Abstract
This Chapter further analyses the fundamentals of international arbitration, and considers further the different structures and dynamics of litigation and arbitration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Navin G. Ahuja, ‘Rimsky Yuen, GBM, SC, JP and David W. Rivkin Co-Chairs of Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC)’ (August 2020) Hong Kong Lawyer <http://www.hk-lawyer.org/content/rimsky-yuen-gbm-sc-jp-and-david-w-rivkin-co-chairs-hong-kong-international-arbitration> accessed 5 November 2021.
- 2.
Tanja V Pfitzner and Hans-Patrick Schroeder, ‘Do We Need a Woolf Reform for International Arbitration’ (2010) 1 Yearbook on International Arbitration 179.
- 3.
It should be mentioned that there is no official definition of the term ‘arbitration’ despite the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958) (the New York Convention), art II stating that ‘each Contracting State shall recognize an agreement in writing under which the parties undertake to submit to arbitration …’. and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, with amendments as adopted in 2006 <https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/07-86998_Ebook.pdf> accessed 17 May 2020 (the UNCITRAL Model Law), art 7 providing two options for a definition and form of an arbitration agreement. Option 1 states ‘(1) “Arbitration agreement” is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement. (2) The arbitration agreement shall be in writing. (3) An arbitration agreement is in writing if its content is recorded in any form, whether or not the arbitration agreement or contract has been concluded orally, by conduct, or by other means. (4) The requirement that an arbitration agreement be in writing is met by an electronic communication if the information contained therein is accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; “electronic communication” means any communication that the parties make by means of data messages; “data message” means information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, magnetic, optical or similar means, including, but not limited to, electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy. (5) Furthermore, an arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of an agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other. (6) The reference in a contract to any document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement in writing, provided that the reference is such as to make that clause part of the contract’. Option II provides that an ‘“Arbitration agreement” is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not’.
- 4.
Peter Ashford, Handbook on International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, JurisNet, LLC 2014) 193; Zheng Sophia Tang, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements in International Commercial Law (Routledge 2014) 4; UNCITRAL Model Law (2008, United Nations). <www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/07-86998_Ebook.pdf> (accessed 25 July 2019), art 19(1) for example, states: ‘Subject to the provisions of this Law, the parties are free to agree on the procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal in conducting the proceedings’. See also Howard Holtzmann and Joseph Neuhaus, A Guide To The UNCITRAL Model Law On International Commercial Arbitration: Legislative History And Commentary (Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Deventer 1989) 564: Article 19 has been described as the ‘Magna Carta of Arbitral Procedure’ and the ‘most important provision of the model law’ in addition to Article 18 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which provides that ‘the parties shall be treated with equality and each party shall be given a full opportunity of presenting his case’, i.e. natural justice. See also UNCITRAL Report of the Secretary-General, ‘Analytical Commentary on Draft Text of a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration’ (25 March 1985) Records of the UNCITRAL, 18th Session UN Doc A/CN9/264 <https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/CN.9/264> accessed 14 April 2020, where the Secretary-General’s report explains further the importance of Article 19 of the UNCITRAL Model Law: ‘Paragraph (1) guarantees the freedom of the parties to determine the rules on how their chosen method of dispute resolution will be implemented…They may…even opt for a procedure which is anchored in a particular legal system’. It further adds ‘Article 19 may be regarded as the most important provision of the model law. It goes a long way towards establishing procedural autonomy by recognizing the parties’ freedom to lay down the rules of procedure (paragraph (1)) and by granting the arbitral tribunal, failing agreement of the parties, wide discretion as to how to conduct the proceedings (paragraph (2)), both subject to fundamental principles of fairness (paragraph (3)). Taken together with the other provisions on arbitral procedure, a liberal framework is provided to suit the great variety of needs and circumstances of international cases, unimpeded by local peculiarities and traditional standards, which may be found in the existing domestic law of the place’.
- 5.
Tony Cole and Pietro Ortolani, Understanding International Arbitration (Routledge 2019) Introduction: ‘Flip** a coin or engaging in armed combat might qualify as arbitration if you believe that a god or other higher power will determine the winner. But so long as you believe that the coin toss will be decided by luck, and the armed combat by whoever fights better, then there is no third party involved, and hence there is no arbitration’.
- 6.
Georgios I Zekos, International Commercial and Marine Arbitration (Routledge-Cavendish 2008) 200.
