As everywhere else, French practitioners and their clients are concerned with the length and cost of arbitration. The French and continental approach, since they do not end the discovery, tends to cost less than arbitration procedures conducted according to Anglo-Saxon practices. As noted above, the arbitration agreement must identify the parties, existing or future disputes and the legal relationship (contractual or non-contractual) that gave rise to the dispute or disputes. It must also be said that once the intention and agreement of the parties (to refer disputes to arbitration), the courts will rarely intervene. Indeed, the courts can and will ask a party to follow the agreed procedure, as defined in the arbitration agreement, before addressing it.7 Each intervention is an intervention that is made with the aim of getting the arbitration process back on track. This is consistent with the main objectives of the legislation, which is intended to minimize the oversight function of the courts in arbitration. However, the Tribunal refused to adopt the English position in its entirety, as the English Arbitration Act was different from that of the ILO in many respects. In particular, (a) the English Arbitration Act is not entirely based on the standard law of the CNUDCIR () nor does it contain it, which strictly overhauls judicial intervention in arbitration; (b) the English Arbitration Act deals with both domestic and international arbitrations, while the ILO deals only with international arbitrations; and (c) in England, it is possible for the parties to enter into contracts on the basis of the capacity of a court to determine their own material competence, for the benefit of the judicial treatment of these matters. The cornerstone of the alleged judicial intervention in India may have been the Supreme Court decision of Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A.1, where it was established that the provisions of Part 12 of the Act would apply to all arbitration proceedings and related proceedings. Moreover, the Supreme Court held that if such arbitration were to take place in India, the provisions of the first party would be imperatively applicable and that the parties would be free to depart from them only to the extent permitted by the deviant provisions of Part 1. In the case of international commercial arbitrations, the provisions of Part 1 apply, unless the parties expressly or implicitly exclude all provisions or one of their provisions.
In this case, the laws or rules chosen by the parties would prevail. A part 1 provision that is contrary to or excluded from this act or provisions does not apply. In asserting this, many argue that the Supreme Court has opened the floodgates for judicial intervention in international commercial arbitrations. It should be noted that the law presented in this case in the case of Bharat Aluminum Company Limited Vs. Emperor Aluminum Technical Service Inc. was referred to a constitutional bank of the Supreme Court and the hearings report. However, until a new law is passed by this constitutional bank, this judgment is in the practice of the right winger. With respect to securities and financial litigation, it is increasingly common for parties to refer such disputes to the Financial Dispute Resolution Centre (FDRC) in Hong Kong. It is an independent non-profit organization that requires its members to settle monetary disputes with their clients through mediation and/or arbitration. Significant, while the law requires a written arbitration agreement, it offers some easing in relation to such a requirement, providing that an arbitration agreement is considered written when included in: the High Court of Australia has decided that the agreement must be considered an arbitration agreement under arbitration agreement s 7 (1), whether as a result of an election by one party or by other means: PMT Partners Pty Ltd v. Australian National Parks – Wildlife Service (1995) 184 CLR 301; AGL Energy Limited/Yemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd  NSWSC 765,  (late: Yemen gas).