International Arbitration Explained for Businesses (2026)

A Canadian manufacturing firm signed a €4.2 million supply contract with a Turkish distributor in January 2025. When payment disputes arose, the contract's arbitration clause triggered ICC proceedings in Geneva. Within 30 days, both parties had appointed arbitrators, avoiding two years of parallel litigation in Toronto and Istanbul courts.

International arbitration is a binding dispute resolution process in which neutral arbitrators—not judges—decide cross-border commercial conflicts. Businesses choose it for three concrete reasons: awards are enforceable in 172 countries under the 1958 New York Convention, proceedings remain confidential, and parties control arbitrator selection. Most cases run 18 months from start to final award.

International commercial arbitration is a private adjudicative process where parties submit a cross-border business dispute to one or more neutral arbitrators who issue a binding decision enforceable under the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (Article III).

Key Takeaways

• 78% of cross-border business disputes now use arbitration instead of litigation
• The 1958 New York Convention enforces awards across 172 signatory countries
• Respondents must file answers within 30 days of receiving the claim under ICC Rules—missing this deadline can cost you counterclaim rights
• Typical arbitration costs $150,000 and takes 18 months; expedited cases run six months
• Arbitral awards can be challenged only on limited grounds (procedural defects, not substantive disagreement) under UNCITRAL Model Law Article 34

What Is International Arbitration and Why Do 78% of Businesses Choose It for Cross-Border Disputes?

International commercial arbitration resolves disputes between businesses from different countries through a private tribunal rather than national courts. According to UNCITRAL statistics, 78% of cross-border disputes now use it. The real advantage? Neither party litigates on the opponent's home turf. You avoid navigating unfamiliar courts in a foreign language with different procedural rules.

Enforceability is where arbitration wins decisively. Under Article III of the New York Convention, national courts must recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards with minimal review. Contrast this with foreign court judgments, which require separate recognition proceedings in each jurisdiction—often with full merit reviews. A French judgment against a Japanese company demands formal exequatur proceedings in Tokyo; an ICC arbitral award gets recognized and enforced without that friction.

Confidentiality matters for businesses protecting trade secrets. Unlike court proceedings (which create public records), arbitration stays private. Details of your pricing, technology, or supply arrangements never appear in searchable court databases. This extends beyond the parties; arbitral awards can be kept confidential when applicable laws permit.

Supply chain disruptions during 2024–2025 drove a 34% spike in arbitration filings across energy and manufacturing sectors, according to ICC Arbitration Statistics. Parties increasingly use arbitration clauses in joint venture agreements, technology licensing contracts, international sales agreements under CISG, construction contracts for overseas projects, and M&A disputes.

How does international arbitration differ from domestic litigation?

Party autonomy. That's the core difference. You select arbitrators with industry expertise—construction engineers for building disputes, patent attorneys for IP conflicts. Under UNCITRAL Model Law Article 11, parties agree on the appointment procedure; institutional rules provide fallback mechanisms if consensus breaks down. Courts assign judges; you cannot choose them or require specific qualifications.

Court intervention is minimal by design. UNCITRAL Model Law Article 5 states that "no court shall intervene except where so provided" in the Model Law itself. Courts assist only with arbitrator appointments, interim relief, and setting aside awards. Appeals on the merits don't exist. Article 34 limits challenges to procedural defects—not substantive errors in the arbitrators' legal reasoning.

Finality cuts both ways. Arbitral awards are binding and unappealable. Under Article V of the New York Convention, enforcement may be refused only on seven narrow grounds: party incapacity, invalid arbitration agreements, lack of proper notice, excess of authority, improper tribunal composition, non-arbitrability, and public policy violations. Courts cannot reverse awards because they dislike the reasoning. That certainty has value for settlement negotiations; both sides know the outcome will stick.

What types of disputes are best suited for international arbitration?

International commercial arbitration handles business-to-business disputes involving at least one foreign party. Breach of international sales contracts, joint venture deadlocks, intellectual property licensing conflicts, franchise termination disputes, and international construction claims all fit naturally. Arbitration clauses now appear in 89% of cross-border M&A agreements, per 2025 UNCTAD data.

