first woman in this role in its 100-year history. She spoke to The Statesman during a recent visit to India.

Q: As President of the International Court of Arbitration, I understand you havevisited India often and metvarious stakeholders. How evolved, in your view, is the practice of arbitration in India? What steps would you advise policymakers and litigants to take in order to make arbitration the preferred mode of dispute resolution?

A: Parties in India increasingly use arbitration to resolve their commercial disputes, both for domestic and international contracts. Historically, however, Indian parties have opted for ad hoc arbitration, rather than institutional arbitration, resulting in a dispute resolution process that is frequently inefficient, with lengthy delays and costs that are not commensurate with the amounts in dispute. In ad hoc arbitration, a party can easily slow the proceedings by, for example, refusing to agree on the appointment of a particular arbitrator, forcing a court to make the appointment.

In my experience, dispute resolution works best when parties choose institutional arbitration as it is the most cost-effective means of resolving a dispute.

Q: Singapore has recently announced that disputes between neighbours must be referred to mediation. Do you believe some disputes must mandatorily be referred to mediation? If so, what may they be?

A: Courts around the world have been mandating mediation for various types of disputes, as a way to address a growing backlog of cases. Mediation can help the parties understand each other's positions and interests and consider a broader range of possible approaches to find a mutually acceptable resolution. However, an underlying principle of mediation is that the decision to resolve the dispute is entirely voluntary.