1 Introduction
The covid-19 pandemic affected dispute resolution mechanisms worldwide throughout 2020. Countries around the globe had to respond to the restrictive measures taken by states to deal with the challenges created by the pandemic. Courts and arbitral institutions were forced to accommodate pandemic-related measures including social distancing and to facilitate remote hearings in order to be able to function and continue resolving disputes. In this challenging time, international commercial arbitration appeared to be more flexible than other areas of the law to accommodate remote hearings despite a number of practical challenges.1
Arbitration undoubtedly provides a greater amount of flexibility to parties than national courts. The conduct of arbitral proceedings, due to its consensual nature and the significant element of party autonomy, tends to foster a spirit of compromise. This may be why the use of international commercial arbitration has increased significantly over the past year.
The international commercial arbitration community was not alien to virtual and remote proceedings and, in fact, prior to the onset of the covid-19 pandemic and travel and social restrictions, several procedural hearings had already been conducted remotely either via telephone conferencing or online platforms to accommodate arbitration participants in different countries and mitigate cost and time constraints. Substantive/evidentiary hearings previously had to be held face-to-face; therefore, it was rare to have an entire arbitration procedure conducted remotely.2 During the pandemic, several arbitral
Many arbitration institutions have published guidelines on virtual hearings, facilitating virtual proceedings hearings as well as substantive hearings. After the covid-19 outbreak, the international commercial arbitration community increased the use of remote communication among parties and arbitrators for both procedural and substantive matters. And it looks as if fully or semi-remote hearings are here to stay, even post-pandemic.3
The main question addressed in this chapter is whether arbitrators should have the power to order virtual hearings against the wishes of the parties. We argue that arbitrators should have such power in order to save the arbitration from frustration. In the chapter, we also explore the issue of consent to determine whether an arbitral tribunal can force the parties to consent to a virtual hearing in the event that an alternative procedural mechanism has been stipulated in the arbitration agreement. The relevance of the lex fori will also be examined.
The chapter will also explore the principle of ‘access to justice’ to determine whether an individual’s right to justice can be met via online hearings in arbitration as a general theory. In the last section, some practical challenges will be discussed briefly.
2 Theoretical Challenges of Remote International Commercial Arbitration Hearings
2.1 Autonomy of the Arbitrator in Ordering Remote Hearings
Another crucial dilemma to address when justifying remote arbitral hearings is the extent of the power of arbitrators to hold such hearings. It can be argued that arbitration is a consensual method based on an all-party agreement. However, if one party is not willing to engage in a remote hearing, can arbitrators impose remote arbitration contrary to that party’s desire, for instance, if one party argues that a face-to-face hearing is necessary in order to fully present
During the Covid pandemic and even at the present time, while some pandemic restrictions are still in place, parties cannot agree as to whether hearings should be virtual, face to face or in some hybrid mode. This results in unnecessary delays in resolving disputes and administrating arbitrations. Consequently, international arbitration proceedings can become very lengthy and arguably less efficient than judicial proceedings. Ironically, one of the main reasons that commercial parties have always favored international arbitration over litigation has been efficiency, and this advantage is becoming less apparent due to the lack of parties’ cooperation in determining alternative modes of procedure.
