Arbitration may be either voluntary or mandatory (while mandatory cases can only come from a law or contract imposed by one party to another, in which the parties agree to refer all existing or future disputes to arbitration without necessarily knowing what disputes will ever arise) and may be binding or non-binding. Non-binding arbitration is similar to mediation, as no decision can be imposed on the parties. However, the main difference is that a mediator will try to help the parties find a balance on which the compromises are made, but the (non-binding) arbitrator remains completely removed from the settlement process and will only give an assessment of liability and, if necessary, an indication of the amount of damages to be paid. According to one definition, arbitration is binding and non-binding arbitration is therefore not technically arbitral. However, the judge found that there were a number of difficulties in this approach. First, the parties had not explicitly agreed to refer a dispute to arbitration proceedings. They had agreed to resolve the matter through a Swiss arbitration. Second, the clause clearly provided for the possibility of two phases of the dispute resolution process. The parties had agreed to try to resolve the matter first through arbitration, and if that did not lead to a solution, then there would be a need for litigation in the courts.
“Laws of England and Wales. In the event of a dispute between the parties under this agreement, the parties will endeavour to resolve the matter initially through Swiss arbitration. If there is no decision, the English courts are not exclusively competent. Arbitration is generally divided into two types: ad hoc arbitration and managed arbitration. According to the judge, the parties intended to try to agree on some form of arbitration between them in Switzerland. If they do not, the English court should not be exclusively competent. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of 1925 establishes a public order in favor of arbitration. In the first six decades of its existence, the courts did not allow conciliation for “federal claims” through a clear doctrine of “nonarbitrability,” but in the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down and began using the law to require arbitration when included in the treaty for federal claims. [21] Although some legal experts believe that it should originally apply only to federal courts, courts now routinely require arbitration under the FAA, regardless of state laws or unacceptable findings of public order by state courts. [21] In consumer law, standard form contracts often contain mandatory pre-regulation clauses requiring consumer conciliation.