Arbitration cases involving EC competition law may create difficulties for arbitrators with regard to their attitude towards the EU organs. The article discusses aspects of this relationship. The article specifically evaluates the (non-)application in arbitration of the regime for EC Commission’s relationship with member states’ courts as well as the EC Commission’s role as a third party in arbitrations. The article then analyses circumstances of the possible co-operation of arbitrators with the EC Commission and the conditions for its smooth running. The article subsequently looks at the effects of the Commission’s decisions on arbitration as well as the effects of the arbitral awards on the Commission. The article considers the lack of a relationship between arbitrators and the European Court of Justice in light of the Court’s jurisprudence, and the relevance of the Court’s jurisprudence for particular arbitrations.

An arbitrator and the parties can be confronted with an insolvent party. In such event the arbitrator will have to integrate the effects of the insolvency into the arbitration proceedings and consider several precautions in order to render a valid and enforceable award. The main principle when tackling most of these issues is the equality of creditors. Another issue can be the identification of the applicable (system of) law. The effect of the insolvency can vary considerably depending thereon. In domestic arbitration this will not be an issue. Also, when the parties all come from EU-member states, the identification of the applicable law and the effects of the insolvency are covered by the European Insolvency Regulation. But in other international disputes the relationship between bankruptcy law and arbitration can be complex and uncertain. To illustrate the difficulty of the issues the Syska Vivendi case serves as an excellent example. Finally we describe the impact on the way the arbitration is conducted by the tribunal and on the administration and supervision of the arbitration by the institution.

The article is intended to give a view (shared by many) on how arbitrators could or maybe even should react when faced with misdeeds in an ongoing arbitration proceeding. The misdeeds meant in this article concern forgery and false witness testimonies that may fraudulently influence judgements. Not covered are questions related to illicit contracts (i.e. contracts induced by bribery or corruption).
The author contrasts the different views of an arbitrator’s role as either as a private dispute settler or as a person deriving his or her function also from the state as a guarantor of arbitration as a means to settle disputes. She comes to the conclusion that in the end, public policy consideration should overrule party autonomy and that, contrary to the current practice, tribunals faced with misdeeds during an arbitration should not hesitate to address this issue in the award.

This article examines the Belgian legislation aimed at safeguarding the confidential nature of mediation. It takes the perspective of all actors involved in the mediation process: the parties to the dispute, the mediator and experts or witnesses who participate in the mediation.

The article introduces the Round Table Mediation& Conflict Management of the German Economy, illustrates its role, member corporations and objectives, gives an insight into its vision and mission and provides an overview both of its organizational structure, functioning and the main topics currently dealt with in the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution. The contribution further provides an overview regarding recent developments of commercial mediation and finally assesses the future prospects of corporate conflict management in Germany.