ACCESS TO JUSTICE OR ACCESS TO ARBITRATION? RECONSIDERING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CROSS-BORDER ARBITRATION FOR MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES.

International commercial arbitration is often presented as a neutral and enforceable method of resolving disputes arising from cross-border trade. For micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), however, its practical value depends on more than the legal availability of a forum or the international enforceability of an award. Tribunal fees, institutional charges, legal representation, translation, travel, expert evidence and enforcement proceedings may together make a meritorious claim commercially irrational to pursue. These burdens are especially significant where the amount in dispute is modest, cash flow is limited, or the opposing party has substantially greater bargaining power. This paper evaluates whether cross-border arbitration delivers meaningful access to justice for MSMEs, with particular attention to the New York Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law, Indian arbitration law and the delayed-payment framework under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. Using doctrinal and policy analysis, it argues that arbitration is neither inherently inaccessible nor automatically effective: its value depends on proportional procedure, realistic cost allocation, enforceability and the parties’ ability to participate on reasonably equal terms. It recommends an MSME-sensitive approach based on transparent cost information, expedited and sole-arbitrator procedures where appropriate, carefully drafted dispute clauses, mediation options, institutional assistance and stronger links between dispute resolution and practical recovery. Access to arbitration should be assessed by whether an enterprise can realistically obtain and enforce a remedy, not merely by whether a legal mechanism formally exists. KEYWORDS Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises; international commercial arbitration; access to justice; New York Convention; UNCITRAL Model Law; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; delayed payments; dispute resolution.