Dispute Resolution International (DRI)
About Dispute Resolution International (DRI)
Dispute Resolution International is the journal of the IBA's Dispute Resolution Section. It provides in-depth discussion of current developments and topical issues in all areas of dispute resolution, including litigation, arbitration, mediation and other areas of alternative dispute resolution, as well as negligence and damages.
Dispute Resolution International is edited by Kim Rooney, an independent arbitrator and barrister at Rede Chambers, Hong Kong. Kim is assisted by an Editorial Board comprising leading practitioners from around the world.
Dispute Resolution International is distributed to all members of the IBA Dispute Resolution Section, giving it a readership of approximately 4,000. It is published twice a year and was launched in May 2007.
If you are interested in contributing to Dispute Resolution International, please contact Kim Rooney at: kim.rooney@redechambers.com and Chloe Woodhall at chloe.woodhall@int-bar.org.
If you are not a member of the IBA, you can find out more about how to join here.
Members of the Dispute Resolution Section committees receive Dispute Resolution International as part of their membership. PDF-only subscriptions are also available to non-members. Please email editor@int-bar.org to order.
ISSN 2075 5333
Pricing: £84 per issue
£169 per year, two issues per year
Five per cent agency discount available on annual subscription
Latest Issue - Vol 18 No 2 October 2024
The ethical rules, codes of conduct, and regulations that govern the practice of law in the EU and Switzerland also regulate lawyers’ use of AI in dispute resolution. Bar associations and other professional regulatory bodies have also issued specific guidance regarding the use of AI, including as long ago as 2018. Additionally, the Swiss government is considering possible regulatory approaches to AI and plans to issue a proposal in 2025. Meanwhile, the EU AI Act, which came into force on 1 August 2024, treats as ‘high risk’ the use of AI systems by judges, or on their behalf, to research, interpret, and apply the facts and the law and to AI systems ‘used in a similar way in alternative dispute resolution’. Depending on how this provision is enforced, it could raise potentially significant issues for the use of AI in alternative dispute resolution, including in arbitration.
Since the release of Chat GPT in late 2022, the use of generative AI by attorneys has exploded in the United States. The two main drivers are: (1) the ease of access to and use of generative AI to seemingly do what heretofore required human capital; and (2) a relentless market pressure to perform legal work more efficiently. This article explores the current state of how courts and State Bars throughout the United States, along with ADR provider JAMS, are regulating the use of GenAI in the litigation context. It identifies emerging trends common to the approach taken by the federal judiciary and State Bars including limited use, transparency, proficiency, disclosure, human oversight and verification. Finally, it explains why it is unlikely, in contrast to the EU’s approach, that the US Congress will pass federal regulation limiting the use of AI by judges and arbitrators, and instead, leave such potential future AI regulation to the provenance of the States.
The IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration of 2024 update – without overhauling – the 2014 version by fine-tuning drafting, clarifying ambiguities, incorporating established arbitral practice, and reinforcing various fundamental principles. The 2024 Guidelines were the result of work by a taskforce composed of over 60 individuals involved in the field of international arbitration with diverse backgrounds. Their work was informed by comments received from the international arbitration community during a consultation phase. The 2024 Guidelines include eight key updates that: (1) clarify their scope of application; (2) clarify that Part I of the 2024 Guidelines (General Standards) prevails over Part II (Application Lists); (3) clarify the role of the subjective versus objective standards in evaluating conflicts of interest and disclosure; (4) reinforce the arbitrator’s disclosure obligations; (5) broaden and clarify the definition of ‘relationships’ for the purposes of evaluating conflicts of interest and disclosures; (6) reiterate the arbitrator’s duty to investigate; (7) reiterate the parties’ duty to investigate and inform; and (8) update the ‘traffic light system’ of Red, Orange and Green Lists to reflect current international arbitral practice.
This article reviews the development of emergency arbitrator proceedings (EA) internationally in institutional arbitration rules and in national laws since the ICDR Rules first offered EA in arbitration in 2006, including the forms of urgent interim relief available in EA pending the constitution of an arbitratlon tribunal. Among other topics, it reviews why parties choose EA, the interaction of EA with national court systems, provides a comparison between EA and national courts’ proceedings including as to cost, the types of interim measures available, coercive powers to require compliance, their respective scope as to third parties, whether ex parte applications are permissible, the enforceability of interim relief orders, the nature of the order or award and whether a binding decision is made in EA, and the approach of jurisdictions to enforcement of orders made in EA. The article provides statistics as the uptake and use of EA proceedings from 2020 to 2023 in ICC, SIAC, HKIAC, SCC and LCIA arbitrations and reviews the different approaches to the substantive standards for granting relief in EA proceedings. It discusses EA relief and performance bonds. Finally, it reviews the considerations relevant to the future development of EA.
- Volume 18 Number 1, May 2024
- Volume 17 Number 2, November 2023
- Volume 17 Number 1, May 2023
- Volume 16 Number 2, October 2022
- Volume 16 Number 1, May 2022
- Volume 15 Number 2, October 2021
- Volume 15 Number 1, May 2021
- Volume 14 Number 2, October 2020
- Volume 14 Number 1, May 2020
- Volume 13 Number 2, October 2019
- Volume 13 Number 1, May 2019
Open access articles
The Global Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Commercial Dispute Resolution in the First Year
While the pandemic disruption has extended for far longer than initially expected, courts (after the first wave), arbitral institutions and stakeholders in commercial dispute resolution have largely continued operations, increasingly supported by innovative digital technology, flexible scheduling and flexible cost structures, among other tools.
Released on Jun 02, 2021
The Global Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Commercial Dispute Resolution in the First Seven Months
In 2020, most of the world’s countries have had to respond to the severe disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, which emerged in late December 2019 (the ‘pandemic’). The pandemic poses enormous health and socio-economic challenges. As of September 2020, it is not known when the pandemic will end; some countries are already experiencing further waves of infection. Globally, judiciaries and arbitral institutions have been under great pressure to continue operating during the pandemic [...]
How to order
Members of the Dispute Resolution Section committees receive Dispute Resolution International as part of their membership. PDF-only subscriptions are also available to non-members. Please email editor@int-bar.org to order.
ISSN 2075 5333
Pricing: £80 per issue
£161 per year, two issues per year
Five per cent agency discount available on annual subscriptions
Guidelines for authors
Copyright and Disclaimer
Copyright: The IBA holds copyright in all articles, newsletters and papers published by them. If you wish to reproduce or distribute any IBA publication or any part of an IBA publication, permission must be requested in writing from the Managing Editor at editor@int-bar.org, and due acknowledgment given.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in journals, newsletters and papers are those of the contributors, and not necessarily those of the International Bar Association.