To answer this question, the legal theory of arbitration must be reviewed. More precisely, if there is a lack of consent to conduct a remote hearing from a party identified in the arbitration agreement, is there any theory justifying the arbitrator’s power/autonomy to rescue the arbitration agreement from frustration and thereby force the parties involved to conduct virtual hearings? Different theories justify the judicial nature of arbitration. Various academics and legal philosophers have taken different approaches in associating arbitration with legal systems.4 The four main theories which elaborate the notion of arbitration and its attachment to legal frameworks are jurisdictional, contractual, mixed or hybrid and autonomous theories.5
Jurisdictional theory is based on the idea that international commercial arbitration is governed by the supervisory power of the State which, in the majority of cases, is the State of the seat of arbitration.6 Contractual theory argues that arbitration originates from a valid arbitration agreement conducted between parties7 while hybrid theory suggests that it is a mixture of
It seems that, for many years, the dominant theoretical approach in international arbitration has been contractual theory.10 The main focus of this theory is the contractual nature of arbitration, highlighting that the main source of legitimacy of the arbitration tribunal comes from the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. Contractual analysis of arbitration can seem more reasonable when one looks at the various laws and rules on arbitration worldwide. In the vast majority of national laws on arbitration or international arbitration rules, the essential and fundamental factor is an agreement between parties. The central point in this theory is based on the idea that the arbitration process is a reflection of the parties’ contractual agreement to arbitrate their disputes. The arbitration award is also the outcome of this agreement, and as all the involved parties agreed to the process of arbitration, they are required to honor the award and enforce and recognize it automatically.11
Furthermore, the contractual theory in arbitration can rationalize the parties’ duty to cooperate with the arbitration process and if a party does not comply with its contractual duties, it can be held responsible for the breach. This obligation stems from the arbitration agreement under which the contracting parties agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration. The fact that the parties decided to opt for arbitration and are compelled to do so with positive or negative duties, can also be elucidated by referring to the prior agreement between the parties in the arbitration agreement.12 Therefore, participating in an international arbitration hearing either virtually or face-to-face is an enforceable duty on parties where there exists a freely signed arbitration agreement.13
On the other hand, looking at the autonomy theory, the arbitrator’s power – which is independent of the agreement of the parties – is justifiable, as it does
Therefore, if the tribunal ordered a virtual hearing for both procedural and evidentiary matters, it is the parties’ duty to participate and act in good faith and ultimately adhere to the tribunal’s order in circumstances where there is no special procedural requirement set by the parties. Likewise, parties have a duty to comply in situations where they have agreed on the procedure to follow though the arbitrator has decided to make an adjustment and order, contrary to their wishes, as they see appropriate. As highlighted in most arbitration national laws and rules, once a tribunal has been constituted and the arbitration has started, the tribunal will have the power to fix the proceedings as it considers appropriate.15 Tribunals often have the power to decide on procedural issues, and this is widely accepted across the international arbitration community.16 Therefore, it can be argued that the decision to hold arbitration hearings virtually or in person, is a procedural matter. If the tribunal believes that it is in the best interests of parties to hold a virtual hearing, the parties have the duty to accept and follow the procedure put in place by the tribunal.
In one Australian case,17 the court had to decide whether or not a virtual solution (the only option during lockdown) was feasible and appropriate and whether a virtual hearing was fair and justifiable. In this case, the Australian Federal Court decided there was no need to delay the hearing and that it could take place virtually. The applicant had raised concerns as to the stability of its internet connection and although the court recognized the issue, it did not consider this to be an ‘insurmountable’ obstacle. The court also pointed out that justice system institutions such as the courts must do all they can to facilitate the administration of justice. The decision reached in this case can provide some reassurance for arbitrators if they decide to hold a virtual hearing against the will of the parties involved in the dispute.18
The tribunal shall,
- (b)adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the particular case, avoiding unnecessary delay or expense, so as to provide a fair means for the resolution of the matters falling to be determined.
The wording of this section appears to give the ultimate power and flexibility to the tribunal to adopt the most suitable procedure to conduct the arbitral proceeding. This can apply to the context where the tribunal has decided to hold the arbitral hearing virtually as they see it as the best possible option in order to avoid unnecessary delay and expenses.
It shall be for the tribunal to decide all procedural and evidential matters, subject to the right of the parties to agree any matter.
The ‘subject to parties’ agreement’ section signifies the fact that the parties’ agreement is paramount in ordering and handling such a procedure. Therefore, the tribunal cannot order a procedure against the agreement of the parties involved.
However, it seems that if parties do not have a specific agreement on the procedure of the arbitration, it gives the tribunal the power to select and decide the procedure considered most appropriate to complete the arbitration mandate.
- (c)failure by the tribunal to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties;
Serious irregularity means an irregularity of one or more of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant.
The record of English case law shows that often it is rare to have a challenge and award successfully based on causing ‘substantial injustice’ to an applicant and that, in practice, there is a very high threshold for Section 68 challenges in order to keep the court’s intervention in the arbitral process to a minimum.20 The approach of the Commercial Court in England has been very supportive of virtual hearings except in very exceptional circumstances.
Looking at arbitration rules shows that there has been a considerable response to the pandemic from arbitral institutions, which have adopted various measures to handle the implications of the covid-19 pandemic, and more specifically the need to cater and provide a structure for remote hearings. The covid-19 pandemic accelerated the digitalization already ongoing within arbitral institutions worldwide and, as a result, some major institutions made changes to their rules to help with the smooth running of international arbitration procedures. In essence, most changes and amendments deal with granting wider powers to arbitrators and tribunals in terms of running procedures and deciding on the form of hearings.
