It was 1 October 2015, when the revised Dispute Board Rules will become effective, which were amended after a thorough period of drafting and consultation. The updated rules present procurements amplifying the force of Dispute Boards, empowering it to take part in the aversion of potential differences, designate specialists and settle on between time and studio measures.
In an international arbitration firm survey that was carried out by Queen Mary University of London in 2015 says that –
• 90% of respondents surveyed prefer international arbitration to resolve cross border commercial disputes.
• London and Paris are the most preferred venues for international arbitration. Hong Kong and Singapore are gaining momentum and are now ranked third and fourth.
• Initiatives to further improve the efficiency of the arbitral process are welcomed. Arbitrators and arbitration counsel need to be more proactive in promoting efficiency, not just arbitral institutions.
• 70% of respondents think there is an adequate amount of regulation although specific areas require further ‘micro-regulation’.
The primary updates of the Dispute Board Rules concentrate on the adequacy of the Dispute Board system. Specifically, the modified rules explicitly express that if a gathering neglects to raise its disappointment with a Dispute Boards’ decision inside of a thirty day period, then the conclusion gets to be tying and last between the gatherings, who have direct response to discretion in the occasion of rebelliousness (without doing a reversal to the Dispute Board). The rules further block parties from raising any issue as to the benefits of a determination as a resistance to their rebelliousness.