Overview of Uncitral Conciliation and arbitration rules The UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules cover all aspects of the conciliation

process, providing a model conciliation clause, defining when conciliation is deemed to have commenced and terminated and addressing procedural aspects relating to the appointment and role of conciliators and the general conduct of proceedings. The Rules also address issues such as confidentiality, admissibility of evidence in other proceedings and limits to the right of parties to undertake judicial or arbitral proceedings whilst the conciliation is in progress.
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules
The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules were adopted in 1976 after extensive deliberations and consultations with various interested international organizations and leading arbitration experts. The General Assembly of the United Nations has recommended the use of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules in international commercial contracts. Revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules were adopted in 2010 and are intended to reflect the evolution in arbitral practice in the period since the adoption of the 1976 Rules. The 2010 Rules are presumed to apply to arbitration agreements concluded after August 15, 2010, subject to the provisions of Article 1(2) of the 2010 Rules. In order for these rules to function most efficiently, parties should specify an appointing authority in their arbitration agreement who will appoint arbitrators and decide challenges when necessary. If parties fail to designate an appointing authority in their arbitration agreement, or the designated appointing authority refuses or fails to act, both the 1976 and 2010 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules provide that any party may request the Secretary-General of the PCA to make such designation. Under either the 1976 or 2010 Rules, the Secretary-General of the PCA may also serve directly as appointing authority if the parties so agree.

Difference between conciliation and arbitration

Arbitration is where another party/panel/board is asked to decide on the outcome of your dispute. Conciliation refers in this context to someone trying to bring you both together to agree on the outcome, without necessarily making the decision for you.

There are several differences between arbitration and conciliation. While both represent a meeting that is assembled to discuss a settlement, they are handled in completely different fashions. In arbitration, each of the parties meets together in one room, while during conciliation, they are kept separate. Arbitration is handled by a representative of the court and any agreement is binding under regional law. Conciliation is much more informal and has no legal significance. The major difference between arbitration and conciliation is that one is an actual legal proceeding while the other is an informal attempt to settle a matter without the courts. Both arbitration and conciliation are alternative dispute resolution procedures designed to help parties settle their differences. During arbitration, each side would gather at a courthouse and discuss the matter in detail, and in many instances, the conversations become quite tense. It is not uncommon in arbitration for the arbitrator to temporarily stop the proceedings because the arguments become counterproductive, and this professional's job is to ensure that negotiations move along in a way that will ultimately create a resolution. The arbitrator has complete authority over the meeting.

During conciliation, both parties are kept separate to avoid the tense moments that occur in arbitration. The conciliator relays messages back and forth between the two sides and steers the conversation towards a settlement that everyone can agree on. While both arbitration and conciliation allow each party to show their case and argue for a favorable verdict, the conciliator is very limited in what he can legally do. For example, he can not subpoena witnesses nor can he make actual recommendations to the court. If a settlement is not reached after the conciliation process, then the meeting was essentially for nothing. Arbitration and conciliation are also seen differently by the courts. When a contract is signed during an arbitration hearing, it is considered a binding legal document that both parties will be forced to adhere to. A conciliation resolution has much less legal authority and either side is free to change its mind without the other side having legal recourse. Although arbitration and conciliation have distinct differences in terms of legal authority, both methods have high success rates in settling disputes without involving an actual trial. Each of these methods saves everyone involved legal fees and simplifies the entire process so that an immediate resolution can be obtained. Since both sides are made well aware that a failure in arbitration and conciliation would mean a costly trial, each party is normally willing to negotiate to find an agreeable resolution.

Difference UNCITRAL arbitration rules and UNCITRAL model law

"The UNCITRAL Model Law provides a pattern that law-makers in national governments can adopt as part of their domestic legislation on arbitration. The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, on the other hand, are selected by parties either as part of their contract, or after a dispute arises, to govern the conduct of an arbitration intended to resolve a dispute or disputes between themselves. Put simply, the Model Law is [5] directed at States, while the Arbitration Rules are directed at potential (or actual) parties to a dispute."