Party Autonomy vs. Judicial Intervention: A Doctrinal Analysis of Arbitration Regime

Abstract

The very basis of arbitration law is the principle of party autonomy that enables the disputants to influence the process by selecting rules, procedures and arbitrators. Nevertheless, the extent of judicial intervention is a matter of concern across jurisdictions. The courts usually intervene on the grounds of fairness, procedural inconsistencies and noncompliance with the national policies, but such intervention can jeopardize the efficiency and independence of arbitration. This paper provides a doctrinal study of the law of arbitration from theoretical and practical perspective to analyze different national approaches regarding party autonomy and judicial intervention. It investigates legislative and judicial practices, and legal controversies attached with this tension. Moreover, an assessment of international arbitration regime created through UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention is provided to determine the conflicting approaches taken by the national laws. It concludes that judicial oversight is necessary but it must be exercised responsibly and has to be proportional, to protect integrity of arbitration, without compromising party autonomy. The harmonization of arbitration laws is important to achieve fair and effective arbitral process which will ensure smooth global arbitration practice.