The line of arguments in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 leads directly to the question presented in Chapter 6: “if the current funding practices account for an imperfect TPAF, what should be the TPAF paradigm that secures arbitration and funding objectives?” Chapter 6 questions the wisdom of having individual parties manage their funding arrangements with the arbitral process, when in practice most funders tend to actively participate in that process to at least protect their investment. TPAF should stand fundamentally as an expression of the modern liberal commitment of international arbitration. This commitment should promote greater freedom for individual parties unfettered by formal constraints through which a commitment to equality between the private actors must be observed. Arbitral institutions may conceptualize the interplay between the consensual TPAF arrangements and the framework through which they should operate. By nurturing the institutional choice, funders would not exercise any substantial control over the funded claim. The claim here is that characteristics of arbitration - party autonomy, arbitral justice, and freedom of contract - may account for an institutional-based approach of TPAF. By fostering TPAF through institutional reform, arbitration will be promoting TPAF as a financial tool of access to justice and restore the abandoned promise of facilitating access to justice by TPF. Chapter 6 provides for a succinct definition of TPAF which observes the characteristics of this practice that distinguish it from other funding practices. It concludes by providing the fundamental characteristics of the TPAF paradigm that responds to the concerns presented in the preceding chapters. This TPAF paradigm should have the following characteristics. First, arbitral institutions should create a partnership with the funders to facilitate the conclusion, performance, and termination of the funding arrangements between the funding parties. Second, arbitral institutions should create a permanent internal funding committee to handle funding issues throughout the proceedings. Third, although the disclosure of the existence of the funding arrangement and the identity of the funder is a must, disclosure should be handled through arbitral institutions, not arbitrators. Fourth, the institutional-based approach necessitates procedural reform to maintain procedural rights in order for both disputing parties to have access to the same funding opportunities. In conclusion, this book advocates for a voluntary funded adjudicative process, to whose efficiency arbitral institutions remain purposefully committed, and for whose functioning, institutions retain a meaningful responsibility by installing appropriate procedural, and even quasi-substantive, safeguards.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Other access options

Redeem Token

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institutional Access

Personal login

Log in with your Elgar Online account

Login with you Elgar account