International Commercial Arbitration Discourse: A Corpus-Based Study of Complex Prepositions in Arbitral Awards

Abstract

In today’s globalized world, the increase in international disputes has led to a greater reliance on arbitration for dispute resolution (Born 2001, p. 1; Bhatia et al. 2018, p. 1; Gotti 2008, p. 221). Arbitral awards, the outcomes of these proceedings, are vital for understanding the evolution of international arbitration practices (Bhatia et al. 2012, 1). Historically, arbitral awards were underexplored due to the confidential nature of arbitration (Bhatia et al. 2012, p. 1). However, the past decade has seen a shift towards greater transparency, with more awards being published to aid legal development (Bhatia 2010, p. 468; Mourre, Vagenheim 2023, p. 265; Resnik et al. 2020, p. 612). The launch of Jus Mundi in 2019, an AI-powered legal search engine, has further democratized access to a wide range of legal information through its partnerships with global arbitral institutions. This technological advancement enhances access to legal knowledge and discoursal data (Bhatia 1993; Swales 1990). This research builds on the work of leading scholars in arbitration discourse (Bhatia et al. 2003, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2018), collecting a selection of English-language arbitral awards via Jus Mundi for linguistic analysis. The study asserts that cultural differences persist in the reasoning within arbitration, reflecting the influence of legal traditions on linguistic choices (Gotti 2008, p. 232). This perspective aligns with the idea that texts and genres are intertwined with their institutional and professional contexts (Bhatia et al. 2012, p. 1). Legal discourse, shaped by its environment (Fairclough, Wodak 1997, p. 276), varies across legal systems. Focusing on corpus linguistics, this study examines the use of complex prepositions signaling textual authority (Bhatia 1998) in arbitral awards from various arbitration seats, using both quantitative and qualitative methods. The emphasis on complex prepositions is justified by their importance in legal English, suggesting significant findings can be expected.