International arbitration is a form of dispute settlement that is based on national law, and the tribunals tasked with handling such disputes are known as ordre public. The ordre public is a slippery slope concept that requires a balance between the parties’ rights and obligations. In cases where a state is a party to the dispute, international arbitration may be the most appropriate course of action. However, it is not always the best approach, as international arbitration involves a variety of potential issues.

Although international arbitration is a vital component of any dispute resolution system, sometimes international disputes involve a national claim that requires determination under national law. These instances can include investment treaties, expropriation claims, and umbrella clauses. Nevertheless, international law does have flaws and may conflict with fundamental national norms. For these reasons, it is important to have a clear understanding of the legal system of the host state. Here are some of the major distinctions between international arbitration and national litigation.

In general, national courts and legal professions apply national law in cases where international arbitration would be unjust. The legal profession must accept the secondary rule before it can be accepted as a rule of recognition. Unlike judges and other officials, it is crucial to examine the primary rules invoked by the legal profession and determine whether they are appropriate. It is also necessary to determine whether the dispute resolution system is truly a national one. In practice, the two kinds of dispute resolution systems are not equivalent.