Investor-state dispute settlement uses specialized arbitration for conflicts between foreign investors and host governments. The 1965 ICSID Convention established the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, which has registered over 900 cases since inception. A German renewable energy company can arbitrate against a host country that retroactively changed feed-in tariffs, claiming expropriation under a bilateral investment treaty.

Exceptions exist. Many jurisdictions exclude family law, criminal matters, insolvency proceedings, and certain employment disputes from arbitration under public policy grounds. Consumer contracts face enforceability challenges in EU member states under the Brussels Regulation. Antitrust claims remain arbitrable in the United States but not in several European jurisdictions—a critical detail if your dispute touches competition law.

How Does the International Arbitration Process Actually Work From Start to Finish?

Initiation. The claimant files a notice of arbitration or request for arbitration. Under ICC Arbitration Rules Article 4, the Request must identify the parties, describe the dispute, specify the arbitration agreement, and state the relief sought. The ICC Secretariat registers the case within seven days and notifies the respondent.

Now the clock starts. Respondents have 30 days to file an Answer under ICC Rules Article 5. Miss this deadline and you risk losing the ability to raise counterclaims. The Answer must address jurisdictional objections, state defenses, and assert any counterclaims. Extensions require both parties' agreement plus ICC approval—don't expect sympathy for administrative delays.

Arbitrator appointment follows institutional rules or party agreement. For three-arbitrator panels under ICC Rules Article 12, each party appoints one arbitrator within 15 days; those two arbitrators select the presiding arbitrator. The ICC Court confirms all appointments. If a party fails to appoint, the ICC Court makes the appointment to prevent delay tactics. The tribunal is constituted once all arbitrators accept their appointments.

A preliminary conference establishes the procedural calendar. The tribunal issues Terms of Reference under ICC Rules Article 23, defining the issues to be resolved, procedural rules, and timetable. Document production follows IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence or customized procedures. Unlike U.S. discovery, arbitration uses targeted requests for specific, relevant documents only—far less expensive and faster.

Hearings resemble trials but with flexibility. Parties present opening statements, examine witnesses, cross-examine opponents' witnesses, and introduce expert testimony. Evidentiary rules are relaxed; tribunals admit evidence they find relevant. Hearings typically last three to seven days. Post-hearing briefs allow final legal arguments.

The tribunal deliberates and issues an award. ICC Rules Article 30 requires tribunals to issue awards within six months of the final hearing, though extensions occur in complex cases. Awards must be in writing, signed by arbitrators, state reasons, and fix costs. The ICC Court scrutinizes awards for formal compliance before transmission to parties.

Average arbitration duration is 18 months from notice to award. Fast-track procedures under ICC Expedited Rules apply to disputes under €3 million, reducing timelines to six months. Costs vary sharply: ICC administrative fees alone range from €30,000 to €500,000 based on claim amount, plus arbitrator compensation and legal representation.

How are arbitrators selected and appointed?

Party autonomy drives selection. You specify qualifications in arbitration agreements: industry expertise, language capability, nationality restrictions, or experience thresholds. Construction disputes often require engineering backgrounds; pharmaceutical licensing demands patent law expertise.

Three-arbitrator panels are standard for high-value disputes. Each party appoints one arbitrator; those two select the presiding arbitrator. This balances party confidence (your appointee understands your perspective) with neutrality (the presiding arbitrator holds the deciding vote). Single arbitrators suit expedited or lower-value matters.

Institutional appointment procedures prevent obstruction. If a party fails to appoint within the deadline, the institution appoints on their behalf. ICC Rules Article 13, LCIA Rules Article 7, and SIAC Rules Article 10 all include default appointment mechanisms. Parties cannot block arbitration by refusing cooperation in appointments.

Impartiality and independence are mandatory. IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration establish standards. Arbitrators disclose any relationships with parties, counsel, or the subject matter. Prior work for a party's law firm three years ago triggers disclosure; current work triggers disqualification. Parties may challenge arbitrators for lack of independence under institutional rules, with the institution deciding.

What happens during the arbitration hearing?

The hearing is the evidentiary phase. Claimant presents first, followed by respondent. Opening statements outline each party's position and the evidence they'll introduce—typically 30 to 90 minutes per side.

