Search

Many international arbitration institutions have reformed their Rules within the last five years, including the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR (2009)), Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (CC (2010)), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC (2012)), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC (2013)), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC (2013)) and now the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA (2014)).The LCIA's reform of its Rules appears to be part of an increasing convergence of the procedures of international arbitration institutions. This is particularly apparent in three aspects of the new LCIA Rules: the new availability of emergency arbitrators; the inclusion of consolidation provisions and rules on the treatment of third parties generally; and the imposition of 'soft' ethical standards on arbitrators, experts and legal representatives. This article examines this phenomenon of convergence among arbitration institutions, and assesses its desirability. Are these second generation reforms to institutional rules similar because they are addressing common user concerns and general teething problems with earlier rules? Or are other influences pushing arbitral institutions towards conformity in their procedures? This article analyses empirical data concerning the extent to which choice and flexibility in procedures are desired by users of arbitration. In light of this data, we consider the extent to which the LCIA rule reforms and other institutional rule reforms are catering to user preference and how this might be improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]