International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution

International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution
Name	International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution
Founded	1977
Headquarters	New York City
Type	Nonprofit organization
Purpose	Alternative dispute resolution, arbitration, mediation

International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution

The International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution is a nonprofit organization focused on arbitration, mediation, and alternative dispute resolution practices that bring together practitioners from across legal, corporate, and international arbitration communities. Founded amid debates following cases and reforms such as Breach of Contract, Securities Litigation, Energy sector disputes, and developments in United Nations arbitration norms, the institute convenes stakeholders including arbitrators, judges, counsel, and corporate counsel from jurisdictions such as United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan. Its work intersects with institutions and instruments like the American Arbitration Association, International Chamber of Commerce, London Court of International Arbitration, UNCITRAL and the New York Convention while engaging with practitioners who have participated in matters related to Enron, Lehman Brothers, BP plc, and prominent international investment disputes.

History

The institute was established in 1977 against a backdrop of landmark events and legal developments including the expansion of ADR forums influenced by cases such as Pennzoil v. Texaco, the emergence of regulatory frameworks like the Federal Arbitration Act, and the rise of multinational corporate disputes seen in matters involving ExxonMobil, Shell plc, and Siemens AG. Early leaders drew on experience from institutions such as the American Bar Association, New York State Bar Association, International Bar Association, and practiced in venues including U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and international tribunals like the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s the institute adapted to shifts prompted by events like the Maastricht Treaty, the growth of European Union regulatory disputes, and high-profile arbitrations involving entities such as WorldCom and Philip Morris International.

Mission and Activities

The institute's mission emphasizes preventing and resolving business and commercial disputes through procedures and standards influenced by authorities such as the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, the International Court of Justice, the U.S. Supreme Court, and leading arbitral institutions including the ICC Court of Arbitration and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Activities include drafting protocols and model clauses reflective of precedent from decisions in tribunals like the London Court of International Arbitration and statutes such as the New York Convention, convening panels drawing from practitioners who appeared in matters linked to Apple Inc., Google LLC, Microsoft Corporation, and multinational banking disputes involving JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank AG.

Programs and Services

Programs include mediation rosters, specialized arbitration panels, continuing legal education reminiscent of seminars hosted by Columbia Law School, Harvard Law School, and NYU School of Law, and targeted initiatives for sectors such as Construction, Energy, Intellectual Property, and Banking that often cite precedents from disputes like Chevron Corporation v. Naranjo and Huawei v. Samsung. Services encompass appointment of arbitrators similar to practices at the ICC, conducting emergency arbitrator proceedings parallel to rules in the SIAC and HKIAC, administering panel rules that reflect case law from courts such as the Court of Appeal of England and Wales and the Supreme Court of the United States, and publishing guidelines and reports that practitioners reference alongside publications from the American Arbitration Association and International Institute for the Unification of Private Law.

Governance and Leadership

Governance is carried out by a board composed of leading figures drawn from firms and institutions such as Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, White & Case, Debevoise & Plimpton, academia including faculty from Yale Law School and University of Oxford, and former judges from tribunals like the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the European Court of Human Rights. Leadership historically included chairs and presidents who have served in contexts related to high-profile arbitrations involving Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Royal Dutch Shell, and international investment cases before ICSID.

Partnerships and Influence

The institute partners with global bodies and programs including the International Chamber of Commerce, American Arbitration Association, International Bar Association, UNCITRAL, and academic partners such as Harvard Law School and Columbia Law School, influencing practice through conferences echoing those at the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Its influence is evident in adoption of model clauses by corporations including General Electric, adoption of dispute resolution mechanisms in transactions involving Siemens AG, Toyota Motor Corporation, and in dialogues with regulators and courts such as the U.S. Court of Appeals and national supreme courts that address enforcement under the New York Convention.

Criticisms and Controversies

Criticisms mirror those leveled at arbitration institutions and include concerns over transparency highlighted in debates following cases like Chevron Corporation v. Ecuador and Philip Morris v. Uruguay, questions about diversity of arbitrators similar to critiques of the ICC and LCIA, and disputes over costs and access raised in litigation involving entities like Small and Medium Enterprises and large firms such as Bank of America. Controversies have also touched on perceived corporate influence comparable to critiques of ICSID and calls for reform advanced by bodies such as the European Commission and civil society groups active around cases like Ecuadorian environmental litigation.

Category:Alternative dispute resolution organizations