- 7.
Simon Greenberg, Christopher Kee and J Romesh Weeramantry, International Commercial Arbitration: An Asia–Pacific Perspective (Cambridge University Press 2011) 54: ‘The seat (or place) of arbitration is the jurisdiction in which an arbitration takes place legally. This must be distinguished from the location of any physical hearings or meetings that are held as part of the arbitration proceedings. The hearings or meetings do not necessarily have to be held at the seat of arbitration’.
- 8.
The procedural law is different from substantive law that is applicable to the contract (i.e. the merits of the dispute). The procedural law governs the procedure of the arbitration and is relied on by the arbitral tribunal to fill gaps in the arbitration agreement and the arbitration rules. Unless provided otherwise, the law of the seat will usually be considered also to be the governing law of the arbitration agreement.
- 9.
When stating any one of ‘arbitration rules’, ‘institutional rules’ or ‘procedural rules’, it refers to one and the same thing. Also see Lawrence Collins, ‘The Law Governing the Agreement and Procedure in International Arbitration in England’ in Julian DM Lew (ed), Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1987) 132; arbitration institutions have their own set of arbitration rules in respect of arbitration proceedings. When the parties to an arbitration choose a set of arbitration rules, the rules are binding on the parties to the arbitration agreement provided that the rules are in compliance with the arbitration agreement and the relevant arbitration legislation.
- 10.
Cesare Jermini and Andrea Gamba, ‘Language (Art. 17)’ in Tobias Zuberbühler, Christoph Müller and Philipp Habegger (eds), Swiss Rules of International Arbitration: Commentary (2nd edn, Juris Publishing 2013) 206: ‘There is no “official” language in arbitration proceedings in contrast to court proceedings which, for most part, are conducted in the official languages of the place where the court is situated. Art. 17(1) of the UNCITRAL Rules and institutional rules such as the ICC, LCIA, WIPO and AAA expressly recognize the parties’ freedom to choose the language they wish to use in arbitration’.
- 11.
Julian DM Lew, Loukas A Mistelis and Stefan M Kröll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2003) 248.
- 12.
C Mark Baker and Lucy Greenwood, ‘The Regionalisation of International Arbitration: Maintaining International Standards in Appointing Arbitrators: A Comment on Jivraj v Hashwani’ in Patrick Wautelet, Thalia Kruger and Govert Coppens (eds), The Practice of Arbitration: Essays in Honour of Hans van Houtte (Hart Publishing 2012) 19.
- 13.
Franz T Schwarz and Christian W Konrad, The Vienna Rules: A Commentary on International Arbitration in Austria (Kluwer Law International 2009) 457 para 20–107.
- 14.
Kyriaki Noussia, Reinsurance Arbitrations (Springer-Verlag 2013) 137.
- 15.
Cole and Ortolani (n 5) Introduction.
- 16.
Paul D Friedland, Arbitration Clauses for International Contracts (2nd edn, JurisNet, LLC 2007) 39.
- 17.
Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2021) 191: ‘Ad hoc arbitrations are not conducted under the auspices or supervision of an arbitral institution. Instead, parties simply agree to arbitrate, without designating any institution to administer their arbitration. Ad hoc arbitration agreements will sometimes choose an arbitrator (or arbitrators), who is (or are) to resolve the dispute without institutional supervision or assistance. The parties will sometimes also select a pre-existing set of procedural rules designed to govern ad hoc arbitrations. For international commercial disputes, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has published a commonly used set of such rules, the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Where ad hoc arbitration is chosen, parties will sometimes designate an appointing authority, that will select the arbitrator(s) if the parties cannot agree (or if their chosen arbitrator is unable to serve) and that will consider any subsequent challenges to members of the tribunal. If the parties fail to select an appointing authority, then the national arbitration statutes of many states permit national courts to appoint arbitrators (although many practitioners regard this as less desirable than selection by an experienced appointing authority)’.
- 18.
Lew, Mistelis and Kröll (n 11) 35; arbitral institutions can be involved in some cases as an appointing authority where the parties are unable to agree on the appointment of the arbitrators.
- 19.
Michael Mcllwrath and John Savage, International Arbitration and Mediation: A Practical Guide (Kluwer Law International 2010) 106.
- 20.
Friedland (n 16) 38.
- 21.
