Understanding the International Arbitration Law (Case Study Sample)

International Arbitration Law
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
International Arbitration Law
Scenario 1
Consolidation of disputes is a procedural approach that allows for two or more claims to be combined in one procedure that concerns the related disputes and parties. In this scenario, all the parties involved must first express their consent to consolidate arbitrations according to the case in Stolt-Nielsen S.A V. AnimalFeeds International Corp, U.S. (2010) CITATION Sto10 \l 1033 (Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds International, 2010). Besides, when looking into the arbitration contract, it did not grant the authority for the concerned panel to consolidate the arbitrations. According to Ohio Law (R.C.2712.52), there must be a proof of undisputed consent to consolidate arbitrations as well as the petition that the court fills to have separate arbitration claims CITATION CHA10 \l 1033 (CHAMPION CHRYSLER v. DIMENSION SERVICE, 2010). Hence, the court handles the consolidation question.
Moreover, Feldman’s and Digger can present their arguments concerning WOC’s application to consolidate the arbitrations by focusing on the lack of efficiency that the process may subject them to. For instance, application of associated costs and arbitration fees which might inconvenience them, non-included in the appetent of the arbitral tribunal, lack of their consent and potential infringements of their rights in some way. An individual disputant, in this case, Feldman or Digger, would acquire a more efficient arbitration if handle as a single case CITATION Hal18 \l 1033 (Haller & Keilmann, 2018). Unlike a consolidation arbitration that would involve indirect claims in which its determination would take longer and might be more expensive. A bilateral dispute resolution would be less expensive because it involves one respondent and one claimant. Additional issues include the timing of such consolidation, the possibility of duplication the evidence that is submitted already and dismissed arbitrators being compensated.
Feldman and Digger must advocate for impartial decision-makers to attain affair result in their arbitration processes. The parties may challenge arbitraries if there exist circumstances that justify doubts about their independence CITATION Kan16 \l 1033 (Kang, 2016). Besides, the parties of the disputes had many contracts and each party has its provision for arbitration, different venue and relevant aspects of arbitration. In this scenario, the arbitration clause in Feldman is different to the arbitration clause in the Digger. Hence, lack of agreement in the arbitration of similar disputes, conveniences and potential efficiencies to consolidate arbitrations would weight more in making a proper adjudication thus making WOC’s application indeterminate.
Scenario 2
When a party nominates an arbitrator, the contract becomes valid because there is no challenge raised against the arbitrator and the contract is signed. Besides, the important question is that if the arbitrator appointed would offer a fair-minded and informed observations based on reasonable apprehension and lack of objectivity. Article 12 on the Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal states at the number of arbitrators should either be one or three arbitrators in solving disputes CITATION Par172 \l 1033 (Parra, 2017). If parties agree on a number of arbitrators, the court appoints one arbitrator. this implies that the claimants nominate an arbitrator within a 15-day period, from the day in which the court made the decision and notified the parties. The respondent, in this case WOC has to nominate an arbitrator within the similar time frame. The court appoints an arbitrator in case a party fails to nominate an arbitrator within the time specified.
Besides, if Feldman and Digger had agreed on a sole arbitrator, they would not have selected Ms. Stockamore and Mr. Reich. In agreement, they would have nominated a single arbitrator for confirmation. The court on the other hand can appoint an arbitrator to represent both parties if the parties fail to nominate an arbitrator for a period of 30 days from the date that the request for arbitration by the claimant has been issued and the party had received such request. The secretariat will also add some time for the parties to agree on the arbitrator to be nominated for their arbitration.
Furtherm