Eliminating the badges of judicial prejudice and hostility against arbitration has been a gradual doctrinal development, but certainly one that reached fruition with the Supreme Court's mandate in Mitsubishi. The acceptance of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution methodology in domestic and international contexts by the judiciary, scholars, captains of industry, and practitioners has advanced the cause of fashioning a dispute resolution framework that comports with contemporary economic globalization. It has mitigated the fissure between an economic order characterized by economic globalization and a fragmented transnational judicial rubric. Indeed, it has served to create a temporal bridge in dispute resolution until such time as transnational courts of civil procedure competent to adjudicate private commercial disputes become a viable reality. This success, however, has spawned new issues that must be addressed if the cross-fertilization of legal systems is to be incorporated into international commercial arbitrations and parties from different juridic and cultural backgrounds are to have their expectations fulfilled when engaging in alternative dispute resolution of this kind. By way of example, such fundamental developments as the incorporation of U.S. common law discovery in certain international commercial arbitral contexts compels judges, practitioners, commentators, and arbitrators to discard old prejudices and consider new paradigms that actually underscore debilities endemic to orthodox preconceptions and views governing this issue and best comport with contemporary developments.