The Arbitral Tribunal shall organise the conduct of any hearing in advance, in consultation with the parties. The Arbitral Tribunal shall have the fullest authority under the arbitration agreement to establish
the conduct of a hearing, including its date, duration, form, content, procedure, time-limits and geographical place (if applicable). As to form, a hearing may take place in person, or virtually by conference call, videoconference or using other communications technology with participants in one or more geographical places (or in a combined form). As to content, the Arbitral Tribunal may require the parties to address specific questions or issues arising from the parties’ dispute. The Arbitral Tribunal may also limit the extent to which questions or issues are to be addressed.21
To emphasize even further the discretion of the tribunal in terms of the conduct of such procedures, Article 14 (2) states that “the Arbitral Tribunal shall have the widest discretion to discharge these general duties, subject to the mandatory provisions of any applicable law or any rules of law the Arbitral Tribunal may decide to be applicable; and at all times the parties shall do everything necessary in good faith for the fair, efficient and expeditious conduct of the arbitration, including the Arbitral Tribunal’s discharge of its general duty.” Article 14(1) (ii) defines the “general duties” of the arbitrators as “adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the arbitration, avoiding unnecessary delay and expense, so as to provide a fair, efficient and expeditious means for the final resolution of the parties’ dispute”.
In April 2020, the International Chamber of Commerce (icc) published a note concerning the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on international arbitration titled: ‘icc Guidance Note on Possible Measures Aimed at Mitigating the Effects of the covid 19 Pandemic’. The icc Arbitration Rules 2021 came into force in January 2021 and the focus of this updated version of the rules is to provide for more efficient, flexible, and transparent arbitration. In the new rules, there is an entry on the digitalization of arbitration containing a provision for virtual hearings and a shift away from form-filling. Article 26 expressly gives the power to arbitral tribunals to decide on in-person hearings or remote hearings,22 although this decision is subject to two requirements – first consulting the parties and second considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Another significant point in this section is that the icc rules not only refer to video and telephone conferencing means, but they also indicate ‘other appropriate means of communication’, which can be interpreted as the
In sum, it appears that the problem of how to address a situation where one party simply insists on in-person hearings and objects to virtual hearings should be resolved by looking at the applicable law and the governing procedural rules in that particular arbitration and then deciding whether there is a legitimate exercise of power from the arbitrator to order remote hearings despite a certain party’s objection.23 More importantly, the autonomy of the arbitration to order remote hearings has to be checked with the applicable law of the arbitration and more specifically the lex fori of the arbitration. Once the law of the seat has been determined either by parties or arbitrators, the rules of the seat will apply to the issue of remote hearings.
2.2 Access to Justice
According to the United Nations (UN), access to justice is a basic principle of the rule of law.24 Delivery of justice should be free from any discrimination and available to everyone regardless of their means or location. Courts and judicial processes must be designed in a way that makes the whole structure of the justice system accessible and available, allowing every individual to be heard and to exercise his or her rights in case of infringement of these rights. The right to a fair and effective hearing is enshrined at Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (echr)25, providing that every individual must have access to an independent and impartial tribunal within a reasonable timeframe and must have the opportunity to be heard on equal terms to the other party involved in a dispute.26 The question arises as to whether online hearings are in fact a means to expand access to justice or simply to minimize it? Will online hearings create inequality amongst parties and affect the right to present a case effectively before a court?
The covid-19 pandemic has resulted in court and tribunal closures and has threatened individual rights to access justice. This was already subject to debate, with many feeling that justice was never actually available to everyone
Under these circumstances, there was an urgent need to set up a platform to address the excessive backlog of cases (there had already been a build-up of delayed court cases prior to the pandemic) and deliver justice to the public.28 Under these circumstances, digitalization and technology came to the rescue by providing online dispute resolution systems and remote hearing solutions. Both individuals and wider societies across various jurisdictions had to embrace technology and explore various telecommunication measures in order to ensure that justice remained accessible and available during lockdown periods.
