The Transitional Evolution of Arbitration: From Conventional Models to Smart Digital Mechanisms

Abstract

Arbitration has long been a cornerstone of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), offering parties an effective method for resolving disputes outside traditional courts. Over the centuries, arbitration has evolved through several distinct phases, from conventional ad hoc processes to technologically enhanced smart arbitration.

This research examines the historical trajectory, legal frameworks, institutionalization, technological integration, and the contemporary transformation toward AI-driven and blockchain-supported arbitration. Landmark cases, treaties, and scholarly perspectives illustrate the practical and doctrinal shifts in the field. The study concludes with a forward-looking analysis of challenges and opportunities for smart arbitration in an increasingly digital and globalized world.

1. Introduction

Arbitration has long been recognized as a key mechanism of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), offering parties a private, efficient, and flexible forum to resolve disputes outside of traditional courts. Historically, it has provided solutions in contexts where formal litigation is impractical, too slow, or unable to accommodate specialized expertise, particularly in commercial, trade, and international matters. The roots of arbitration can be traced back to ancient civilizations, including Greek, Roman, and medieval practices, where parties voluntarily submitted disputes to neutral third parties known as arbitrators.[1]

The evolution of arbitration has closely mirrored broader societal trends, including the expansion of commerce, globalization of trade, and technological innovation. Modern arbitration frameworks balance the principles of party autonomy, procedural flexibility, confidentiality, and enforceability, offering a more efficient alternative to judicial litigation.[2] The rise of institutional arbitration in the 20th century, followed by technology-assisted processes in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, has gradually transformed arbitration from a largely informal, manual procedure into a structured, professionalized, and increasingly digitized practice.[3]

In recent years, the concept of smart arbitration has emerged, defined as arbitration integrated with artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain technologies, and online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms.[4] Smart arbitration promises unprecedented efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility, enabling parties to resolve disputes with predictive analytics, automated case management, and even blockchain-based enforcement mechanisms.

At the same time, this paradigm shift raises new legal and ethical questions regarding the enforceability of AI-assisted awards, data privacy, algorithmic bias, and cybersecurity.[5] This article traces the evolution of arbitration through five main phases: (i) conventional arbitration, (ii) institutional arbitration, (iii) technology-enhanced arbitration, (iv) online dispute resolution (ODR), and (v) smart arbitration. Each phase is analyzed with reference to international treaties, domestic legal frameworks, landmark judicial decisions, and technological developments. The study highlights how arbitration has continually adapted to meet the needs of parties while reflecting broader changes in law, commerce, and technology.

Key Phases of Arbitration: Overview

Phase	Core Characteristic
Conventional Arbitration	Ad hoc, largely informal processes
Institutional Arbitration	Rule-based processes administered by institutions
Technology-Enhanced Arbitration	Use of digital tools for case management and evidence
Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)	Primarily internet-based resolution mechanisms
Smart Arbitration	AI, blockchain, and automated procedural systems

Core Themes Highlighted in This Study

• Historical evolution of arbitration
• Development of legal and institutional frameworks
• Increasing role of technology in dispute resolution
• Shift toward AI and blockchain-based mechanisms
• Emerging legal and ethical challenges

2. Phases of Arbitration Evolution

2.1 Conventional Arbitration

Timeframe	Antiquity – Early 20th Century

Conventional arbitration, often ad hoc in nature, relied heavily on the parties’ mutual consent and their choice of arbitrators.[6] This phase was characterized by manual procedures, informal hearings, and a lack of standardized rules. Arbitrators were typically chosen for their expertise in the subject matter, such as merchants for commercial disputes or technical experts in trade-specific matters.[7] Confidentiality, flexibility, and party autonomy were key features of this early system, which prioritized voluntary resolution over formalistic legal procedures.

