International arbitration is the preferred method for the resolution of commercial and investment disputes. It provides a neutral forum where commercial disputes can be resolved by independent decision-makers, selected by or for the parties applying neutral adjudicative procedures designed to provide expeditious, expert and efficient dispute resolution.

Accompanying its increasing use, there have been efforts to harmonise the practice of international arbitration around the world. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law provides the basis for nations to enact arbitration legislation with best practices, offering uniformity for users and courts. The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provides an effective and streamlined process for cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards by facilitating their recognition in over 170 nations around the world. Arbitral institutions periodically amend and update their arbitration rules in response to users’ needs, including their desire for harmonising the practice. All of these developments seek to enhance the dispute resolution process for parties to international commercial and investment agreements.

Despite these various efforts to harmonise both law and practice, important differences remain. The arbitration legislation of different countries inevitably differs. The backgrounds of national court judges also differ. The implementation of seemingly similar legislative provisions can also differ. Understanding these differences in international arbitration law and practice is essential for both practitioners and courts, as well as academic commentators.