The characteristic feature of a democratic and legal state is that individuals are free to choose how to defend their rights. State courts are assigned to play the basic role in the defense of infringed and disputed civil rights of physical and juridical persons and in the defense of interests that are protected by law, but at the same time state allows the existence of alternative for the state court defense. The parties participating in property and other kinds of civil disputes have the right to apply for the dispute resolution to the arbitration courts in cases there is a mutual consent between the parties.
Arbitration court is an institution of the non-state jurisdiction where the parties participating in the civil case have the possibility to choose themselves the arbitrators resolving the dispute. This principle of creating the arbitral tribunal does not affect the principle of independence and impartiality. The arbitrator must fulfill his duties honestly without being subject to any kind of influence. The rulings of the arbitration court should be lawful and justified. The resolution of disputes in the arbitration courts is not an entrepreneurial activity.
Apart from providing to individuals the guarantees to defend their rights, as do the state courts, arbitration court also provides several undisputable advantages in comparison with the state court. These are: faster dispute resolution, confidentiality, lower court expenses, the possibility for the parties to choose a suitable way of dispute settlement, including place of arbitration, language of arbitration and the type of procedure (oral hearing or written procedure). The main advantage of the arbitration court is the possibility to invite as arbitrators highly qualified and competent experts to participate in the dispute settlement. That is why in the modern society arbitration court is a widely acknowledged and used facility for the regulation of property disputes and this refers not only to local civil and commercial relations but also to international trade.

However, even taking into account the advantages of the arbitration courts and the international practice, dispute settlement with the help of the arbitration courts is not currently widely used in Latvia. There are several reasons for it. First of all, Latvia lacks historical traditions in the sphere of arbitration activities. Before the Second World War and during the Soviet times the only arbitration courts were of ad hoc type and they were created to resolve specially chosen disputes (and this happened quite rarely). Arbitration courts working on the permanent basis appeared in Latvia only after renewing the state independence. However, these arbitration courts could not to a full extent unfold their activities due to the absence of legislation that would completely correspond to modern requirements. Until 1st of March 1999 the "Arbitration Court Regulations" being a part of the 3rd Annex to Latvian Civil Process Code of 1963 remained in force.

Presently the situation has changed very much. On the 14th October 1998 new Civil Process Law has been approved where a special part D consisting of six divisions is dedicated to arbitration courts. Thus the Civil Process Law provides more complete and versatile regulation for the arbitration courts. When elaborating part D of the Civil Process Law, it was decided to take into account the experience of other states and international arbitration conditions and regulations.

The aim of the Civil Process Law was to provide regulations for the basic issues connected to the activities of the arbitration courts. There are deliberate "gaps" left in the Civil Process Law and the arbitration courts are invited to fill them in through their local regulations. Local normative acts include statutes of the actively operating arbitration courts, regulations and rules. Unfortunately, many of the Latvia arbitration courts have simply rewritten the norms of the law, but the issues not regulated by the Civil Process Law are left unresolved. It is not thus a wonder that during the dispute settlement in these arbitration courts, misinterpretations and complications appear, which finally can lead to the violation of rights of one or both parties and inappropriate dispute resolution. Taking into account the above mentioned, I am particularly pleased to note that the Rules of the Riga Arbitration Court are complete and cover all the necessary issues. The conditions are clear and well-formulated and they can be easily understood, protecting the participants from unexpected surprises during the proceedings, they provide the possibility for the parties to defend fully their rights and lawful interests, and the arbitrators using them are able to pass fair judgments.