Witness testimony proceeds through examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination. Many tribunals use witness statements as direct testimony; the witness confirms accuracy, then opposing counsel cross-examines. Cross-examination tests credibility, highlights inconsistencies, and challenges factual assertions. Tribunals may question witnesses directly to clarify points.

Expert witnesses tackle specialized problems that lie outside arbitrators' everyday knowledge. Accountants calculate damages, engineers assess construction defects, economists testify about market conditions. The catch: party-appointed experts must present opinions favorable to their hiring client while still owing candor to the tribunal itself—a tension that arbitrators watch for carefully. UNCITRAL Model Law Article 26 permits tribunals to appoint independent experts, though parties still control most expert evidence in practice.

Documents get submitted before the hearing begins. Parties exchange evidence bundles—contracts, emails, technical drawings, financial records, supporting materials—then hearing exhibits are pre-marked and bound into binders for easy reference. As witnesses testify, the tribunal pulls key documents to test authenticity and credibility against what's being said. This real-time document review often reveals contradictions that would stay hidden if exhibits arrived unseen.

Virtual hearings went mainstream in 2020 and never fully retreated. Zoom, Teams, and other platforms cut travel costs and calendar conflicts significantly. The tradeoff matters: reading witness credibility erodes without physical presence—microexpressions vanish on screen, body language compresses. Many tribunals now split the difference with hybrid formats: procedural conferences virtual, evidentiary hearings in-person where cross-examination matters most.

What Are the Key Legal Frameworks Governing International Arbitration?

The 1958 New York Convention remains arbitration's legal bedrock. Article II mandates that signatory countries recognize written arbitration agreements and send parties to arbitration when one party invokes the clause. Article III requires enforcement of arbitral awards "in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon"—meaning arbitral awards get treated like domestic court judgments for enforcement purposes. When enforcement is challenged, Article V lists seven exhaustive grounds for refusal: party incapacity, an invalid arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, decisions beyond the arbitrator's authority, improper tribunal composition, non-arbitrability, and public policy violations. With 172 signatory countries, the Convention reaches nearly everywhere a business operates—which is precisely why arbitration appeals to international parties.

The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration harmonizes how different countries regulate arbitration itself. Drafted in 1985 and revised in 2006, it's now enacted in over 80 jurisdictions—Canada, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and most U.S. states for international disputes. Article 1 sets scope. Article 5 keeps courts from meddling. Article 8 requires courts to refer disputes to arbitration unless the agreement is null, inoperative, or impossible to perform. Article 16 gives tribunals power to rule on their own jurisdiction. Article 34 mirrors the New York Convention's enforcement grounds, creating consistency between the seat's law and international enforcement standards.

National statutes put these frameworks into domestic law. The U.S. Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1-16) applies to maritime transactions and interstate commerce. Section 2 declares arbitration agreements "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract"—a protective language that courts take seriously. Section 3 requires federal courts to pause litigation and refer parties to arbitration. Section 10 limits a judge's power to overturn awards to four narrow bases: misconduct, corruption, excess of authority, or denying a party a hearing. Chapter 2 (Sections 201-208) implements the New York Convention for foreign awards, removing extra hurdles that used to exist.

Institutional arbitration rules supply the procedural roadmap. ICC Arbitration Rules (2021 edition) administer disputes through the International Chamber of Commerce, controlling case management, arbitrator selection, evidence handling, and award review. ICSID Convention and Arbitration Rules govern investor-state disputes involving governments as parties, with sovereign immunity protections built in. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2013 revision) enable ad hoc arbitration without institutional middlemen—common in investment treaty cases where no single institution manages the docket.

What is the New York Convention and why does it matter for enforcement?

Before the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards existed, a party who won an arbitration abroad faced a nightmare: proving the underlying dispute's merits all over again in each country where assets sat. The Convention eliminated that obstacle. Article III requires courts to recognize and enforce foreign awards "in accordance with" local rules, treating arbitral awards identically to final court judgments for enforcement purposes. This simplification—enforcement without re-litigation—is arbitration's central advantage over traditional litigation.

