International arbitration is one of the most popular forms of alternative dispute resolution mechanism when disputing parties fail to resolve the dispute on their own, and want a third party to suggest a resolution, and at the same time, limit the time as well as the expense of litigation over which they have absolutely no control. Arbitration crucially depends on the parties' agreement to resolve disputes through private adjudication by a single arbitrator or a tribunal of more than one, appointed in accordance with rules of a specific arbitration institution that the parties themselves have agreed to adopt, usually by including an arbitration clause in their contract. Another factor that favours international arbitration as an attractive dispute resolution mechanism is that like judgment in litigation, arbitration award is enforceable and cannot be challenged in a court of law, except on procedural grounds. Thus, some of the main advantages of arbitration are that it is like litigation in effect but unlike litigation, in that it is considered to be informal, expedient, economical, private, and confidential in nature, and at the same time, gives sufficient freedom to disputing parties in the way it is actually conducted. However, in actual practice over the years, it has encountered several challenges, including its large-scale colonisation by litigation practitioners, giving rise to hybrid (often contested) identities and discourses of arbitigation (litigation and arbitration) making it similar to litigation that it was intended to replace [1]. In more recent years, arbitration has been facing new challenges as a result of an increasingly compelling present-day digital environment in which it is