Navigating the boundaries: balancing party autonomy and institutional control in institutional arbitration

Abstract

Arbitration, a dispute resolution mechanism based on a contractual agreement between parties, has gained widespread popularity as an alternative to litigation. A key reason for its appeal is the flexibility it offers, allowing parties to customise the arbitral procedure to suit their needs. This concept, known as party autonomy, lies at the core of every arbitration agreement. Despite its advantages, party autonomy in institutional arbitration is not absolute, where an arbitral institution administers proceedings under its established procedural rules. It operates within the confines of established institutional rules, often characterized as non-derogable, which can restrict the extent to which parties can exercise their autonomy to customize procedural frameworks to suit their preferences. This study delves into the intricate relationship between these factors, examining how established mandatory institutional rules impact the exercise of party autonomy in institutional arbitration. The study seeks to establish a balanced framework that upholds party autonomy while ensuring compliance with institutional rules. This study employs desktop research methodology, synthesizing insights from legal literature, case law, and institutional practices to comprehensively understand the challenges and opportunities in the exercise of party autonomy inherent in institutional arbitration. The study's significance lies in its contribution to the ongoing discourse on arbitration, shedding light on the balance between regulatory guidance of arbitral institutions through institutional rules and party autonomy in shaping arbitration procedures.

Key Words: Party Autonomy, Arbitration, Institutional Rules, Procedural Framework, Mandatory Rules.