International Commercial Arbitration in Net Era

mmon litigation, the arbitration should be finality. Both parties should enforce the award once it be issued. Also the fee for international arbitration usually is cheaper than international litigation. In fact the international arbitration institutions are playing more and more important roles in the solving the international disputes. The international arbitration institutions also try their best to modify their own rules to catch more shares. With the development of the Asia-Pacific economy, more and more international commerce dispute arise. Since 1994, the Hong Kong international Arbitration centre (HKIAC) and the China international economic Trade and Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) together have processed approximately 1000 new cases a year, with the vast majority being disputes between foreign parties. In 1991, Singapore established the Singapore international arbitration Centre. To compete for a greater share of the international arbitration SIAC prints its communications and awards in both Chinese and English, what?s more it adopted the international arbitration act (IAA), which is based on the 1985 Model law on international commercial arbitration published by the united nations commission on international trade law. From the above introduction, we can find out that the international arbitration play the important role in the international business and every international commercial arbitrational institution try its best to develop its share in the international arbitration, but the way seems almost the same. They always pay attention to the parties?autonomy. They continuously modify the rules for arbitration so as to give the more choice to the parties to decide. To some degree, the measure took some effect. But there are not some inherent changes. It is well known the party autonomy is the basic advantage for the arbitration. So if one institution wants to increase its share in the international arbitration, it has to find out the existing real disadvantages and overcome them. As mentioned above, arbitration has so many advantages comparing with the litigation. But it still has very serious shortcomings, and the well-known main shortcomings are expense and delay. Especially, with the rapid development of digital technology, the procedure of international commercial arbitration seems obsolete. Mr. Justice Lander?s ever stated: the arbitration process has been perceived ?as having similar shortcomings to the litigation process. The perception is that the procedures in arbitration are not much less cumbersome than the procedures in the litigation process. Arbitration is still slow and inconvenient. Arbitration proceedings often take years. Although it may be short than the litigation, it is too long for the rapid development of new digital technology society. If it deals with the hi-tech case, arbitration will become unsatisfactory procedure. Paul D. Carrington ever stated: a few years ago, he met a law-bridge.net/english/ target=_blank>lawyer from San Francisco who had made twenty-four trips to Asia to participate in the resolution of a single dispute. He reported that the arbitrators who would listen to one witness a week. The witness came from diverse places in Asia and North American. Although this case is a very extreme example, it reflects the reality in some sense. The parties of arbitration live in different countries, the arbitration institution is located in another country, and maybe the arbitrators live in other countries. All of them have to meet in certain place at certain time, but it maybe need a long time to meet together. For instance, if one party is in China, the other party is in Brazil; the arbitrators live in Australia, Russia and the United States. The parties select the arbitration committee in Stockholm, maybe Chinese party needs very long time to get the visa, and Brazil Party is the same. Thus, all of them need spend a long time to start hearing and it is obvious