As a method of dispute resolution, arbitration can be tailored to the needs of the parties. Some “types” of arbitration have developed, particularly in North America. The United States and Great Britain have pioneered the application of arbitration tribunals to settle their disputes. First used in the Jay Treaty of 1795, negotiated by John Jay, it played an important role in the Alabama Claims case of 1872, which resolved sharp tensions over British support for the Confederacy during the American Civil War. At the first International Conference of American States, in 1890, a plan for systematic arbitration was developed, but was not accepted. At the Hague Conference of 1899, the major world powers agreed on an arbitration system and the creation of a permanent arbitral tribunal. Arbitration was widely debated among diplomats and elites in the 1890-1914 era. The dispute between the United States and Great Britain over Venezuela in 1895 was settled peacefully through arbitration. Both nations recognized that a mechanism was desirable to avoid possible future conflicts. The Olney Pauncefote Treaty of 1897 was a treaty proposal between the United States and Great Britain in 1897, which preferred the resolution of important disputes. The treaty was rejected by the U.S. Senate and never entered into force.
 These agreements are used in commercial transactions between businesses, businesses and consumers, as well as between employers and their workers. Some concrete examples are: it is likely that each position is potentially unfair; Where a person is compelled to sign a contract and the contract contains an arbitration clause very favourable to the other party, the dispute may nevertheless be referred to that arbitral tribunal. [Citation required] Conversely, a court may be satisfied that the arbitration agreement itself is void after being signed under duress. However, most courts will be reluctant to intervene in the general rule that allows for commercial opportunity; any other solution (in which one first had to go to court to decide whether to go to arbitration) would be self-destructive. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of 1925 established public order in favor of arbitration. In the first six decades of its existence, the courts did not allow arbitration for “federal legal rights” by a clear “doctrine of non-participation,” but in the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law and began using the law to require arbitration when it was included in the federal claims treaty.  While some legal scholars believe that this should originally only apply to federal courts, courts now routinely require arbitration proceedings under the FAA, regardless of state laws or findings on the insalterity of public order by state courts.  In consumer law, model contracts often contain mandatory arbitration clauses prior to refusal, which require consumer arbitration. .