The debate surrounding the divide between civil and common law traditions in international arbitration continues to shape procedural expectations and normative choices in arbitral practice. This article critically examines two influential perspectives on the subject—Pierre Karrer’s position that experienced arbitrators transcend the civil–common law divide, and Andreas Respondek’s call for integrating civil law principles to improve efficiency. While Karrer downplays the practical implications of procedural diversity, Respondek critiques the entrenched influence of common law methods in arbitration practice. Through a comparative analysis of their arguments, this article interrogates the persistence of procedural tensions in international arbitration and explores the scope for reconciling flexibility with efficiency in arbitral design.