In some jurisdictions, such as England, online dispute resolution mechanisms were already in place to some extent prior to the pandemic, therefore restrictions on social gatherings only served to enhance and increase this practice. In March 2020, the Lord Chief Justice stated that it was ‘of vital importance that the administration of justice does not grind to a halt’; following this statement, the judiciary started to implement changes and issue guidance on remote hearings.29 The international arbitration community followed suit slightly later by issuing guidance and notes providing for remote arbitration proceedings.30
As mentioned above, the main debate here is whether the principles of access to justice can be met by providing and facilitating online judicial platforms for court hearings or arbitration hearings. Looking at the importance
A case31 in the UK decided by the House of Lords in 2005 concluded that the giving of evidence by video conferencing (from applicants) fails to impact the administration of justice and is, in fact, aligned with the relevant Practice Direction32 which provides that the use of video conferencing ‘will be likely to be beneficial to the efficient, fair and economical disposal of the litigation’ and therefore, the other party would not suffer injustice and prejudice since evidence is given remotely and via video conferencing.33 It is noteworthy that this decision was reached following an examination of the circumstances of the case and the parties involved and the conclusion that giving evidence via video link would not have any significant impact on the respondent’s right to access justice.
In another English case, the court decided that although it was ideal for evidence to be given physically in person, due to the special circumstances presented in this particular case and the fact that the claimant could not travel to England due to poor health, a fair trial could be achieved by taking evidence via video link from a witness in Kenya.34 In this case, access to justice was not prevented for the party in question. This case seems to have taken into consideration the special circumstances of the witness (travel) and actually served to widen participation and access to justice. This is a very positive development. The court also highlighted that the special circumstances of the individual providing evidence should be taken into consideration when allowing for the use of video links and was of the view that video links are especially unsuitable for vulnerable witnesses who needed interpretation and may be less familiar with technology.35 It appears from the court decision that the
One should differentiate between national court hearings and international commercial arbitration hearings due to the different jurisdictional rules and legal regimes at play. Society must also importantly acknowledge that the parties involved in a court case may be prone to certain character traits or idiosyncrasies. A further point to highlight regarding international commercial arbitration is that participants are usually well-established corporations with the means (internet and technology) to use online dispute mechanisms. On the other hand, as reported in May 2020 by the Civil Justice Council of England examining the impact of covid-19 on the Civil Justice System, lay litigants (or parties) of diverse backgrounds and demographics may not have had access to the technology and resources needed to effectively participate in remote hearings.36
Meanwhile, another significant finding of this report was that remote hearings can help to improve access to justice by lowering the overall cost of litigation.37 There is no doubt that cost is a paramount factor for many individuals in terms of accessing courts and tribunals. Some argue that the broad phenomena of digitalization of justice and in particular providing online dispute resolution mechanisms, if well-designed, would widen access to justice due to the low cost, accessibility and ease of use of these mechanisms.38 Some scholars have also argued that the problem of access to justice during the recent pandemic can be resolved by providing the possibility of holding virtual hearings especially during quarantine periods and even post-quarantine.39 This seems to be a valid argument – especially when one considers the implications of the pandemic across the world and the fact that we are yet to emerge from it.
In sum, online dispute resolution mechanisms (including virtual hearings) can make justice more accessible when properly designed.40
3 Practical Challenges of Remote Arbitral Hearings
There are practical challenges to virtual hearings that can burden all stakeholders in this process, including arbitrators and disputing parties. There are various debates and discussions around these practical challenges in particular relating to cybersecurity, data protection and privacy.
As discussed above, technology came to the rescue in different areas of our lives during the covid-19 outbreak. The fact that people can access online dispute resolution mechanisms and engage in judicial proceedings from the comfort of surroundings familiar to them takes away the hostility that they may encounter in courtrooms or arbitral hearing seats, but may also raise some potential risks and concerns.
Two of the main challenges in any type of virtual communication are cybersecurity and data protection. One cannot disregard the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on cybersecurity and the now increased possibility of cyber-attacks. As remote working has become increasingly embedded in communities, security challenges and privacy infringements have become more and more apparent.
Arbitration by nature is a private and confidential process and these two important features must be maintained during proceedings. Arbitration is a private process and is confidential to the parties involved; pleadings are not open to the public. No individuals other than parties with an interest in the case are allowed to attend the hearing. Arbitration can provide a shield for parties who, for a variety of reasons, do not wish to publicize their dispute. The issue of confidentiality and disclosure of information during proceedings is very important.41 Using technology and conducting hearings remotely can raise privacy implications; the confidentiality of proceedings may be compromised by remote hearings as the parties involved have no control over recordings being made and over the operations of the online platforms being used.
