There are several important differences. Unlike New York, where a judgment may be overturned on the basis of “blatant disregard for the law,” an award rendered under the rules of Paris is likely to be final and enforceable. The courts of New York will also resolve disputes over the jurisdiction of a court sitting in New York, unless there is strong and compelling evidence that the parties have agreed that the court should decide its own jurisdiction.

Arbitration Law in Malaysia allows for an award to be appealed for being unenforceable, although the standard is quite high (the decision must be manifestly wrong or subject to serious doubts). In addition, the parties have the option of excluding this basis of dispute from the basic institutional norms.

The Right Choices and Seats

The rest of the seats are also one-of-a-kind. In spite of the fact that Paris is regarded as one of the safest locations for arbitration, there are many more reasons why parties to a contract may select New York over Paris for arbitration. Then there is the Seat of Arbitration also in Malaysia.

Are any of these arbitral tribunals more likely than the others to result in a less expensive and more efficient arbitration process than the others? There is some evidence that arbitration costs can be significantly higher in some jurisdictions than others, particularly in the United States, because of the potential for onerous disclosure obligations. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that arbitration costs should not be significantly higher in one location than in another.

The Perfect Factors

As a factor in choosing a single arbitrator or chairman, institutions may also take into account the location of the tribunal’s seat; this is an important issue. In turn, the Sole Arbitrator’s or President’s nationality and background may have an effect on how he or she approaches the arbitration procedure.

One of the most important concerns is neutrality

Arbitration offers the flexibility of selecting a neutral location (i.e., one that is not in either party’s “home” jurisdiction) as one of its key advantages. There are still a substantial number of seats available to choose from in most circumstances, even if some seats have been eliminated.

Another important consideration is the location of the business. There are practical reasons for this, such as the fact that hearings are usually held in the seat, although they may be held elsewhere if the parties choose. It’s also common for customers to choose specific seats in different locations as part of a transaction. For contracts involving Africa and the Middle East, New York City is a typical choice, whereas London and Paris are more prevalent in South American deals. With regards to Asian arbitration, both Hong Kong and Singapore are steadily increasing their market share.

Consideration of practical restrictions, such as in-seat courtrooms and attendant facilities (such as transcriptionists and interpreters), is sometimes recommended, especially when considering seats in less developed countries.. Despite the importance of these facilities, holding a hearing should not be based only on their availability.


When it comes down to it, the language used is a critical factor to take into account. Depending on the conditions of a properly constructed arbitration agreement, the arbitration might be conducted in English or another language. On the other hand, any legal proceedings (such as a dispute over a prize) will be conducted in the language of the seat, which may be time-consuming and expensive.