Compare between Saudi Arabia and the United States in the concept of Research Paper

Compare between Saudi Arabia and the United States in the concept of the implementation of the provisions of arbitrators - Research Paper Example There are many reasons why parties opt to have their disagreements determined through arbitration, especially when it comes to international matters (Roy 921). Such reasons comprise of the need to avoid the local practices related to lawsuits in national courts, need to obtain a faster, as well as a more efficient verdict, the relative enforceability of arbitral awards and arbitration agreements as compared to national court judgments and forum selection clauses, the profitable expertise of arbitral tribunals, the parties' sovereignty to select and plan the arbitral procedures, discretion and other merits (Roy 921). While arbitration is guided by the UN International Commercial Arbitration Act of 1985, nations have modified the law to come up with their own arbitration laws (Roy 921). The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany and Saudi Arabia among others, have their own unique arbitration laws, even though they echo some of the provisions in offered in the UN Internatio nal Commercial Arbitration Act of 1985. Saudi Arabia recently (2012) signed into law their new Arbitration Act and the United States has had a law standing on this subject since 1925 that was amended in 2007. This paper will compare between Saudi Arabia and the United States in the concept of the implementation of provisions by arbitrators. Arbitration in the United States Arbitration, in line with the United States law, is a type of alternative dispute resolution, which is a legal option to lawsuits whereby the groups to a dispute concur to submit their relevant positions to a neutral third party for resolution. In reality, arbitration is mainly utilized as an alternative to judicial hearings, especially when the judicial proceedings are perceived as too expensive, slow or inclined to one party (Auerbach 59). Arbitration, in the United States, is also utilized by societies as an alternate for formal law because they either do not have a formal law or the formal law is too harsh (Mc Laughlin 248). Labor arbitration, in the United States, comes in two forms: interest arbitration, which grants a way for settling disputes on the terms to be incorporated in a fresh contract when the groups are not capable of agreeing, along with injustice arbitration, which grants a way for settling disputes over the application and interpretation of a collective bargaining treaty (McLaughlin 248). Provisions to the agreements are not implementable at common law, but once the groups have actually forward a pending disagreement to an arbitrator or an arbitration tribunal, the team’s judgment is typically implementable. The logic for this was that the influence of the arbitrator arose exclusively from the joint consent of the groups to his authority (McLaughlin 249). However, by the moment a disagreement reached the level where one group opted to take it to an arbitrator or an arbitration tribunal, the other normally opted to take the matter to court instead. Therefore, devoid of any the consent of both groups to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, he/she does not have the power to settle the case (Auerbach 59). Arbitration in the Saudi Arabia Following the heels of the recent reform of the arbitration law in Saudi Arabia, a new law came into effect on the March of 2012 (Cueto 1).