Carita Wallgren-Lindholm, ‘Ad Hoc Arbitration V Institutional Arbitration’ in Giuditta Cordero-Moss (ed), International Commercial Arbitration: Different Forms and Their Features (Cambridge University Press 2013) 71; Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2014)169–170: ‘[A]rbitral institutions have promulgated sets of procedural rules that apply where parties have agreed to arbitration pursuant to such rules. Among other things, institutional rules set out the basic procedural framework and timetable for the arbitral proceedings. Institutional rules also typically authorize the arbitral institution to select arbitrators in particular disputes (that is, to serve as “appointing authority”), to resolve challenges to arbitrators, to designate the place of arbitration, to fix or influence the fees payable to the arbitrators and (sometimes) to review the arbitrators’ awards to reduce the risk of unenforceability on formal grounds. Each arbitral institution has a staff (with the size varying significantly from institution to another) and a decision-making body’.
- 22.
Wallgren-Lindholm (n 21); Gary Born, International Arbitration: Law and Practice (Kluwer Law International 2012) 28; Sundaresh Menon CJ, ‘The Special Role and Responsibility of Arbitral Institutions in Charting the Future of International Arbitration’, Keynote Address, SIAC Congress 2018, 17 May 2018 5–6 < https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/Data/Editor/Documents/SIAC%20Congress%202018%20Keynote%20Address%20%20(Checked%20against%20delivery%20with%20footnotes%20-%20170518).pdf > accessed 16 May 2020; QMUL 2015 survey reveals ‘79% of the arbitrations that the respondents had taken part in over the preceding five years were institutional…[M]ost users tend to prefer institutional arbitration and as early as 1970, Ion Nestor, UNCITRAL’s special rapporteur, was able to write that “the future of arbitration lies in institutionalization”.’
- 23.
John Shijian Mo, ‘Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in China’ in George A Bermann (ed), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: The Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention by National Courts (Springer 2017) 215. See also Stephen Knudtzon, ‘Arbitration in Norway: Features of the Oslo Chamber of Commerce’ in Cordero-Moss (n 21) 271: There are however jurisdictions such as Norway in which ad hoc arbitration might be more popular than institutional arbitration.
- 24.
Jean-François Poudret and Sébastien Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration (2nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2007) 1–3.
- 25.
By way of background on the UNCITRAL Model Law, it is a template legislation, which jurisdictions can choose to adopt or follow but with suitable amendments depending on the custom and situation of the jurisdiction. The Model Law exists to guide legislators of each jurisdiction and to provide uniformity among arbitral legislation at an international level. See also Holtzmann and Neuhaus (n 4) 4: UNCITRAL was described by the General Assembly of the United Nations as ‘the core legal body within the United Nations system in the field of international trade law, [with a mandate] to co-ordinate legal activities in this field in order to avoid duplication of effort and to promote efficiency, consistency and coherence in the unification and harmonization of international trade law’. See also Holtzmann and Neuhaus (n 4) 10: The Model Law was created to improve the overall framework of international commercial arbitration by allowing different jurisdictions to adopt the model law. Such adoption would thereby allow uniformity of ‘arbitral procedures tailored to the needs of the international trade and universal standard of fairness’. Also see Holtzmann and Neuhaus (n 4) 583: Such needs could be ‘unimpeded by local peculiarities and traditional standards, which may be found in the existing domestic law of the place’.
- 26.
UNCITRAL Model Law, art 1(3).
- 27.
Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL Secretariat on the 1985 Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as amended in 2006 3 para 12 <https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/MLARB-explanatoryNote20-9-07.pdf> accessed 17 May 2020. The New York Convention, too, does not define the term ‘commercial’ notwithstanding that the Convention, art I(3) provides that the Contracting State may ‘also declare that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are commercial under the national law of the State making such declaration’.
- 28.
Grace Xavier, ‘Evolution of Arbitration as a Legal Institutional and the Inherent Powers of the Court: Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd v Digital Green Sdn Bhd’ (February 2010) ASLI Working Paper Series No 009 1–2 <https://law.nus.edu.sg/asli/pdf/WPS009.pdf> accessed 14 April 2020: suggests that in theory, arbitration could have started even earlier. ‘According to biblical theory, King Solomon was the first arbitrator when he settled the issue of who was the true mother of a baby boy. In the story, two mothers were making claims to one baby. Two of them had delivered baby boys. One of the babies died in the night and the mother whose baby had died was now claiming the surviving child as hers. King Solomon proposed that since neither was willing to relinquish their claim, it would be best to cut the baby into two and hand one-half to each of them. The true mother immediately protested, and said that she would rather give up her baby to the other woman rather than to see her baby killed. Solomon declared that the woman who had shown the compassion was the true mother and returned her baby to her. Thus he managed to find out the truth. Philip the Second, the father of Alexander the Great, used arbitration as a means to settle territorial disputes arriving from a peace treaty he had negotiated with the southern states of Greece as far back as 337 B.C’.
