Resolving Cross Border Construction Disputes: The Evolving Role of alternate Dispute Resolution

Abstract

This paper examines how ADR has become a critical tool in resolving international construction disputes. It analyzes ADR’s transformation from a secondary option to a central strategy, emphasizing the impact of institutional frameworks, enforceability advancements, and technology. Cross-border construction projects face legal and cultural complexities. Traditional methods like litigation and arbitration present limitations—such as high costs, delays, lack of expertise, and enforcement challenges—prompting a shift toward flexible ADR methods like mediation, conciliation, and dispute boards. A doctrinal review of legal literature, institutional reports (UNCITRAL, ICC, FIDIC), and case law is used. Sources are scholarly and thematically analyzed. ADR techniques now supplement or precede litigation and arbitration. Benefits include flexibility, expertise, cost savings, and enforceability (e.g., Singapore Convention). Challenges include uneven recognition and need for skilled neutrals. It is recommended to promote ADR training, clear clauses, online platforms, and further research on ADR’s cross-border effectiveness.