In the legal universe dispute settlement is a never ending process that seeks constant attempts to innovate and try new mechanisms. This attains enormous significance in the case of India, given its infamous reputation for its long drawn judicial decision making process. Now that the economy of the country is making giant strides, the consequent increase in commerce needs for such innovations to be made in the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to provide the entrepreneurs with a safe and effective decision making process to fall back upon. However, India has always been late in adopting such innovations. One example for that can be the Arbitration as an effective alternative dispute settlement process. It was not until the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was passed that it was really seen as an effective solution to resolve the disputes. These days it has become an invariable standard for everyone to resort to arbitration to solve their disputes. Ignoring the harsh reality that in most of the cases the arbitral awards are challenged again the court giving raise to numerous litigations, rendering the whole intention of resorting to the arbitration in the first place ineffective, we still have to recognize the fact that it still provides a person a safe and effective dispute settlement process over which is both flexible and on time.
Arbitration as a dispute settlement process, however, comes into play only after a dispute arose and both the parties recognize that it has to be decided by way of a formal adjudication. Thus it still is a process that possesses the possibility to delay the projects, if it is an ongoing one. Moreover, the whole process is adversarial that it will not result in an amicable ‘settlement’. Though other dispute resolution mechanisms like mediation, conciliation do exist they still lack the actual engagement between the parties in real time to be effective to curb a problem as and when it arises. This role of providing a platform for the parties to realistically engage can be provided by the still budding concept of ‘Dispute Board’. Though the concept itself is not new, it is yet to attain the required traction in India. Major commercial contracts have just begun to include Dispute Board Clauses with reference to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules.
Dispute Boards- An Overview
The International Chamber of Commerce defines a Dispute Board as standing bodies, comprising one or three members, normally set up at the outset of a contract to help parties resolve any disagreements and disputes that may subsequently arise during its performance. Under the ICC Dispute Board Rules three different types of Dispute Boards has been prescribed, giving the parties a choice to choose amongst them according to their own preference and convenience. They are
i) Dispute Review Boards (DRB), which issues recommendations
ii) Dispute Adjudication Boards, which issue decisions and
iii) Combined Dispute Boards (CDB), which normally issue recommendations but may issue decisions if a party so requests and no other party objects.
The classification is completely based on the binding nature of the decisions or recommendations that the parties wishes the Dispute Board to issue, where a decision must be complied with by the parties without any delay and a recommendation must be complied with only if no party expresses dissatisfaction within a prescribed time limit. Also it is free for the parties to make even the non-binding observations made by the board admissible as evidence in the court. Thus it is completely dependent upon the choice made by the parties over the nature and mandate of the Dispute Board.
An Ideological Hijack
The major advantage of this model of dispute resolution technique is that this is a ‘hands on’ approach that involves both the parties in a fair and transparent manner without any third party intervention, read lawyers. In India at least, I feel that, the reason for failure of arbitration and other dispute resolution methods is because they have been hijacked by lawyers. Yes, the involvement lawyers to a great extent as defeated the purpose of such alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The very moment a lawyer gets involved in the process he brings with him all those unnecessary legalese that the process is designed to avoid. Of course, one can never refuse the necessity of involving a lawyer in certain unavoidable situations within these mechanisms, but the level of involvement has become too much for any meaningful outcome from these mechanisms.
The Dispute Boards on the contrary stands out with the difference that it seeks to involve the parties directly and its formation is, as mentioned earlier, is right at the outset of the project itself. The parties gets to appoint a member of their own in the board and the board will meet periodically to review the project as a whole, looking for any emerging issues between the parties to nip them in the bud. Thus this is proactive in its way of functioning. As far as involvement of the lawyers are concerned, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Dispute Board Rules, which provides with a standard and uniform set of rules for the procedures before the dispute board, Article 19 (7) is the provision that is used as the entry ticket. It reads as follows
“The parties shall appear in person or through duly authorized representatives who are charge of the performance of the Contract. In addition, they may be assisted by advisors.”
The problem arises when the lawyers who involve themselves brings with them the uncalled for courtly atmosphere. Even with my very limited experience in dealing with this I was able to see this plainly. The fact that the parties feel a psychological discomfort when they do not have a lawyer around, even for a process as friendly as this only adds to the woes. Unless this still budding mechanism is rescued from the hands of lawyers like me by limiting their role only to the extent as an adviser the novel concept will definitely go wayward like others of our history.