Another important observation with respect to confidentiality and the need to secure video conferencing is that participants are encouraged to use sophisticated means of telecommunication and safe internet servers. In this regard, the Seoul Protocol on Video Conferencing in International Arbitration provides some practical steps to protect confidentiality in remote hearings.43
Tribunals and institutions holding remote hearings must pay careful attention to cybersecurity and data protection. The International Council for Commercial Arbitration (icca) and the New York City Bar Association (NYCBar) established a working group and recognized that digitalized forms of arbitration must be provided with appropriate guidance on cybersecurity. This resulting protocol – the ‘icca-nyc Bar cpr Protocol on Cybersecurity in International Arbitration’44 – provides advice on information security during remote hearings.
Finally, the potentially differing time zones of participants have been raised as one practical challenge facing remote arbitration hearings. Undoubtedly, in the process of international commercial arbitration, there are attendees from all around the world; when holding online tribunals, one or more of the parties will inevitably have to connect outside normal business hours or even late in the evening or early in the morning.45 As a matter of fact, the difficulties of accommodating multiple or disparate time zones were stated as one of the top disadvantages of virtual hearings in a recent survey conducted by White and Case examining international arbitration and the way it is adapting to the changing world in 2021.46 It seems that there is no practical solution to address
4 Conclusion
The question remains as to whether virtual hearings and online dispute resolution will expand access to justice and possibly replace conventional physical hearings. There is no simple answer and according to a recent report (July 2021) published by the Law Society of England and Wales, the use of remote hearings should be considered on a case-by-case basis; they should only happen when the court is satisfied that justice can be served via a remote hearing, weighing the importance and urgency of the hearing against factors suggesting that justice might be better served through a physical hearing.47
From a legal standpoint, this chapter suggests that where a face-to-face hearing is impossible and parties are strategically resisting meaningful online hearings or unwilling to take part in the process of virtual arbitration, the tribunal should be empowered to order and force parties to adhere to this form of proceeding, regardless of the apparent lack of consent from the parties. By doing so, arbitrators are avoiding frustration of the arbitration agreement in cases where parties are not acting in good faith in fulfilling their contractual obligations with respect to the arbitration agreement. The parties’ failure to comply with the arbitrator’s order for a virtual hearing could then amount to a breach of contract, i.e. a breach of the arbitration agreement.
Broadly speaking, it appears that in straightforward cases and submission-based advocacy, remote hearings such as video hearings can work well, though in contested trials this may not always be the case.48 In a survey conducted by Baker McKenzie and kpmg in September and October 2020, participants, including arbitrators, judges, barrister and clients were asked whether virtual hearings and mediations are here to stay. The survey explored whether digital justice is an innovation that should be implemented within our judicial systems and whether or not it should outlast the pandemic.49 One of the key findings
Overall, it seems that virtual hearings are very much here to stay,51 and one cannot underestimate the advantages offered by online hearings. There are still some key concerns in relation to the use of virtual dispute resolution mechanisms – but the rapid digitalization and use of ai in the administration of justice – particularly in relation to the use of robot arbitrators in the realm of international arbitration – is changing the industry in such a way that it may become difficult to justify in-person hearings at all.
Mohamed Hafez, “Remote Hearings and the Use of Technology in Arbitration,” Global Arbitration Review, May 26, 2021,
Hamish Lal, Josephine Kaiding, and Léa Defranchi, “Virtual Hearings in International Construction Arbitration: Evolution or Mitigant?,” Construction Law Journal 37, no. 2 (April 2021): 129–141.
Alice Fremuth-Wolf, Ingeborg Edel, and Anna Forstel, “How the covid-19 pandemic may shape the future of international arbitral proceedings,” International Bar Association, accessed August 18, 2021,
Bahar Alamdari, “The Emerging Popularity of International Arbitration in the Banking and Financial Sector – Is this a Fashionable Trend or a Viable Replacement?,” (PhD diss., University of London, School of Advanced Studies, 2016),
Julian David Mathew Lew, Loukas A. Mistelis, and Stefan Kröll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International, 2003).
F. A. Mann, “Lex Facit Arbitrum,” in International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum for Martin Domke, ed. Pieter Sanders (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1967).
Hong-lin Yu, “A Theoretical overview of the Foundations of International Commercial Arbitration,” Contemporary Asian Arbitration Journal 1, no. 2 (2008): 255,
The law of the seat.
Mohammad Bashayreh, “The Autonomy of Arbitrators: a legal analysis of the validity of arbitrator-imposed virtual hearings in response to the COVID 19 crisis,” International Arbitration Law Review 24, no. 1 (2021): 75–91.
