Alternative to Arbitration as Means for Resolving Economic Disputes

There has been a growing interest in arbitration during the twentieth centuries. This is because arbitration offers an (1) efficient means to resolve urgent disputes (2) entails cheaper costs compared to traditional courts; and (3) constitutes an administrative means guaranteeing trust and assurance among parties to disputes. Economic disputes usually require a certain level urgency along with trust and assurance toward the mechanism for conflict resolution. For this reason, many countries were urged to devote court chambers or establish competent courts for economic disputes’ resolution in order to avoid the problems related to delays and complications of proceedings’ along with high costs that usually characterize normal court proceedings. This trend has been recently adopted by some countries, including some Arabic countries, through establishing what is known as economic courts. To reach the same objectives - namely flexibility, promptness and cost cutting by resorting to alternative means to resolve some disputes especially those relating to economic transactions, there has been an increasing interest in other alternative means of dispute resolution. Some countries and concerned parties have shown interest in these means particularly mediation and reconciliation that are perceived as appropriate means for the resolution of such type of conflicts. Indeed, resort to arbitration and access to justice have become – in many relevant contracts and conventions- conditional upon a clause for recourse to amicable settlement, notably mediation and conciliation. As this interest has appeared at both the international and national level, we will discuss in this paper its legal and feasibility scopes along with the consequences thereof