In international disputes, you are often faced with a choice: court or arbitration? Both have strengths and weaknesses. In our practice, we advise on the most suitable route for each type of contract. For some disputes, arbitration is superior due to international enforceability; for others, a court is more effective and cheaper. A good choice starts in advance in the contractual dispute clause.

What are the legal implications?

Arbitration and court proceedings differ in terms of costs, speed, confidentiality, the expertise of the decision-maker, international enforceability, and possibilities for appeal. A wrong choice leads to proceedings that do not suit the type of dispute or the opposing party. Internationally, costs and effectiveness vary by the type of institution and the seat of the court.

What steps do you take?

Arbitration is governed by national arbitration law (the Netherlands, Articles 1020-1076 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure) and international treaties. The New York Convention of 1958 (170+ countries) makes arbitral awards enforceable worldwide. Brussels I-bis (Regulation 1215/2012) governs judgments of EU courts. The Hague Judgment Convention 2019 increases international recognition of court judgments. Major arbitral institutions: ICC, LCIA, NAI, SIAC, HKIAC.

What risks and costs do you face?

Court proceedings are public, have limited international enforceability outside treaty areas, and the judge is not always a specialist. Arbitration is more expensive (institute fees, arbitrators) and offers virtually no right of appeal. For smaller disputes, arbitration is often disproportionately expensive; For major international disputes, arbitration actually offers a superior balance.

How did a client handle this?

We represented a Dutch company and an Indian partner with an original choice of forum for an Indian court. The proceedings lasted seven years without a resolution. Upon renegotiating with another partner, we chose SIAC arbitration in Singapore under Dutch law. A similar dispute yielded an enforceable ruling within 14 months. International enforcement under the New York Convention was arranged in two weeks.

What is your first course of action?

Choose arbitration for large, international, confidential disputes, especially in less developed legal systems. Choose a court for smaller disputes, B2B within the EU (Brussels I-bis is effective), or where precedent is desired. Tailor the seat, language, number of arbitrators, rules, and choice of law to your situation. Combine with an emergency arbitrator for urgent measures. See also our article on The benefits of international arbitration.