This article describes and assesses the work of three national courts in regard to arbitration. The English experience demonstrates that judicial diffidence toward arbitration and concomitant reverence for the cohesion of substantive law can hamper the acceptance and function of arbitration within the legal system. The French and American experiences attest to a contradistinctive use of judicial authority in regard to arbitration. In both legal systems, the courts have been instrumental to the elaboration of a receptive and accommodating law on arbitration. In these legal systems, legislative enactments are used as a springboard for developing a judicial policy and decisional practice that greatly favor the arbitral process and its effective implementation.