A striking aspect is that courts and arbitration tribunals in one country, in some instances, have rendered decisions differing from decisions rendered in another. In most cases, this is due to the fact that the systems of law are different. This fact might come as a surprise to the one or the other. But it is understandable if one realizes that an arbitrator, though dealing with an international transaction, is obliged to follow the law (New York arbitrators are the exception) and, in addition, that the law on laytime is, of course, based upon the national substantive general law. Thus, e.g., it might be that a Hamburg arbitrator applies rules of the BGB (Civil Code) for founding its decision.1

This difference of law, of course, usually is, and must be, considered if a charter contract is negotiated. Of course, it is not the only criterion to be kept in mind when agreeing upon the arbitration place. Other aspects have their own bearing, such as the envisaged procedure to be followed by the arbitration tribunal, the costs of such procedure, the length of time used by arbitration tribunals and the circumstance as to whether or not awards are published; BIMCO very much helps in achieving this aim.

Of course, it is possible to agree upon arbitration in country A while the arbitrators appointed are obliged to apply the law of country B. This sometimes is a way to follow two aims, namely, to have a reasonable procedure wherein the arbitrator applies a national law which contains reasonable answers to the questions often raised by the parties.