Legal Context

• Party Autonomy: Parties had the freedom to define the procedure, select arbitrators, and determine the scope of the dispute.[8]
• Enforcement Challenges: Prior to the widespread adoption of international conventions, enforcing arbitral awards across jurisdictions was difficult. Recognition often depended on the goodwill of local courts. Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506 (1974) – This case illustrates judicial recognition of international arbitration agreements and the principle of party autonomy, reflecting the philosophical foundations of conventional arbitration.[9]

Conventional arbitration established the principles of private dispute resolution, confidentiality, and autonomy, forming the philosophical and procedural basis for modern arbitration frameworks.[10]

---

2.2 Institutional Arbitration

Timeframe	Early 20th Century – Late 20th Century

Institutional arbitration emerged as commercial disputes became more complex and international trade expanded.[11] Institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) offered formal procedural rules, panels of qualified arbitrators, and administrative support, improving predictability, neutrality, and professionalization.[12]

Legal Frameworks

• New York Convention (1958): Provided a uniform international framework for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, greatly enhancing cross-border arbitration.[13]
• UNCITRAL Model Law (1985, amended 2006): Offered a standardized legal framework for domestic arbitration laws, promoting harmonization and legal certainty internationally.[14]
• BG Group plc v. Argentina, 572 U.S. 25 (2014): Highlighted the recognition of arbitration agreements in the context of bilateral investment treaties.[15]
• Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. v. Privalov, [2007] UKHL 40: Reinforced the principle that courts strongly favor enforcement of arbitration clauses in commercial contracts.[16]

Institutional arbitration enhanced legitimacy, procedural clarity, and enforceability. By providing a standardized framework, institutions addressed many of the uncertainties and delays inherent in conventional arbitration.[17]

---

2.3 Technology-Enhanced Arbitration

Timeframe	Late 20th Century – Early 21st Century

The late 20th century saw the integration of basic digital tools into arbitration.[18] Electronic communications, email submissions, and early document management systems began to replace entirely paper-based procedures. Teleconferencing allowed remote participation, reducing logistical challenges and improving accessibility.[19]

Key Developments

• Electronic filing of submissions.
• Digital case management tools.
• Teleconferencing for procedural meetings and hearings.

Legal Considerations

Courts began to recognize electronic evidence, and arbitration rules were updated to validate electronic communication.[20] For instance, the ICC Arbitration Rules (2012) explicitly allow the use of electronic communications in filings and hearings.

Technology enhanced efficiency and reduced administrative costs while improving procedural flexibility. Although human arbitrators remained central, digital tools streamlined case management, documentation, and scheduling.[21]

---

2.4 Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)

Timeframe	Early 21st Century – 2020

ODR platforms allowed parties to resolve disputes entirely online, using cloud-based case management systems, virtual hearings, and electronic evidence submission. Platforms like eBRAM in Dubai and Cyber-Arb facilitated accessible and efficient resolution of cross-border disputes.[22]

Legal Recognition

UNCITRAL developed ODR guidelines to support digital arbitration frameworks.[23] Courts increasingly enforce online arbitral awards, provided that procedural fairness and due process standards are met. Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008) – Emphasized the importance of arbitration agreements and institutional rules, laying the groundwork for online adaptations.[24]

ODR democratized arbitration, especially for SMEs and cross-border disputes. By reducing costs and enabling remote participation, it marked a significant step toward fully digital arbitration.[25]

3. Drivers of Evolution

The evolution of arbitration from conventional mechanisms to smart arbitration has been driven by multiple interrelated factors. These drivers reflect shifts in global commerce, legal frameworks, technological capabilities, and the complexity of modern disputes. Each driver has played a significant role in shaping both the procedural and substantive development of arbitration.

3.1 Globalization

The rapid expansion of international trade and cross-border investment created a pressing need for neutral, enforceable, and predictable dispute resolution mechanisms.[26] Arbitration provides parties with a forum that is independent of domestic courts, reducing concerns about bias and ensuring enforceability of awards across jurisdictions.[27]

The New York Convention of 1958, which has been ratified by over 170 states, exemplifies how globalization influenced arbitration by providing a standardized framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.[28]

BG Group plc v. Argentina, 572 U.S. 25 (2014) – Demonstrates the application of arbitration in cross-border investment disputes and the enforcement of treaty-based arbitration clauses.30

Globalization also increased the diversity of arbitrable disputes, ranging from trade and investment to intellectual property, requiring arbitration mechanisms that could adapt to international contexts.[29]

3.2 Technological Advancements

Technological innovation has been a key driver in modernizing arbitration. The integration of AI, blockchain, cloud computing, and digital communication platforms has improved the efficiency, accessibility, and transparency of arbitration proceedings.[30] AI tools now assist in legal research, document review, and even predictive analytics for case outcomes.[31] Blockchain and smart contracts facilitate automatic execution and enforcement of awards. Cloud-based case management and electronic filing systems streamline procedural administration, reduce costs, and enable remote hearings.[32] H. Mann notes that the adoption of AI and blockchain in arbitration “represents a fundamental transformation in the dispute resolution landscape, offering real-time efficiencies and automated enforcement capabilities.”[33]

3.3 Legal Frameworks

Legal instruments and frameworks have played a critical role in the evolution of arbitration.[34] They provide enforceability, legitimacy, and predictability, making arbitration a preferred mechanism for commercial and international disputes.