- 29.
Robert Fisher, ‘Appeals on Questions of Law’ (First Annual New Zealand Arbitration Day, Auckland, 9 June 2006). <https://www.robertfisher.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/05-Appeals-on-Questions-of-Law.pdf> accessed 17 May 2020 citing the Decision of the Cour de Cassation Cass civ 10 July 1843, S 1843, 1, 561 and D 1843, 1, 343.
- 30.
Wesley A Sturges and Richard E Reckson, ‘Common-Law and Statutory Arbitration: Problems Arising From Their Coexistence’ (1962) 46 Minnesota Law Review 837.
- 31.
Rowan Platt: ‘The Appeal of Appeal Mechanisms in International Arbitration: Fairness over Finality?’ (2013) 30(5) Journal of International Arbitration 535 citing Czamikow v Roth, Schmidt & Co., [1922] KB 478, 491.
- 32.
New York Arbitration Convention, ‘Travaux Préparatoires - History 1923 - 1958’. <http://www.newyorkconvention.org/travaux+preparatoires/history+1923+-+1958> accessed 14 April 2020: ‘The New York Convention was established as a result of dissatisfaction with the Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses of 1923 and the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1927. The initiative to replace the Geneva treaties came from the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), which issued a preliminary draft convention in 1953. The ICC’s initiative was taken over by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), which produced an amended draft convention in 1955. That draft was discussed during a conference at the United Nations Headquarters in May–June 1958, which led to the establishment of the New York Convention’.
- 33.
Emmanuel Gaillard and George A Bermann, Guide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: New York, 1958 (Brill Nijhoff 2017) 5: ‘UNCITRAL considers the New York Convention to be one of the most important United Nations treaties in the area of international trade law and the cornerstone of the international arbitration system. Since its inception, the Convention’s regime for recognition and enforcement has become deeply rooted in the legal systems of its Contracting States and has contributed to the status of international arbitration as today’s normal means of resolving commercial disputes’.
- 34.
Markus Altenkirch and Malika Boussihmad, ‘International Arbitration Statistics 2018 – Another busy year for Arbitral Institutions’ (2 July 2019) Global Arbitration News <https://globalarbitrationnews.com/international-arbitration-statistics-2018-another-busy-year-for-arbitral-institutions/> accessed 5 May 2020: that said, HKIAC and SIAC recorded a decrease in the number of new cases compared to 2017. See also HKIAC, ‘Statistics. <https://www.hkiac.org/about-us/statistics> Accessed 5 May 2020; SIAC, ‘Annual Report 2018’ <http://www.siac.org.sg/images/stories/articles/annual_report/SIAC_AR2018-Complete-Web.pdf> accessed 5 May 2020; CIETAC, ‘CIETAC 2018 Work Report and 2019 Work Plan’ <http://www.cietac.org/index.php?m=Article&a=show&id=15822&l=en> accessed 17 May 2020: ‘The total amount in dispute was RMB 101.59 billion, exceeding 100 billion for the first time, a year-on-year growth of 41.32%’.
- 35.
ICC, ‘ICC Arbitration Figures Reveal New Record for Awards in 2018’ <https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/icc-arbitration-figures-reveal-new-record-cases-awards-2018/> accessed 25 December 2019: 842 cases were administered in 2018.
- 36.
David B Stephens, Robert D Stephens and John P Kohl, ‘A Longitudinal Review of Labour Relations Coursework in U.S. Business Schools:1977–2002-2010’ (2012) 12(4) Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice 95: 4,229 cases were filed in 2005; AAA, ‘2018 B2B Key Statistics’ <https://go.adr.org/2018-b2b-statistics. accessed 25 December 2019: 8,983 cases were filed in 2018.
- 37.
