The COURT has also developed resolution mechanisms specifically conceived for business disputes in an international context.
The COURT provides parties with a flexible and neutral setting for dispute resolution. It offers confidentiality and extraordinary freedom for parties to choose the framework for how and where they want to resolve their dispute.
the COURT has administered more than 19,000 cases involving parties and arbitrators from some 180 countries.
the outcome does not depend on the parties reaching an agreement. Rather, the arbitral tribunal is empowered to make a final, binding award.
Court judgements in commercial cases can usually be appealed at least once, often more than once, to higher courts. This is not true for arbitration. There is generally no appeal at all permitted from an arbitral tribunal’s award in an international arbitration. The result is absolutely final, subject only to a request to set aside the award due to procedural irregularities such as an unfair procedure or arbitrator lack of independence. http://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/arbitration-and-adr/arbitration/
Any other dopes out there who want to say the ICC is not a court with binding consequences?
Anyone else out there too stupid to see that this is not a court or court proceeding being talked about? The dunce has even included the parts which emphasize the differences between an arbitration and a lawsuit. SHEESH.
I have little doubt that The International Court of Arbitration could assemble a court to hear a dispute, but in this instance they didn't do that--they furnished an arbitration panel. Among numerous differences between a court and a panel, rules of precedent and evidence don't apply to the panel and an arbitration can leave some of the matters in dispute undecided.
I have not seen the contract between Amkor and Tessera. It seems likely that they agreed to submit disputes to arbitration, but permitted lawsuits over matters the arbitrators didn't decide...and we're apparently there.