USA – MISSOURI Trends and Developments Contributed by: Craig S. O’Dear, CSO Law LLC
Technology: trends for 2026 Like everything else in the legal world, artificial intel- ligence and other technology tools are being used with increasing frequency in mediation and dispute resolution. Online dispute resolution, supported by digital dispute resolution platforms, may become the norm rather than the exception. Virtual sessions lower cost and make justice more accessible. Specialisation is increasing. Common specialties include construction and infrastructure disputes, tech- nology disputes, energy disputes, intellectual property disputes, and international investment arbitration (see the next section). Artificial intelligence tools are proliferating. AI is being used for case analysis and document review for (and by) mediators and arbitrators. These often tie into automated organisation of evidence and timelines. AI tools now suggest negotiation and mediation strate- gies. One tool, which the author suggests should be used sparingly and with great caution, is AI-assisted drafting of arbitral decisions. AI competency is now a core professional skill but must be used only with full awareness of ethical rules and restrictions. Globalisation: dispute resolution in a global economy Should Midwest lawyers concern themselves with international dispute resolution mechanisms? Yes, they should. We live in a global economy. In recent years, we see some trend toward de-globalisation, but US compa- nies still do a lot of business overseas. And when busi- ness is done with foreign counterparties, there will be disputes. The foreign entity often is unwilling to agree to resolve disputes in US courts, so the parties agree to arbi- tration. Common types of disputes for international arbitration are breach of contract, M&A disputes, joint- venture disagreements, issues concerning intellectual property, and construction contracts.
The most common institutional rules for international arbitration, and the approximate relative distribution among the major commercial institutions based on 2023–2024 data, are: • International Chamber of Commerce: 31% • International Centre of Dispute Resolution (interna- tional division of AAA): 28% • Singapore International Arbitration Centre: 21% • London Court of International Arbitration: 10% • Hong Kong International Arbitration Center: 10% The hallmark of arbitration is private adjudication before neutral arbitrators (or one neutral and two par- ty-appointed arbitrators). International arbitration and US domestic arbitration share this feature. But there are significant differences. 1 . Governing legal framework International arbitration • Governed primarily by: (a) New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards; (b) United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law; and (c) national arbitration statutes in the seat of arbi - tration. US domestic arbitration • Primarily governed by: (a) Federal Arbitration Act (FAA Chapter 1); and (b) state arbitration statutes. • Case law heavily shapes procedure and enforce- ability. Key distinction: international arbitration involves trea- ty-based recognition across borders. 2 . Enforceability of awards International • Awards enforceable in 170+ countries under the New York Convention. • Limited defences to enforcement. • Designed for cross-border asset recovery.
Domestic
571 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook