Dispute Resolution in Oil and Gas Contracting Essay

Dispute Resolution in Oil and Gas Contracting - Essay Example The tribunal authority comes from the parties’ agreement on overcoming their argument through mediation. Various statute and international conventions reinforce this approach making it to be a preferred method in determining cross-border viable disputes. This approach has many benefits associated to civil litigation because it is enforceable, malleable, unbiased, reserved, and personal and the involved parties select their preferred arbitrator. UK is the most conspicuous Centre, which applies arbitration in dispute resolution. Most of the UK parties involved in disputes agree on their disputes decided in accordance with the enacted law by the Arbitration Act 1996 6(p.159). This Act has been operational in UK since 31 January 1997. In disagreement resolution amid the oil and gas contracting, an arbitrator has permission to rule a substantive jurisdiction. According to the Arbitration Act 1996, all the parties involved in oil and gas dispute have a prospect to file all their cas es in order to avoid unnecessary delays and find resolution to their problems. The arbitrator has fundamental tools, jurisdiction and powers to accomplish his/her responsibilities efficiently. Purpose of arbitrator’s dominion is beneath either the Arbitration Act or the arbitration guidelines. According to the arbitration act 1996, the arbitration reports should succumb in a concluding writing article on the contract among the parties. The agreement offered before the arbitration is in writing in order for it to be confirmation before both parties and the arbitration. On confirmation that the contract is an applicable statute, all the jurisdiction authorities are of consideration to the arbitrator13 (p.682). The Arbitration Act underwent some changes thus providing the arbitrator with powers to rule according to his/her individual authority. This boosted the arbitrator’s supremacy because previously, parties challenged the arbitrator’s jurisdiction through forwa rding the case to the court, which restrained the arbitrator from proceeding with the ruling. This led to different unwanted expenses and delays in the proceedings until another rightful authority is in place to continue with the hearing. To resolve this, the experienced arbitrators welcomed the statutory approach, which significantly promoted the manner of conducting arbitration progression11 (p.33). According to the Act, the arbitrator may decide on substantive jurisdiction whether there is a lawful agreement or not, whether the hearing is appropriately established or not and whether the type of troubles acquiesced to arbitration is in agreement with the arbitration contract or not 11(p.33). Considering the above three, the situation where there lack lawful mediation contract, the Act states that such matters lack both the arbitrator and the arbitration so, whoever decided on the validity of the agreement was not the required arbitrator; therefore, that person who decided had no p ermission to make verdicts. Upcoming of such situations leads to the problem at hand be solved by the court and the ruling of the case derived from the statute and not arbitration agreement. Under section 30 (1) (a) of the Arbitration Act 1996, Arbitrator’s power to claim whether he/she has powers comes from the