ERDEM-NEWSLETTER-2018-metin

169 ARBITRATION LAW the remaining costs are borne by the one who incurred the cost, unless a statute or an agreement regulates the opposite. Hence, unlike the above-mentioned methods, the American Rule is outcome-neutral. The American Rule , which stems from English Common Law has been maintained in the American legal system, while England has moved towards to the Costs Follow the Event method, over time 11 . The followers of this approach state that it encourages promising claims and lowers the barriers to arbitrate, since the parties bear the risk of the costs they have incurred, in contrast to the higher risks that may be faced upon the application of the outcome-based methods 12 . Conclusion Although cost efficiency has been one of the major factors lead- ing parties to choose arbitration as a method for dispute resolution, the parties sometimes face unreasonable costs by the end of the arbitration. Since there is broad flexibility in terms of cost allocation, the methods applied by the arbitral tribunals have vitality for the parties willing to resolve their dispute through arbitration. The Costs Follow the Event , which basically rules that the loser bears the costs, appears to be the most popular method. While the American Rule reduces the cost-related concerns of the parties willing to arbitrate, the Apportion - ment of Costs method provides a better answer to the question of “Who is the actual winner?”. 11 Koch , p. 489. 12 Kreindler , p. 4.