Virtual Proceedings in Arbitration: Legal Gaps and Reform Imperatives for Effective Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

Abstract

The rapid normalization of virtual proceedings has transformed the procedural landscape of arbitration, fundamentally altering how arbitral hearings are conducted and awards are rendered. While virtual arbitration has enhanced efficiency, reduced costs, and expanded access to dispute resolution, it has also raised complex legal questions at the enforcement stage. Existing national arbitration statutes and international enforcement instruments were largely conceived in a pre-digital era and offer limited explicit guidance on the procedural validity of awards rendered through virtual proceedings. This has resulted in doctrinal uncertainty concerning due process, equality of arms, the juridical seat of arbitration, admissibility of electronic evidence, cybersecurity risks, and the legal status of electronically signed arbitral awards. This article critically examines the legal gaps arising from the use of virtual proceedings in arbitration and evaluates their implications for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in both national and international contexts. Through a doctrinal and comparative analysis of statutory frameworks, international conventions, institutional arbitration rules, and judicial decisions, the study demonstrates that virtual proceedings do not inherently undermine the enforceability of arbitral awards. Instead, enforcement challenges primarily arise from the absence of uniform legal standards and procedural safeguards governing digital arbitration. The article argues for targeted legislative, institutional, and judicial reforms to harmonize enforcement practices and ensure that arbitration retains its legitimacy and effectiveness in the digital era.