Instrument	Description
New York Convention (1958)	Provides a uniform standard for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.[35]
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, amended 2006)	Harmonizes national arbitration laws and provides procedural clarity.[36]
National Arbitration Laws	Many jurisdictions, including Singapore, the UAE, and Germany, have adopted statutes based on UNCITRAL principles, enhancing the enforceability and predictability of awards.[37]

Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. v. Privalov, [2007] UKHL 40 – Reinforced courts’ strong support for the enforcement of arbitration clauses under national legal frameworks.[38]

3.4 Stakeholder Expectations

Modern parties increasingly demand arbitration processes that are transparent, fast, and cost-effective.[39] In international commercial arbitration, stakeholders expect real-time case management, accessible hearings, and enforceable awards without excessive procedural complexity.[40]

• ODR platforms allow SMEs to engage in arbitration without prohibitive costs.[41]
• Virtual hearings and AI-assisted scheduling improve procedural efficiency.

Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008) – Highlights the importance of institutional rules and arbitration agreements in meeting parties’ expectations for efficiency and enforceability.[42]

3.5 Complexity of Disputes

The rise of new industries and technological sectors has introduced disputes of unprecedented complexity.[43] Intellectual property, fintech, cross-border e-commerce, and blockchain-related disputes require arbitration mechanisms capable of handling highly technical and specialized issues.[44]

• Complex IP licensing disputes often require arbitrators with technical expertise.[45]
• Cross-border fintech disputes benefit from digital arbitration platforms that integrate blockchain-based enforcement.[46]

Redfern and Hunter emphasize that “arbitration has adapted to meet the growing complexity of commercial disputes by providing specialized expertise, flexible procedures, and technological tools for evidence management.”[47]

4. Challenges in Smart Arbitration

The rise of smart arbitration integrating artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and advanced digital tools offers unprecedented efficiency and accessibility. However, it also introduces novel challenges that must be addressed to ensure procedural fairness, enforceability, and ethical integrity.

4.1 Data Privacy and Cybersecurity

Smart arbitration relies heavily on cloud-based platforms and digital storage of sensitive documents.[48] The centralized or distributed storage of confidential evidence, contracts, and personal information exposes parties to risks of data breaches, unauthorized access, and cyberattacks.[49] Maintaining confidentiality is a cornerstone of arbitration; therefore, robust cybersecurity measures, including end-to-end encryption, secure servers, and compliance with data protection regulations such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), are essential.[50]

4.2 AI Bias

The use of AI in arbitration ranging from legal research and document analysis to predictive analytics raises concerns about systemic bias.[51] Machine learning algorithms can inherit biases from historical data, potentially affecting the impartiality and fairness of arbitral outcomes.[52] Scholars emphasize the importance of algorithmic transparency, explainability, and human oversight to mitigate such risks.[53]

Scholarly Note

Mann observes that “while AI can significantly improve efficiency, reliance on opaque algorithms without safeguards risks undermining trust in the arbitral process.”[54]

4.3 Legal Recognition

The enforceability of AI-assisted decisions and blockchain-based smart contracts remains a developing area of law.[55] National courts and arbitral institutions are gradually addressing questions regarding whether automated decisions or digitally executed awards can meet legal standards of enforceability and finality.[56] Some jurisdictions, such as Singapore and the UAE, have enacted frameworks that recognize digital arbitration and smart contracts, but global harmonization is still limited.[57]

4.4 Technology Gap

Access to technology is uneven across jurisdictions and industries.[58] Limited infrastructure, lack of technical expertise, and high costs of adopting AI and blockchain platforms may prevent smaller firms and developing countries from participating fully in smart arbitration.[59] Bridging this technology gap is essential to ensure equitable access and global adoption.[60]

3. Drivers of Evolution

The evolution of arbitration from conventional mechanisms to smart arbitration has been driven by multiple interrelated factors. These drivers reflect shifts in global commerce, legal frameworks, technological capabilities, and the complexity of modern disputes. Each driver has played a significant role in shaping both the procedural and substantive development of arbitration.

