It is with no small degree of pleasure that we provide a few comments on this year’s ICC publication, "Expedited Procedures in International Arbitration". As a quick glance of the table of contents shows, we have managed to assemble an esteemed group of writers with experience as user, counsel and arbitrator with a view to taking stock of where we are in terms of attempts to streamline the process and where we may wish to go.

As many of us know, the Amended ICC Rules of Arbitration entered into force on 1 March 2017. They, like other rules, are responsive to user demands that expedited procedures have a role in modern systems of commercial dispute resolution.

Experience has shown that while some rules, such as those of ICSID, authorize arbitral tribunals to take expeditious measures in order to dispense with clearly unmeritorious claims, they have been rarely used. And many other rules in the commercial and investment spheres have in the past lacked such express authority. But are we not seeing change, as arbitral institutions react to user desire to see tribunals take a firmer hand over the procedures, and so will we see their use more frequently? What has recent experience shown us concerning tribunals' attitudes to such issues? Yas Banifatemi reminds of why there has been a push for expedited procedures and challenges some of the perceived wisdom in the subject. She points out that the desire for efficiency is not new, and reminds us of the need for a collective effort in seeking to retain those attributes of arbitration which has given rise to its widespread acceptance.

Other questions abound: putting aside for a moment the role of the institutions, what can the parties do in advance of any dispute so that the tribunal is vested with the requisite authority to move things along? What works and what does not work in crafting arbitration agreements to seek the expeditious resolution of their disputes? And come what may, what can a tribunal do where the rules are silent? Will tribunals be marooned in a sea of what Klaus Peter Berger recently called "due process paranoia", and how will national courts deal with challenges to awards where tribunals have taken the plunge, as it were, in resolving disputes or questions in an expeditious fashion? In a somewhat unique combination of views of counsel/academic/arbitrator and user, Christophe Seraglini and Patrick Baeten examine the imperatives of expedited proceedings and examine not only their perceived advantages but also potential risks. They underline the need for a steady measured hand from the tribunal in ensuring that the right balance is struck.

But what examples have we today and what can we learn from them? Examples of expedited arbitral procedures clearly already exist, in areas [Page8:] such as domain names and sports disputes. What has experience taught us within these specific areas? Can the lessons learned be used to good advantage in crafting solutions in the wider field of commercial or treaty arbitration?

Andrea Mondini looks through his experienced eyes at the manner in which domain-name disputes are dealt with, and after giving a thorough and welcome description of this area whose activities touch us in everyday life, he looks at what lessons can be learned, whether positive or negative. He sees the merit in extending these procedures to other areas of activity where quick and inexpensive resolution of disputes would cause the greatest good. In the same vein, Antonio Rigozzi looks at the most salient features of sports arbitration in a similar fashion. Here again, the chapter concludes with a timely and well-considered analysis of what we can learn from existing procedures, together with a word about the Court of Innovative Arbitration and its own ambitious efforts to challenge established wisdom and procedures.

The book concludes with two weighty pieces by Constantine Partasides and Ben Prewett on the one hand, and Mohamed S. Abdel Wahab on the other, who look at the specific issue of summary judgment and the ever-present issue of the enforcement of such decisions. The writers consider recent experience in this field and consider the traps and pitfalls that a tribunal should avoid in taking such measures, with a view, first and foremost, to the New York Convention or domestic systems of enforcement. Messrs Partasides and Prewett take a fascinating walk through history, starting in medieval times, before turning to the judicial development of summary judgment and consider what we can glean from the past while looking to the future. In doing so, they posit three lessons to be drawn in particular, and remind us that there is likely little to worry about in having these types of procedures when handled by safe and sure hands.

Abdel Wahab looks at various measures adopted with a view to speeding up the process. He provides a thought-provoking list of matters for consideration in trying to achieve this, again pointing out that, as with many innovations, there are risks and rewards in attempting to achieve the stated aims. As is a recurring theme in this book, the need for responsible management of the process, and a good dose of good faith, remains paramount.

*
Laurent Lévy, Founding Partner, Lévy Kaufmann-Kohler, Geneva Michael Polkinghorne, Partner, White & Case LLP, France