Article II embeds a strong pro-arbitration presumption. Paragraph 1 requires each signatory to "recognize an agreement in writing under which the parties undertake to submit to arbitration" any dispute from their contractual relationship. Paragraph 3 demands that courts refer parties to arbitration when an agreement exists "unless it finds that the said agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed." Courts treat this exception narrowly; they rarely second-guess the parties' choice to arbitrate.

Article V defenses are the only permitted grounds to resist enforcement—not illustrative examples, but an exhaustive list. A court may refuse enforcement only if the losing party proves one of seven specific failures: the party lacked capacity under applicable law (Article V(1)(a)), the arbitration agreement was invalid (Article V(1)(a)), the party received no proper notice of arbitrator appointment or the hearing (Article V(1)(b)), the award addressed disputes beyond the arbitration clause's scope (Article V(1)(c)), tribunal composition violated what the parties agreed (Article V(1)(d)), the award is not yet binding or was set aside in the seat country (Article V(1)(e)), the subject matter cannot be arbitrated under local law (Article V(2)(a)), or enforcement violates the forum's fundamental public policy (Article V(2)(b)). The party trying to block enforcement carries the burden of proof.

Public policy defenses get interpreted strictly—and courts say so explicitly. U.S. courts require "explicit" public policy violations; mere legal errors don't cut it. European courts apply the same tight standard, refusing enforcement only when an award contradicts core principles. Fraud or corruption in the underlying contract might justify a public policy refusal; disagreement with the arbitrator's interpretation of the contract does not. This narrow approach is intentional: it prevents losing parties from weaponizing "public policy" to rehash old arguments.

Takeaway: The New York Convention's near-universal adoption and limited review standards make arbitral awards far more enforceable across borders than court judgments. A Singapore ICC award enforces in Brazil with fewer obstacles than a Singapore High Court judgment would face.

Which arbitration rules should my business choose?

ICC Arbitration Rules work well for complex, high-value commercial disputes where institutional oversight matters. The ICC's Article 34 scrutiny of draft awards before transmission reduces the risk of awards being overturned for technical defects—the institution's legal team spots problems before parties see them. Costs are steep: administrative fees run from €30,000 for claims under €1 million to over €150,000 for claims exceeding €100 million, plus arbitrator compensation on the same sliding scale. Add legal representation, and the total often reaches 8–12% of the claim amount. That expense buys global recognition; ICC awards face challenge rates below 5% worldwide.

UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules offer flexibility for ad hoc arbitration when no institutional administrator sits between the parties. You pay no administrative fees—only arbitrator compensation and case expenses. The 2013 revisions added teeth for multi-party disputes, consolidation, and joinder, addressing gaps the original rules had. Investment treaty arbitration gravitates toward UNCITRAL Rules because bilateral investment treaties often reference them directly. The downside is clear: parties handle arbitrator appointments, deposit schedules, and logistics themselves. Institutional support vanishes.

ICSID Convention and Rules apply exclusively to investor-state disputes. Jurisdiction requires that both the investor's home state and the host state have ratified the ICSID Convention, and both have consented to ICSID jurisdiction through a treaty, contract, or national investment statute. What makes ICSID special: Article 54 makes awards self-executing; signatory states must enforce them as final judgments, bypassing the New York Convention's enforcement framework entirely. ICSID is wrong for private commercial disputes.

Specialized institutions carve out regional advantages. The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) dominates European commercial disputes and financial services conflicts. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) has become the preferred seat for Asian disputes, offering expedited procedures and lower costs than ICC. The International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), the global arm of the American Arbitration Association, handles U.S.-party disputes and provides Americas-focused arbitrator rosters. Construction disputes often default to ICC or LCIA specialized rules.

Takeaway: ICC offers the most institutional support and global recognition at the highest cost. UNCITRAL Rules maximize flexibility and reduce fees but require more party management. Choose ICSID for investor-state conflicts, LCIA for European disputes, and SIAC for Asian commercial matters.

How Are Arbitral Awards Enforced Internationally and What Can Go Wrong?

Enforcement under the New York Convention requires two documents presented to the national court: the authenticated original award (or certified copy) and the original arbitration agreement (or certified copy). Article IV specifies these requirements. Your enforcing court then applies its own procedural rules—typically a petition, notice to the award debtor, and a hearing if contested. You're not relitigating the merits; the court simply decides whether to recognize the award.