3.1 Globalization

The rapid expansion of international trade and cross-border investment created a pressing need for neutral, enforceable, and predictable dispute resolution mechanisms.[26] Arbitration provides parties with a forum that is independent of domestic courts, reducing concerns about bias and ensuring enforceability of awards across jurisdictions.[27]

The New York Convention of 1958, which has been ratified by over 170 states, exemplifies how globalization influenced arbitration by providing a standardized framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.[28]

BG Group plc v. Argentina, 572 U.S. 25 (2014) – Demonstrates the application of arbitration in cross-border investment disputes and the enforcement of treaty-based arbitration clauses.30

Globalization also increased the diversity of arbitrable disputes, ranging from trade and investment to intellectual property, requiring arbitration mechanisms that could adapt to international contexts.[29]

3.2 Technological Advancements

Technological innovation has been a key driver in modernizing arbitration. The integration of AI, blockchain, cloud computing, and digital communication platforms has improved the efficiency, accessibility, and transparency of arbitration proceedings.[30] AI tools now assist in legal research, document review, and even predictive analytics for case outcomes.[31] Blockchain and smart contracts facilitate automatic execution and enforcement of awards. Cloud-based case management and electronic filing systems streamline procedural administration, reduce costs, and enable remote hearings.[32] H. Mann notes that the adoption of AI and blockchain in arbitration “represents a fundamental transformation in the dispute resolution landscape, offering real-time efficiencies and automated enforcement capabilities.”[33]

3.3 Legal Frameworks

Legal instruments and frameworks have played a critical role in the evolution of arbitration.[34] They provide enforceability, legitimacy, and predictability, making arbitration a preferred mechanism for commercial and international disputes.

Instrument	Description
New York Convention (1958)	Provides a uniform standard for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.[35]
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, amended 2006)	Harmonizes national arbitration laws and provides procedural clarity.[36]
National Arbitration Laws	Many jurisdictions, including Singapore, the UAE, and Germany, have adopted statutes based on UNCITRAL principles, enhancing the enforceability and predictability of awards.[37]

Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. v. Privalov, [2007] UKHL 40 – Reinforced courts’ strong support for the enforcement of arbitration clauses under national legal frameworks.[38]

3.4 Stakeholder Expectations

Modern parties increasingly demand arbitration processes that are transparent, fast, and cost-effective.[39] In international commercial arbitration, stakeholders expect real-time case management, accessible hearings, and enforceable awards without excessive procedural complexity.[40]

• ODR platforms allow SMEs to engage in arbitration without prohibitive costs.[41]
• Virtual hearings and AI-assisted scheduling improve procedural efficiency.

Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008) – Highlights the importance of institutional rules and arbitration agreements in meeting parties’ expectations for efficiency and enforceability.[42]

3.5 Complexity of Disputes

The rise of new industries and technological sectors has introduced disputes of unprecedented complexity.[43] Intellectual property, fintech, cross-border e-commerce, and blockchain-related disputes require arbitration mechanisms capable of handling highly technical and specialized issues.[44]

• Complex IP licensing disputes often require arbitrators with technical expertise.[45]
• Cross-border fintech disputes benefit from digital arbitration platforms that integrate blockchain-based enforcement.[46]

Redfern and Hunter emphasize that “arbitration has adapted to meet the growing complexity of commercial disputes by providing specialized expertise, flexible procedures, and technological tools for evidence management.”[47]

4. Challenges in Smart Arbitration

The rise of smart arbitration integrating artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and advanced digital tools offers unprecedented efficiency and accessibility. However, it also introduces novel challenges that must be addressed to ensure procedural fairness, enforceability, and ethical integrity.

4.1 Data Privacy and Cybersecurity

Smart arbitration relies heavily on cloud-based platforms and digital storage of sensitive documents.[48] The centralized or distributed storage of confidential evidence, contracts, and personal information exposes parties to risks of data breaches, unauthorized access, and cyberattacks.[49] Maintaining confidentiality is a cornerstone of arbitration; therefore, robust cybersecurity measures, including end-to-end encryption, secure servers, and compliance with data protection regulations such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), are essential.[50]

4.2 AI Bias

The use of AI in arbitration ranging from legal research and document analysis to predictive analytics raises concerns about systemic bias.[51] Machine learning algorithms can inherit biases from historical data, potentially affecting the impartiality and fairness of arbitral outcomes.[52] Scholars emphasize the importance of algorithmic transparency, explainability, and human oversight to mitigate such risks.[53]

