Evidence Admissibility and Evaluation Models in Commercial Arbitration

Contracts are designed to govern the relations between business partners and allocate risk among them, yet they cannot mitigate all risks; hence, dispute resolution mechanisms have been developed to assist. According to research, arbitration is considered one of the most efficient legally binding dispute resolution mechanisms. Since initiating an arbitration case against business partners often severs the business relationship between them, predicting the arbitrator's decision becomes valuable to the arbitrating parties. To do so, arbitration prediction models are suggested in this paper through modeling the arbitrator's award in two stages: evidence admissibility and evidence evaluation. While arbitrators currently admit evidence in a relatively unsystematic way, this proposed admissibility framework systemizes the current practice by preserving its subjectivity, yet aligning it with the widely deployed rules of arbitration. This research further proposes an evidence evaluation model, providing a rapid answer to the famous commercial arbitration battle, discovery. While the current arbitrators' practice in allowing discovery is not systematic, the proposed optimization model is a tool that could systematically assist arbitrators trading between the arbitration key characteristic, efficiency, and justice. This is achieved by assigning weights to evidence parameters such as sufficiency and credibility, which in turn provide numerical measures to reduce the decision's subjectivity.