How To Deal With Potential Disputes (Essay Sample)

Introduction
Expansion of company operations benefits the management; however, it further exposes the institutions to potential disputes. On that note, a change of the market structure by Mighty Armour Limited Company means more potential conflicts that are different and complex than challenges experienced in the United Kingdom’s local market. Notably, arbitration is a possible approach to solving disputes within the international market as it allows both parties to solve their issues privately without going to court. The company can capitalize on arbitrary proceedings and enjoy the benefits that arbitration holds over the litigation process. Some approaches toward conflict resolution are more suitable than others. However, the choice of the most suitable approach to solving disputes depends on all parties' specific needs and expectations. Furthermore, conflicting parties choose the preferred approach based on trust and the associated efficiency.[Saghir Z and Nyombi C, ‘Delocalisation in International Commercial Arbitration: A Theory in need of Practical Application.']
How to Deal With Potential Disputes
Mighty Armour limited can employ various approaches to address grievances arising from business expansion, legal procedures, or societal disputes. They include the conciliation process, dispute resolution, mediation, and constructive negotiation. The UK Supreme Court case involving Shell Company and individuals in Nigeria is an example of sample disputes that meet companies at the international operation level. Necessary negotiations can enable the company to handle less sensitive disputes, while arbitration is compelling in more significant grievances such as legal rights. Businesses need elaborate dispute resolution mechanisms for every contract they pursue, especially in international trade, as it involves numerous and complex legal procedures. Litigation is also a practical approach to solving international disputes and involves the disputing parties solving their differences in a court of law. Some cases, such as the lawful act of economic duress, often force companies to seek litigation mechanisms. In 2021, Times Travel of the UK presented a case that involved parties threatening to use available contracts to cause economic harm to other companies. Due to the tight court schedule, the complicated litigation process can take longer than other means, such as arbitration. If parties cannot agree about the best and most justifiable outcome in particular grievances, they present specific cases to a court of law for judgment. For instance, the UK Supreme Court commenced the year 2021 in the business interruption test case that was with respect to business challenges brought by the global outbreak of COVID-19. Most scholars describe litigation as a lengthy and often complex process that enables companies to solve different types of disputes. The legal procedure rules mainly guide litigation approaches to conflict resolution and inform all stages of the formal process. These rules specify the best forms of solving disputes and the obligation and rights of parties in litigation. Litigation is a potential approach to solving disputes as the governing regulations enable both parties to narrow their issues in the conflict. Conciliation is an alternative dispute resolution that enables conflicting parties to solve certain matters out of court. A conciliator acts as the neutral third party and helps the conflicting sides reach a neutral ground. Unlike a mediator, a conciliator can provide the parties with a non-binding decision proposal at certain stages of the conciliation process. Conciliation is a voluntary mechanism that parties must agree to use this approach in conflict resolution. The parties reserve the final decision to accept or reject the settlement of a particular dispute.[Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 US 108, 133 S. Ct. 1659, 185 L. Ed. 2d 671 (2013).] [Berger KP, ‘Common Law v. Civil Law in International Arbitration: The Beginning or the End?’ 295.] [Pakistan International Airline Corporation (Respondent) v Times Travel (UK) Ltd (Appellant).] [FCA test case (FCA v Arch [2020] EWHC Comm 2448, [2021] UKSC 1) ]
Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
Mighty Armour limited company can pursue arbitration as the best alternative for solving disputes in the international market. It involves an interaction where both parties agree to submit a dispute to one or more independent entity that generates the ultimate solution to the problem. This method provides an alternative to presenting conflicts in a court of law. Moreover, arbitration allows international companies to solve their disputes privately so that they do not damage the public's general perception of the company. Research indicates that the arbitration method allows disputing parties to enjoy more control over the process. Both parties must accept to submit the disputes to arbitrators of their choice in an arbitrary proceeding. The strategy aims at providing a final and binding demonstration of the rights and roles of both parties in conflict resolution. Ideally, the mechanism of solving international company disputes allows investors and brokers or two parties of the latter to get a binding decision. The Financial Industry Regulation Authority is the regulatory body that oversees this process as it makes the final and binding resolutions on behalf of the disputing companies. The arbitration process allows companies to allow a third party to handle their legal concerns at the international level. This process, therefore, assures companies that dispute resolution processes at the international level are fair and that their rights and obligations in the resolution process prevail. Arbitration is a process that engages companies in a written agreement to solve a specific dispute by introducing a third party of their choice. This process, therefore, suits Mighty Armour Company as it pursues different legal matters following the expansion of operations to the international level.[Arcuri A, 'The Great Asymmetry and the Rule of Law in International Investment Arbitration]
Arbitration vs. Litigation
Solving disputes through arbitration is significantly less costly to use in solving international disputes compared to court proceedings. Even though the cost is high when a company hires more entrenched personnel to preside over the process, the average price is still lower than litigation methods. Research indicates that the process of introducing a third party to handle a dispute between two parties is quicker and less complicated than litigation. The study shows that most arbitrary cases last about five hundred days, while a similar case takes about one and a half years to wend its way through the court process. Moreover, this approach allows companies a higher level of flexibility because it does not involve complicated procedures. Unlike trials that go through complicated schedules, court arbitration upholds all parties' fundamental needs and availability. Arbitrators are qualified people certified through a legal criterion and hence provide a higher degree of skill and knowledge than judges. This is because arbitrators rise from a group of specialists in specific market environments, multiplying the participants' confidence during proceedings and in their final decisions. Generally, arbitration is well suited to the operational structure of Mighty Armour limited as it allows the company to minimize dispute costs and arrive at justifiable binding decisions. Arbitration involves several rules that apply throughout the process and laws governing how companies solve disputes. All parties deserve equal treatment, which implies they must settle on an independent expert overseeing the dispute resolution. Moreover, a formal requirement for the arbitration process involves writing essential details about the process, which can act as evidence when the need arises. Generally, several aspects of contract law apply in arbitration proceedings. For instance, both sides must present their dispute for arbitration by free will.
Ad Hoc and Institutional Arbitration
There are two significant types of arbitration: ad hoc and institutional. The choice of either of the approaches above depends on the parties involved and the prevailing challenge's nature. An ad hoc institution does not include any arbitral institution in addressing legal matters concerning international market disputes. The parties that present an argument enjoy control over all elements of the solution-finding process. They are free to determine the preferred number of arbitrators, the suitable eligibility criteria, and how they expect the respective appointments to occur. Disputing parties also determine the applicable laws and rules involved in the process. Ad hoc arbitration allows companies to enjoy control over session time, resources needed, and other vital elements. Using this approach, Mighty Armour limited will handle disputes without incurring administration costs required in all centers. Moreover, the company will save plenty of time and have the opportunity to schedule sessions to match their needs. Alternatively, the parties can use the available regulatory rules to guide the proceedings. However, this approach requires that the company clearly understands all features of an arbitration agreement and process to enjoy the associated benefits. Institutional arbitration is the process their parties allow arbitral institutions to oversee the conflict resolution process. These resolutions present the disputing parties with specific procedures to follow. Furthermore, the alternative dispute resolution process provider follows their institutional rules to guide the entire resolution process. Institutional arbitration suits companies that do not...