Scholarly Note

Mann observes that “while AI can significantly improve efficiency, reliance on opaque algorithms without safeguards risks undermining trust in the arbitral process.”[54]

4.3 Legal Recognition

The enforceability of AI-assisted decisions and blockchain-based smart contracts remains a developing area of law.[55] National courts and arbitral institutions are gradually addressing questions regarding whether automated decisions or digitally executed awards can meet legal standards of enforceability and finality.[56] Some jurisdictions, such as Singapore and the UAE, have enacted frameworks that recognize digital arbitration and smart contracts, but global harmonization is still limited.[57]

4.4 Technology Gap

Access to technology is uneven across jurisdictions and industries.[58] Limited infrastructure, lack of technical expertise, and high costs of adopting AI and blockchain platforms may prevent smaller firms and developing countries from participating fully in smart arbitration.[59] Bridging this technology gap is essential to ensure equitable access and global adoption.[60]

5. Future Prospects

Smart arbitration is still in its formative stage, but several trends point to its evolution and potential global adoption:

5.1 Global Standardization of Smart Arbitration Rules

• Harmonized rules for AI-assisted and blockchain-based arbitration will facilitate cross-border enforceability.[61]
• UNCITRAL, the ICC, and other international bodies are beginning to explore guidelines for smart arbitration, potentially creating a uniform framework for digital dispute resolution.[62]

5.2 Fully Automated Arbitration Systems with AI Oversight

• The integration of AI into routine procedural tasks such as scheduling, evidence review, and drafting of procedural orders could reduce administrative burdens.[63]
• However, human oversight remains critical to safeguard fairness and procedural integrity.[64]

5.3 Predictive Analytics for Outcomes and Risk Assessment

• AI-driven analytics can provide parties and arbitrators with probability-based insights into likely outcomes, potential settlement ranges, and risk assessments.[65]
• Predictive tools enhance strategic decision-making and may reduce litigation time and costs.[66]

5.4 Hybrid Dispute Resolution Models

• Combining human judgment with AI assistance allows arbitration to benefit from technological efficiencies while retaining nuanced, context-sensitive decision-making.[67]
• Such hybrid models are expected to become increasingly common, especially in high-value or complex international disputes.[68]

Trend	Core Objective	Key Enabler
Standardization	Cross-border enforceability	International rule-making
Automation	Efficiency	AI-driven procedures
Prediction	Better decision-making	Data analytics
Hybrid Models	Balanced justice	Human-AI collaboration

Conclusion

Arbitration has undergone a remarkable evolution, transforming from a conventional, ad hoc, and paper-based process into a modern, technology-driven mechanism capable of addressing complex, cross-border disputes. Each stage of this evolution—conventional arbitration, institutional arbitration, technology-enhanced arbitration, online dispute resolution (ODR), and smart arbitration reflects the interplay of legal, technological, and societal forces that have shaped the practice over time.

Conventional arbitration established the foundational principles of party autonomy, confidentiality, and flexibility, while institutional arbitration introduced standardization, procedural predictability, and enforceability, particularly in international commercial contexts. Technology-enhanced arbitration and ODR further increased efficiency, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness, accommodating the growing complexity of global commerce. The emergence of smart arbitration, integrating AI, blockchain, predictive analytics, and hybrid human-AI decision-making models, marks the next paradigm shift, promising unprecedented speed, transparency, and scalability in dispute resolution. Despite these advancements, smart arbitration faces significant challenges. Data privacy and cybersecurity risks, AI bias, unequal technological access, and questions regarding legal recognition of AI-assisted awards and smart contracts must be addressed to maintain the integrity and fairness of the arbitral process. As the field moves forward, the success of smart arbitration will depend on global harmonization of legal frameworks, adoption of technological standards, and a balanced integration of human judgment with artificial intelligence.

Thus, arbitration has demonstrated remarkable adaptability, evolving to meet the demands of globalization, technological innovation, and complex commercial relationships. The ongoing transformation toward smart arbitration reflects the potential of technology to enhance efficiency and accessibility while preserving the core principles of fairness, autonomy, and enforceability that underpin arbitration. The future of dispute resolution lies in striking a careful balance between innovation and legal certainty, ensuring that arbitration continues to serve as a robust, credible, and effective forum for resolving disputes in the digital age.