LCIA, ‘Director-General’s Review of 2001’ <https://www.lcia.org/lcia/reports.aspx> accessed 26 December 2019: 158 cases were filed in the biennial period for 2000/2001; LCIA, ‘2018 Annual Casework Report’ <https://www.lcia.org/lcia/reports.aspx> accessed 26 December 2019: 317 cases were referred to the LCIA in 2018.
- 38.
JDSUPRA, ‘2020: A Record-Breaking Year for International Commercial Arbitration’ (10 June 2021) <https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/2020-a-record-breaking-year-for-8640864/ accessed 12 September 2021.
- 39.
HKIAC, ‘Statistics’ <https://www.hkiac.org/about-us/statistics#:~:text=Amount%20in%20dispute%3A%20The%20total,(approximately%20US%246.6%20billion> accessed 12 September 2021.
- 40.
CIETAC (n 34).
- 41.
SCC, ‘Statistics 2016’ < https://sccinstitute.com/media/246918/statistics-2016.pdf > accessed 12 May 2020.
- 42.
SCC, ‘SCC Releases Statistics for 2020’ < https://sccinstitute.com/about-the-scc/news/2021/scc-releases-statistics-for-2020/ > accessed 12 September 2021. See also SCC, ‘Statistics 2018’ < https://sccinstitute.com/media/1678538/statistics-2018.pdf > accessed 12 May 2020, which reported that the total value in dispute commenced in 2018 amounted to EUR$13.3 billion.
- 43.
Gerhard Wagner and Arvid Arntz, ‘Commercial Courts in Germany’ in Lei Chen and André Janssen (eds), Dispute Resolution in China, Europe and World (Springer 2020) 14.
- 44.
Wagner and Arntz (n 43).
- 45.
CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center, ‘Introduction’.<http://www.cietachk.org/portal/mainPage.do?pagePath=\en_US\aboutUs> accessed 26 December 2019.
- 46.
HKIAC, ‘HKIAC Seoul Office’. https://www.hkiac.org/about-us/hkiac-seoul-office. Accessed 26 December 2019;SIAC, ‘SIAC Seoul Office’. https://www.siac.org.sg/2014-11-03-13-33-43/about-us/siac-seoul-office. Accessed 26 December 2019.
- 47.
HKIAC, ‘HKIAC Achieves Breakthrough by Launching Office in Mainland China’. https://www.hkiac.org/news/hkiac-achieves-breakthrough-launching-office-mainland-china.. Accessed 26 December 2019; SIAC, ‘SIAC Shanghai Office’< https://www.siac.org.sg/2014-11-03-13-33-43/about-us/siac-shanghai-office> accessed 26 December 2019.
- 48.
SIAC, ‘SIAC India Representative Offices’. https://www.siac.org.sg/2014-11-03-13-33-43/about-us/siac-india-representative-offices. accessed 26 December 2019.
- 49.
ICC, ‘New Shanghai Office Lays Groundwork for ICC Asia Developments’. https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/new-shanghai-office-lays-groundwork-for-icc-asia-developments/ > accessed 26 December 2019.
- 50.
Ministry of Law, Singapore, ‘Maxwell Chambers Suites Officially Opens Today Giving Yet Another Boost to Singapore’s Legal Hub Position’ (8 August 2019) < https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/news/press-releases/maxwell-chambers-suites-officially-opens-today-giving-yet-another-boost-to-singapore-legal-hub-position > accessed 26 December 2019.
- 51.
Astana Finance Days, ‘The launch of the AIFC International Arbitration Centre in London’ (28 June 2018) < https://astanafindays.org/en/news/prezentaciya-mezhdunarodnogo-arbitrazhnogo-centra-mfca-v-londone > accessed 6 January 2020.
- 52.
The Tashkent Times, ‘Tashkent International Arbitration Center created under Chamber of Commerce’ (2018) < http://tashkenttimes.uz/national/3145-tashkent-international-arbitration-center-created-under-chamber-of-commerce > accessed 11 May 2021.
- 53.
The North Africa Post, ‘African Mediation & Arbitration Court opens in Morocco’ (10 April 2019) < https://northafricapost.com/29792-african-mediation-arbitration-court-opens-in-morocco.html > accessed 11 May 2021.
- 54.
Asia Business Law Journal ‘Arbitration Centre Launches in Myanmar’ (11 September 2019) Vantage Asia < https://www.vantageasia.com/myanmar-launches-arbitration-centre/ > accessed 26 December 2019.
- 55.
