In the context of international dispute resolution, what specific advantage does 'binding arbitration' offer over 'litigation' regarding the finality and enforceability of an outcome across different jurisdictions?

Binding arbitration is a private dispute resolution process where parties agree to submit their dispute to an impartial third party or panel, known as arbitrators, whose decision, called an arbitral award, is legally enforceable. Litigation, in contrast, involves resolving disputes through a formal court system, resulting in a court judgment. The specific advantage binding arbitration offers over litigation regarding the finality and enforceability of an outcome across different jurisdictions stems primarily from the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly known as the New York Convention. This multilateral treaty, ratified by over 170 countries, obliges signatory states to recognize and enforce arbitral awards made in other signatory states, treating them largely as if they were domestic court judgments. This means an arbitral award obtained in one signatory jurisdiction can be readily enforced in nearly any other signatory jurisdiction, with very limited, specific grounds for refusal, such as a lack of due process or the award violating the public policy of the enforcing state. This widespread international framework provides a streamlined, predictable, and highly effective mechanism for cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards. Conversely, the enforcement of court judgments across different jurisdictions lacks a comparable, widely adopted global treaty. Instead, it relies on a complex, inconsistent patchwork of bilateral treaties, reciprocal agreements, or principles of international comity, which is the practice of one jurisdiction deferring to the judicial decisions of another. This makes the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments often more arduous, time-consuming, and less predictable, as the rules vary significantly from one country to another. Furthermore, arbitral awards generally possess a higher degree of finality compared to court judgments. While court judgments often permit multiple levels of appeal within national judicial systems, potentially prolonging the dispute's ultimate resolution, arbitral awards are typically subject to very narrow grounds for challenge, primarily procedural irregularities, not a re-examination of the merits. This limits opportunities for protracted legal battles and contributes significantly to the finality of the outcome.