Success rates are genuinely high. Empirical studies show recognition exceeding 85% in developed legal systems. Courts don't review the arbitrators' reasoning or legal conclusions. Instead, the losing party must affirmatively prove one of the Article V grounds for refusal; you don't have to prove the award is valid—the burden flips to your opponent. This procedural advantage matters in practice.

Once recognized, assets in that jurisdiction become attachable. The award creditor can levy against bank accounts, real property, business assets, and receivables. Pre-judgment attachment under Article 9 of the UNCITRAL Model Law lets parties secure assets before the award is even rendered—a useful tool if you anticipate the debtor hiding money. The critical constraint: if your opponent's assets sit entirely in a non-signatory state, your award becomes paper. Asset location is the real enforcement game.

Bottom line: Enforcement works smoothly when the debtor has assets in New York Convention signatories and cannot establish an Article V defense. Your real risks are twofold: the debtor moving assets to non-signatory jurisdictions, and parallel set-aside proceedings at the arbitration seat suspending enforcement under Article VI.

Can an arbitration award be appealed or challenged?

Arbitral awards are final. No appellate tribunal reviews the legal reasoning, and courts cannot reverse them for bad contract interpretation or wrong factual findings. This finality—no second chance to argue your case—is what separates arbitration from court litigation.

Set-aside applications at the seat provide narrow grounds. Under UNCITRAL Model Law Article 34, you have three months from receiving the award to file in the seat's courts claiming: improper notice, excess of mandate, improper tribunal composition, non-arbitrability, or public policy violation. ICC statistics show fewer than 6% of awards are actually set aside globally. The bar is genuinely high.

In the U.S., Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act allows vacatur only for corruption, fraud, arbitrator misconduct, or "manifest disregard of the law." Courts have narrowed even that last ground: the Second Circuit requires proof that arbitrators "knew of the relevant legal principle, appreciated that this principle controlled, and nonetheless willfully flouted it." Simple legal errors don't cut it. U.S. courts vacate fewer than 4% of awards.

That said, enforcement can still be blocked in other countries. Even if the seat court refuses to set aside an award, the losing party can raise Article V defenses in any enforcement jurisdiction separately. Article VI lets the enforcement court adjourn its decision if a set-aside application is pending in the seat, creating tactical openings for delay.

ICSID awards are even more final. ICSID Convention Article 52 permits annulment only for improper tribunal constitution, manifest excess of powers, tribunal member corruption, serious procedural departure, or failure to state reasons. Annulment committees don't correct legal errors—only procedural integrity matters.

What are the grounds for refusing enforcement of an arbitral award?

Article V(1)(a) covers incapacity or invalidity. If a party lacked authority to bind its corporation to arbitration, or if the arbitration agreement itself was fraudulently induced, this defense applies. Note the precision: fraud in the underlying contract doesn't count here—only fraud in inducing the arbitration clause itself.

Article V(1)(b) applies when proper notice of arbitrator appointments or proceedings was absent. Courts focus on whether the party was "unable to present its case"—not minor notice delays that still allowed preparation. Parties who participated without objecting waive this defense entirely.

Article V(1)(c) addresses excess of authority. Arbitrators exceed their mandate when ruling on disputes outside the agreement's scope or awarding relief never requested. Broad contract interpretation doesn't cross this line; addressing claims entirely unrelated to the contract does. The distinction matters: courts assume arbitrators will interpret generously.

Article V(1)(d) covers improper tribunal composition—if parties agreed to three arbitrators but received one, or if the chosen procedural rules were breached in material ways. Minor irregularities that didn't prejudice you won't defeat enforcement; courts distinguish technical defects from substantive violations.

Article V(1)(e) permits refusal if the award "has not yet become binding" or has been set aside or suspended by the seat's court. A French court's annulment of an award seated in Paris theoretically supports refusal elsewhere, though some jurisdictions read this defense narrowly.

Article V(2)(a) invokes non-arbitrability. Family law disputes, criminal matters, and certain statutory claims can't be arbitrated in most jurisdictions. Yet arbitrability varies: antitrust claims are arbitrable in the U.S. but faced restrictions in some EU member states before the Eco Swiss decision shifted the landscape.

