Cultural variation in arbitration journals : the International Court of Arbitration Bulletin and Arbitration International compared

Over the last few years, recourse to arbitration as the preferred means for the resolution of commercial disputes has grown considerably, giving rise to what has been called a ‘specialized international regime’ (Lynch 2003: 84) of international commercial arbitration. A key role in the creation of this regime has been played by the international community of arbitration scholars and practitioners. By virtue of their commonality of intents and shared values and practices, arbitration experts constitute ‘a network of professionals with recognised expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area’ (Haas 1992: 2). Among the identifying features of an epistemic community is the fact that the professionals who belong to it share ‘a common policy enterprise’ (Haas 1992: 3) which encourages them to promote their cause by engaging in policy innovation and diffusion, the latter being carried out most notably through international organisations and their publications (Lynch 2003: 98-99). One of the important institution-based communication activities in the development of a culture of arbitration is arbitration-related journals, in which the line between scholar and practitioner is often blurred, with leading scholars often working as professional arbitrators and leading practitioners frequently contributing to important issues in the field. Starting from these premises, this chapter focuses on aspects of arbitration culture as they are reflected in the discursive features of periodical publications by two leading international arbitration institutions, namely, the arbitration division of the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), with its semi-annual Bulletin, and the London Chamber of International Arbitration (LCIA), with its quarterly Arbitration International. The study identifies similarities and differences in the ways in which the two journals contribute to the construction of the discourse of arbitration, with a view to outlining common concerns and diverging interests (or approaches) in the theory and practice of arbitration. References: Haas, Peter M. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization. 46/1, 1-35. Lynch, Katherine 2003. The forces of economic globalization: Challenges to the regime of international commercial arbitration. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.