Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has emerged as an inevitable element in the contemporary international trade regulation, which provides efficiency, flexibility and cost-effectiveness in settling cross-border disputes. This paper critically analyzes how the ADR mechanisms can be appropriated to two of the most impactful frameworks of international trade law, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement System and the instruments of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Although WTO offers a rules-based system that gives legal certainty and predictability, it is closed to non-state actors that are the main pillars of international trade. In contrast, the arbitration, mediation and conciliation systems of UNCITRAL put greater emphasis on party autonomy and procedural flexibility, allowing the successful management of the contractual and investment disputes. This paper discusses the overlaps and points of departure between these systems, as well as where tensions are created, especially in enforcement, scope and inclusivity. Simultaneously, it claims that the two regimes can be regarded as complementary pillars of global dispute resolution since they are able to resolve both the public and the private aspects of the trade disputes. The paper finds that increased congruency between WTO and UNCITRAL practice, via institutional collaboration, hybrid settlement of disputes and the incorporation of digital ADR, can make international trade dispute settlement more legitimate, effectiveand accessible, in an ever-interlinked global economy.
Sultan et al. (Wed,) studied this question.