Globalization
continues to flourish through international trade and interconnected economies,
despite the rise of economic nationalism. Even as trends like onshoring gain
traction, the importance of global trade and effective dispute resolution
remains unchanged. Businesses still demand swift, cost-effective, and
enforceable outcomes, which is where International Commercial Courts (ICCs)
play a role. These courts fall into three categories: Global (e.g., Singapore’s
SICC), National (e.g., China’s CICC), and Hybrid (e.g., those in Gulf financial
zones), each focused on supporting cross-border commerce in distinct ways.
Though arbitration is largely insulated from judicial intervention, it still
depends on court cooperation for enforcement. Arbitration enjoys strong support
in commercial hubs, where judicial interference is typically limited to extreme
cases. However, systemic challenges persist, including the lack of uniform
ethical standards and effective enforceability mechanisms for professional
lapses. While ICCs prioritize transparency and discharge public functions,
arbitration remains a private process that benefits only the involved parties,
with no authoritative public case law generated. Both systems share a common
goal of providing effective justice, aligned with commercial norms, but they
offer complementary advantages that support global trade. This dual approach
allows businesses to choose between public judicial mechanisms and the
confidentiality and flexibility of private arbitration. Arbitration’s unique
strengths – confidentiality, procedural adaptability, expert arbitrators, and
broad enforceability under the New York Convention, which is recognized by 172
countries – make it unlikely to be replaced by commercial courts. Arbitration
awards are often easier to enforce than court judgments, which can face
significant hurdles. Additionally, the neutrality of arbitration addresses
concerns about bias in national courts, reinforcing its status as the preferred
method for resolving international commercial disputes. While ICCs strive for
similar neutrality, they have yet to match arbitration’s global enforceability,
unless conventions like the Hague Judgments Convention gain broader adoption.
Arbitration processes and ICCs complement each other but do not directly engage
each other on the prevailing creases. To iron this out, the establishment of a
forum where arbitrators and judges collaborate could drive innovation in
cross-border disputes, enhance the synergy between arbitration and judicial
systems, and strengthen global commerce