Stay Plugged In With Canon
Latest News & Updates

In every arbitral process, the credibility of a decision rests not only on its outcomes but on the thoroughness and lucidity of its reasoning. A well-structured award communicates the tribunal’s method, the factual basis for conclusions, and the legal standards applied. It helps parties understand why each claim was granted or denied and reduces scope for misinterpretation or selective emphasis. To achieve this, arbitrators should begin with a clear framework that maps issues, sources, and arguments. They should distinguish legal issues from factual disputes, summarize relevant evidence, and state the applicable law at a level of detail that remains accessible to non-specialist readers. Clarity here sets the stage for defensible judgment.

A robust award addresses all claims with explicit reasoning tied to evidence. Even when certain arguments fail, the tribunal should explain why they were unsuccessful and how the remaining considerations lead to the final ruling. This transparency helps courts reviewing the award to trace the decision path without needing to reconstruct the proceedings. Where applicable, the tribunal should acknowledge any concessions, inconsistencies in the testimony, or conflicting documentary materials, and then justify why the chosen analysis prevails. Avoiding ambiguity prevents gaps that could undermine enforceability or invite collateral challenges before national courts or regulatory bodies.

A practical approach to writing reasoning involves presenting a concise map of the decision structure at the outset. An effective map indicates the issues, the governing rules, and the standard of review. It should then guide the reader through each claim in a logical sequence, referencing the supporting evidence and the reasoning that connects fact to conclusion. This method not only improves readability but also strengthens the award’s defensibility in later judicial scrutiny. By laying out the reasoning framework early, arbitrators provide a transparent blueprint that courts can follow with confidence, minimizing misinterpretation and subsequent reversals.

Following the initial framework, the award should articulate the applicable legal standards with precision. Whether the case involves contract interpretation, misrepresentation, or termination provisions, the tribunal must identify the controlling law and the specific interpretive approach employed. If the governing instrument contains boilerplate conflict-of-laws language, explain its impact on the outcome rather than merely citing it. Where regional or international conventions influence interpretation, discuss their relevance and how they shape the tribunal’s conclusions. Precise articulation of standards reinforces consistency and fosters cross-border enforceability.

The evidentiary discussion in a reasoned award deserves particular care. Denote what constitutes credible proof for each material fact and how the tribunal weighed competing pieces of evidence. Distinguish between corroborated testimony, documentary exhibits, and circumstantial inferences, and explain why certain items were given greater weight. When parties introduce expert analyses, summarize their methodologies and evaluate their reliability in light of the record. A careful evidentiary narrative helps ensure that the final conclusions are anchored in a transparent assessment rather than subjective impressions.

Consistency across the award is essential. Repeating facts or arguments in multiple sections should be avoided; instead, cross-reference where appropriate to maintain a cohesive narrative. The tribunal should also ensure that the factual findings align with the legal conclusions, contract terms, and relief granted. If there are partial grants or bifurcated issues, clearly delineate the steps and rationale for each decision. A consistent, well-aligned document reduces the likelihood of remands or procedural delays in post-arbitral review, thereby strengthening judicial confidence in the award.

Language style matters as much as substance. An award should be written in plain, precise English that avoids unnecessary technical jargon unless required. Where specialized terms must be used, provide concise definitions or context. The tone should be neutral, respectful, and objective, avoiding inflammatory language or polemics. Readability matters; a well-edited text minimizes ambiguities and supports a smoother appellate and enforcement process. The use of headings, paragraph breaks, and consistent terminology helps readers navigate the decision quickly and accurately, which is particularly valuable when parties seek to review or challenge the award in different jurisdictions.

The tribunal should give careful attention to remedies and the form of relief. If the award grants money, specify the amount, currency, interest rate, and timing of payment, with clear calculation methods. For non-monetary relief, describe the required actions, deadlines, and any ongoing monitoring requirements. When appropriate, consider coexistence with interim measures or prior orders, outlining how the final award interacts with those instruments. Clarity about remedies minimizes post-award disputes and facilitates prompt, effective enforcement across borders and courts.

A critical aspect of reasoned awards is the treatment of dissenting opinions and unpersuasive arguments. If a party presents a strong but ultimately rejected position, the tribunal should explain why the argument does not prevail while still addressing the key points raised. This not only demonstrates fairness but also reduces the likelihood of appeals based on a claimed omission or bias. When dissents exist, reference them succinctly and explain how the majority’s approach reconciles those concerns within the overall reasoning. Balanced handling of dissent preserves legitimacy and fosters respect for the arbitral process.

The award should also consider the potential for international enforcement. Drafting with cross-border recognition in mind involves avoiding procedural traps that domestic courts often exploit to delay execution. Include clear identifiers for the governing law, a statement of arbitration seat, and a note on the award’s finality. If applicable, address the New York Convention criteria explicitly or in practical terms, outlining how the award satisfies the standard of finality, competence, and enforceability. Proactive attention to these factors increases the likelihood that foreign tribunals will uphold and give effect to the decision.

Beyond technical accuracy, the timing of reasoning matters. Present the core conclusions early in the award, followed by the detailed justification. This structure allows courts and parties to quickly grasp the outcome while still offering a comprehensive, in-depth rationale for those who seek it. A well-balanced approach respects the reader’s time and promotes efficiency in subsequent proceedings. Ensure that every material fact, legal rule, and consequence is traceable to the record, enabling independent verification. A carefully framed chronology of events can also be a valuable reference in higher courts reviewing the arbitral process.

Finally, consider the evolving standards of arbitral practice. As arbitration evolves globally, tribunals should stay attuned to best practices for reasoning, disclosure, and transparency. Regular training or consultation with seasoned arbitrators can help refine writing techniques and update interpretive frameworks. Periodically revisiting templates and checklists ensures that awards remain current with developments in new jurisdictions and treaty regimes. By embracing ongoing improvement, the arbitration community strengthens the reliability of reasoned awards and supports robust, predictable enforcement across diverse legal landscapes.