In many respects the works contained in this edition have one thing in common. Underpinning all that has been written, one sees how important it is that expedited procedures be seen not as an end in themselves, but – as with many innovations in arbitration — as a means to improving the process overall in the right circumstances. The conclusion seems thus to be that expedited procedures will be more successful if they are conceived not as a separate objective, as the ideal goal to reach in most arbitrations, but rather as one more tool to improve the efficiency of arbitration proceedings in general.

To put it differently, one could say that the objective should not be that of using that tool in every single proceeding but rather remaining vigilant to the possibility that it can be used if fit or necessary in view of the circumstances. That these measures are available, that the ICC Rules now supply a textual basis and thus express the Parties’ consent to their use, is a huge step forward: but the yardstick to measure their success will rest not only in how often they are used, but also in how they promote debate as to the real issues in the realm of a given dispute. With this in mind, one would need also to look not only at how many ICC arbitrations exist in which they will actually be used, but also in the number of arbitrations in which the Parties and the arbitrators will wish to avoid using them. In viewing how best to move forward, will the existence of these procedures not also help all concerned to separate the grain from the chaff? i.e. concentrate on the essential issues and eliminate one way or another those issues of secondary importance, especially issues raised mostly for tactical purposes.