Article V(2)(b) public policy violation is the hardest defense to win. Enforcement must offend the jurisdiction's most fundamental principles. Fraud in procuring the award or arbitrator corruption meets this threshold. Errors of law—even shocking ones—don't. Crucially, the award itself must offend public policy; a contract that violates sanctions law may still produce an enforceable award if the tribunal addressed the legality issue.

This article is published by an independent law firm for informational purposes only and does not represent or claim affiliation with any government body, international organization, or official authority.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between arbitration and mediation in international disputes?

Arbitration produces a binding decision enforceable under the New York Convention; the arbitrators' award has the same legal force as a court judgment. Mediation is non-binding—a neutral third party facilitates negotiation, but either side can simply walk away. Many international contracts layer both: try negotiation first, then mediation, then arbitration as the final step if the earlier attempts fail. Each has distinct timing and cost implications.

How much does international arbitration cost compared to litigation?

Moderately complex international arbitration typically runs $150,000 including institutional fees, arbitrator compensation, and legal representation. ICC administrative fees range from €30,000 to €500,000 depending on claim size. Litigation costs vary widely by jurisdiction but usually involve higher discovery expenses and longer timelines. The hidden advantage of arbitration: no appeals process means your costs cap earlier. For claims under €3 million, ICC Expedited Procedure rules cut costs by 40–60% through streamlined procedures and single-arbitrator panels.

Can I choose any country as the seat of arbitration?

Yes, provided both parties agree. The seat determines which national law governs arbitration procedure and which courts can set aside the award. Most parties select neutral jurisdictions with modern arbitration laws: Switzerland, Singapore, London, Paris, Hong Kong, or Stockholm. Here's the nuance: the seat and hearing location are independent. You can maintain a legal seat in Geneva while holding hearings in New York. The key: choose seats that have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law and maintain courts friendly to arbitration.

What happens if the other party ignores the arbitration agreement and files a lawsuit?

Article II(3) of the New York Convention requires courts to refer parties back to arbitration and stay the litigation. File a motion to compel arbitration or motion to stay proceedings under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (or your jurisdiction's equivalent). Courts grant these motions unless the arbitration agreement is "null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed." If your opponent somehow obtained a judgment before you moved to compel, challenge that judgment's enforcement by proving the Article V(1)(a) defense: the dispute was subject to a valid arbitration agreement that should have been honored.

Are arbitration awards confidential?

Arbitration proceedings themselves are confidential under ICC, LCIA, and SIAC rules—parties and arbitrators face strict obligations not to disclose what happens inside the hearing room. Documents you hand over during arbitration stay locked there; you cannot recycle them in court cases or other arbitrations.

Awards, though. They're different. The award itself is not automatically confidential unless you and the other party explicitly agree to seal it in writing. This matters if you want to protect your settlement terms or keep the outcome quiet—silence does not equal confidentiality; you must negotiate it upfront.

One major exception: investment treaty arbitration under ICSID rules flips the default. Awards and procedural orders are published by default unless a party formally objects. You lose the confidentiality option as a matter of public international law.

When enforcement rolls around—when one party drags the award to a national court to force compliance—confidentiality vanishes. The award becomes a court record the moment the recognition petition lands on the clerk's desk. Journalists, competitors, anyone can request the file.

Can I include an arbitration clause in existing contracts through an amendment?

Yes. You do not need the clause in the original deal. Parties can agree to arbitrate existing disputes later through what's called a "submission agreement"—a separate signed document committing both sides to arbitration.

Article II(1) of the New York Convention requires only that the agreement be "in writing." That covers far more than you might think: letters back and forth, email chains where both parties consent, even a signed amendment to an old contract all count.

Here's where drafting precision matters. Your clause must spell out which disputes you're sending to arbitration, which arbitration rules apply (ICC? LCIA? Ad hoc?), where the arbitration happens (the "seat"), and how many arbitrators you want. Vague language—"disputes may be arbitrated"—invites a court to strike the whole clause down if enforcement is challenged later. Use mandatory phrasing instead: "shall be finally resolved by arbitration." The difference between "may" and "shall" can cost you everything if an opponent later refuses to arbitrate and a judge agrees they can ignore the clause.