The conclusion that contract is the only source of the participation duty of parties fails to recognise the diversity of theories of arbitration. For more details, see Benedict Tompkins, “The Duty to Participate in International Commercial Arbitration,” International Arbitration Law Review 18, no. 1 (2015): 14–26.
Id. at 4.
Id. at 14-26.
Id. at 4.
Bashayreh, supra note 9.
Such as uncitral Model Law Article 19 (2010) (The law of the seat should also be taken into account).
Lew, Mistelis, and Kröll, supra note 5.
Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited (Adjournment) [2020] fca 486.
Kun Fan, “The Impact of covid-19 on the Administration of Justice,” Kluwer Arbitration Blog, July 10, 2020,
English Arbitration Act, 1996.
For more see: SCM Financial Overseas Ltd v Raga Establishment Ltd [2018] ewhc 1008 (Comm). The English High Court dismissed an application under section 68(2)(a) of the English Arbitration Act, 1996.
“lcia Arbitration Rules,” lcia, in effect as of October 1, 2020,
“2021 Arbitration Rules,” icc, in effect as of January 1, 2021, Article 26,
Mohamed Hafez, “The Challenges Raised by covid-19, Its Impact on the Arbitral Process and the Rise of Video Conferencing,” International Business Law Journal 1 (2021): 85–99.
“Access to Justice,” United Nations, accessed August 18, 2021,
Reiss Edwards, “European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Does it Still Apply After Brexit?,” Lexology, April 13, 2021,
“Handbook on European Law relating to access to justice,” European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Council of Europe, January 2016,
Javier Garcia Sanz and Javier González Guimaraes-da Silva, “Video conference Hearings in Spain: new mandatory rules for court proceedings,” International Bar Association, accessed August 18, 2021,
“Justice under Lockdown in Europe,” Fair Trials, November 26, 2020,
“English courts versus institutional arbitration: how do they compare in their approach to virtual hearings?,” Stewarts, July 2, 2020,
More specifically lcia and icc changed and amended their rules to accommodate for virtual hearings.
Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Limited (2005) ukhl 10.
“Practice Direction 32 – Evidence,” Justice, last modified October 1, 2020, Annex 3: Video Conferencing Guidance,
Id.; see also “Part 32 – Evidence,” Justice, last modified April 14, 2021, Civil Procedural Rule (cpr) 32.3,
Kimathi, Nyoro and others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2015] ewhc 3116 (qb) and [2015] ewhc 3684 (qb).
Id.
Natalie Byrom, Sarah Beardon, and Abby Kendrick, “Rapid Review: The Impact of covid-19 on the Civil Justice System: Report and Recommendations,” accessed August 18, 2021,
Id. at 16.
See generally Amy J. Schmitz and Colin Rule, The New Handshake: Online Dispute Resolution and the Future of Consumer Protection (American Bar Association, 2017); Amy J. Schmitz, “Building on OArb Attributes in Pursuit of Justice,” in Arbitration in the Digital Age: The Brave New World of Arbitration, eds. Maud Piers, Christian Aschauer, and Karl-Franzens (Cambridge University Press, 2018).
Nelli Golubeva, Illia But, and Pavlo Prokhorov, “Access to Justice Due to the covid-19 Pandemic,” Revista de Derecho 9, no. 2 (2020): 47-64,
Bridgette Toy-Cronin et al., “Testing the Promise of Access to Justice through Online Courts,” International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution 5, no. 1–2 (2018): 39-48,
Id. at 4.
“Guidance Note on Remote Dispute Resolution,” CIArb, April 8, 2020,
“Seoul Protocol on Video Conferencing in International Arbitration,” 33 Bedford Row, accessed April 22, 2022,
“icca-nyc Bar-cpr Protocol on Cybersecurity in International Arbitration (2020 Edition), icca, nyc Bar, and cpr, November 21, 2019,
Hafez, supra note 23.
“2021 International Arbitration Survey: Adapting arbitration to a changing world,” White & Case llp, May 6, 2021,
“Remote hearings,” The Law Society, March 1, 2022,
Byrom, Beardon, and Kendrick, supra note 36 (This was a report published by the Civil Justice Council of England in May 2020, which examined the impact of covid-19 on the Civil Justice System).
“The Future of Disputes: Are Virtual Hearings Here To Stay?,” Baker McKenzie, accessed April 22, 2022,
Id.
Lal, Kaiding, and Defranchi, supra note 2.