The ICC International Court of Arbitration at the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris recently released its statistical data for 2004. This, the largest and best-known arbitration institution in the world, took on 561 new cases for consideration. The disputes concerned all sorts of business matters, commercial transactions, investments, new technologies and industrial property. As many as one-third of these cases indicated values in controversy in excess of $10 million, with another one-third being in the $1 million to $10 million bracket. Values below that are viewed by the court as small claims.

Polish firms were a party to proceedings on 11 occasions. Hearings were held in 49 countries worldwide, including a case heard in Poland (Poland did not act as an ICC arbitration forum in 2003).

As for arbitrators, the 952 appointed came from 61 countries, including three Polish arbitrators. Speaking of arbitrators: the third term of office of the Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, Robert Brinner, comes to an end this year and he is not willing to run for a fourth time. Among the likely candidates to fill his post is Pierre Tercier. As the elections are held in June, we will know Brinner's successor before this article gets printed. Carl Salans, of Salans law firm, will continue to occupy the post of vice-chairman of the Court.

Arbitration is gaining in popularity in Poland. Polish enterprises, both state-owned and private, have attracted strategic partners from abroad, the upshot being that Polish arbitration is dovetailing in with international practice. Proceedings have been conducted in languages other than Polish at the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce, and the list of arbitrators features foreign attorneys as well. This is very much in keeping with many other European countries. The ICC International Court of Arbitration in Paris, on the other hand, is a much more glittering affair-a truly international institution. The globe literally spins in front of your eyes.

Arbitration helps to discreetly settle disputes, rather than decide on them. That leaves far greater latitude for an amicable solution or for an award in line with the principles of equity ex aequo et bono. A dispute may involve renowned firms that are highly mindful of their reputation and linked by numerous business interests, of which perhaps only one might be in dispute. If they appeared in a common court, the parties would probably face each other at a public hearing, in a courtroom jam-packed with journalists. Under such circumstances, there is always the fear that business secrets might be disclosed. The competition has a field day, and it is difficult to make concessions and get on with doing business in such an atmosphere. The ICC on the other hand enjoys a great deal of trust and in the realm of international institutions, it is second only to the United Nations in terms of the number of member states.

Disputants seek neutrality. In an international dispute a common court, irrespective of the country, is a court for only one of the parties. Even if it is impeccably impartial, it shares the same cultural, historical, linguistic and often religious background, or a mindset framed within a common political system or military alliance with only one of the parties. The other party may feel uncomfortable about this home team advantage-hence the popularity of ICC arbitration.

Another important factor: arbitrators frequently understand the ins and outs of business better than judges. Being the International Chamber of Commerce, the ICC does a great deal to resolve commercial disputes. It offers the services of independent experts, who may provide the parties with an opinion explaining who is right even before a request for arbitration is filed.

The fact that disputes are heard only in first instance is an advantage. This is an immediately obvious benefit to those of us who have been exposed to the manner in which common courts administer justice. Almost the world over, the judiciary is composed of two and frequently even three instances. At the same time, there are infinite possibilities for filing complaints against procedural decisions-release from court costs, to mention just one. If one of the parties stalls for time, it may prevent the court from issuing a judgment for years. In arbitration, things proceed faster. On average, proceedings should not go beyond one year-a result unparalleled by common courts anywhere in the world, and one to inspire trust and pride.
Piotr Nowaczyk

The author is a partner at SALANS law firm and Polish Member of the ICC International Court of Arbitration in Paris.