Stage of Arbitration	Defining Feature
Conventional	Party autonomy and flexibility
Institutional	Standardized procedures
Technology-Enhanced	Digital efficiency
ODR	Online accessibility
Smart Arbitration	AI and blockchain integration

References:

1. Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration 3–10 (3d ed. 2020) (discussing the historical roots of arbitration).
2. Alan Redfern & Martin Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration 45–50 (6th ed. 2015).
3. Id. at 52–60 (highlighting the institutionalization of arbitration and the role of organizations like ICC and LCIA).
4. H. Mann, Smart Arbitration and the Future of Dispute Resolution, 38 Arb. Int’l 345, 347–50 (2022).
5. Ethan Katsh & Janet Rifkin, Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace 120–25 (2001).
6. Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration 3–10 (3d ed. 2020).
7. Alan Redfern & Martin Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration 45–50 (6th ed. 2015).
8. Born, supra note 1, at 7–8.
9. Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506 (1974).
10. Redfern & Hunter, supra note 2, at 50.
11. Born, supra note 1, at 52–60.
12. Redfern & Hunter, supra note 2, at 55–60.
13. United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958).
14. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, amended 2006).
15. BG Group plc v. Argentina, 572 U.S. 25 (2014).
16. Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. v. Privalov, [2007] UKHL 40.
17. Born, supra note 1, at 55–58.
18. Born, supra note 1, at 60–65.
19. Redfern & Hunter, supra note 2, at 63–65.
20. ICC Arbitration Rules, art. 27 (2012); Born, supra note 1, at 62.
21. Katsh & Rifkin, Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace 120–25 (2001).
22. Born, supra note 1, at 70–72.
23. UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution (2016).
24. Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008).
25. Mann, supra note 4, at 347–50.
26. Born, Gary B., International Commercial Arbitration 52–55 (3d ed. 2020).
27. Redfern, Alan & Hunter, Martin, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration 45–50 (6th ed. 2015).
28. United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958).
29. BG Group plc v. Argentina, 572 U.S. 25 (2014).
30. Born, supra note 27, at 55–57.
31. Mann, H., Smart Arbitration and the Future of Dispute Resolution, 38 Arb. Int’l 345, 347–50 (2022).
32. Mann, supra note 32, at 347.
33. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, amended 2006).
34. Born, supra note 27, at 60–62.
35. New York Convention, supra note 29.
36. Katsh, Ethan & Rifkin, Janet, Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace 120–25 (2001).
37. Redfern & Hunter, supra note 28, at 55–60.
38. Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. v. Privalov, [2007] UKHL 40.
39. Born, supra note 27, at 62–65.
40. Katsh & Rifkin, supra note 35, at 120–25.
41. Id.
42. Hall Street Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008).
43. Redfern & Hunter, supra note 28, at 63–65.
44. Born, supra note 27, at 70–75.
45. Id. at 72.
46. Mann, supra note 32, at 348.
47. Redfern & Hunter, supra note 28, at 63–65.
48. Mann, H., Smart Arbitration and the Future of Dispute Resolution, 38 Arb. Int’l 345, 349 (2022).
49. Id.
50. Born, Gary B., International Commercial Arbitration 90–92 (3d ed. 2020).
51. Redfern & Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration 68–70 (6th ed. 2015).
52. Mann, supra note 51, at 349.
53. Katsh, Ethan & Rifkin, Janet, Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace 122–25 (2001).
54. Mann, supra note 51, at 349.
55. Born, supra note 53, at 92–95.
56. Redfern & Hunter, supra note 54, at 70–72.
57. Born, supra note 53, at 91–92.
58. Katsh & Rifkin, supra note 56, at 125.
59. Mann, supra note 51, at 349–50.
60. Mann, supra note 51, at 350.
61. Mann, supra note 51, at 350.
62. UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution (2016); Born, supra note 53, at 92–94.
63. Mann, supra note 51, at 348–50.
64. Redfern & Hunter, supra note 54, at 70–72.
65. Born, supra note 53, at 94–95.
66. Mann, supra note 51, at 348–50.
67. Redfern & Hunter, supra note 54, at 71.
68. Katsh & Rifkin, supra note 56, at 124–25.

Written By: Mr. Srinivas. M.K.– Research Scholar (Law), University of Mysore, Mysore, Karnataka, India