Gerold Herrmann, ‘The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: Introduction and General Provisions’ in Petar Šarčević (ed), Essays on International Commercial Arbitration (Martinus Nijhoff 1989) 3 citing the General Assembly of the United Nations, in its resolution 40/72 of 11 December 1985.
- 56.
J Brian Casey, Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure (2nd edn, JurisNet, LLC 2011) 9.
- 57.
Once in 2013: Department of Justice, ‘Subcommittee on Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance 2013 (Commencement) Notice’ (October 2013) < https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr13-14/english/hc/sub_leg/sc102/papers/sc1021105cb4-98-1-e.pdf > accessed 26 December 2019; and again in 2017: Department of Justice, ‘Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance 2017 (Amendment Ordinance)’ (November 2019) < https://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/pdf/arbitration_briefNote.pdf > accessed 26 December 2019.
- 58.
Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration, vol 1 (Kluwer Law International 2009) 98: ‘Despite its present significance, the New York Convention initially attracted relatively few signatories or ratifications. Only 26 of the 45 countries participating in the Conference signed the Convention prior to its entry into force on 7 June 1959. Many of the countries that did sign the Convention prior to June 1959, such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland, did not ratify it for several years thereafter. Other nations, including the United Kingdom and most Latin American and Africa states, did not accede to the Convention until many years later. The United States did not ratify the Convention until 1970’.
- 59.
Cole and Ortolani (n 5) 3.
- 60.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), ‘Dispute Settlement: International Commercial Arbitration’ (2005) 32: ‘The parties and their representatives may come from countries with different ways of conducting litigation and the arbitrators may come from yet other legal systems. It is not strange that they may have radically different ideas as to how the arbitration should be conducted. Although consensus is develo** among arbitration practitioners about certain issues, significant cultural differences remain. These cultural differences have given rise to an abundant literature in the specialized periodicals’.
- 61.
The UNCITRAL Model Law, c I contains the general provisions; c II deals with the definition and form of an arbitration agreement including the courts’ recognition of an arbitration agreement; c III focuses on the composition of an arbitral tribunal; c IV deals with the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and the power to order interim measures; c V is related to the conduct of arbitral proceedings; c VI contains provisions concerning the making of arbitral award and termination of proceedings; c VII deals with recourse against arbitral awards; c VIII concentrates on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Commonwealth Secretariat, ‘UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration Explanatory Documentation Prepared for Commonwealth Jurisdictions’ (The Commonwealth Secretariat 1991) 14, 16–17 < https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/Model-Law-Arbitration-Commonwealth.pdf > accessed 29 March 2020: It does not address inter alia the liability of an arbitrator, interests, costs allocation, the capacity of a party to enter into an arbitration agreement, the arbitrator’s fees.
- 62.
Alastair Henderson, ‘Lex Arbitri, Procedural Law and the Seat of Arbitration’ (2014) 26 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 888.
- 63.
Cole and Ortolani (n 5) 4.
- 64.
Henderson (n 62) 889; Michael J Moser and John Choong, ‘China and Hong Kong’ in Frank-Bernd Weigand (ed), The Practitioner’s Handbook on International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2010) 272–273: In China for example, ‘[t]he PRC Arbitration Law sets out some general powers and obligations of the arbitral tribunal, including the obligation to notify the parties of the date of hearing; the power to decide whether to postpone a hearing on the request of a party; the power to render a default award in the absence of a party; and the power to render partial awards. However, it does not contain a list of extensive procedural powers as is the case in more mature jurisdictions. The arbitration rules often supplement the arbitral tribunal’s powers as set out in the PRC Arbitration Law. For example, the CIETAC Arbitration Rules set out the general principle that the arbitral tribunal shall examine the case in any way that it deems appropriate unless otherwise agreed by the parties, and that the arbitral tribunal may hold its deliberations at any place or in any manner it considers appropriate. The CIETAC Arbitration Rules also expressly provide that the arbitral tribunal may, if it considers necessary, issue procedural directions and lists of questions, hold pre-hearing meetings and preliminary hearings, and produce terms of reference “etc.”, unless otherwise agreed by the parties’.
- 65.
William W Park, ‘The Procedural Soft Law of International Arbitration: Non-Governmental Instruments’ in Loukas A Mistelis and Julian DM Lew (eds), Pervasive Problems in International Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2006) 141.
- 66.
Michael Pryles, ‘Drafting Arbitration Agreements’ (1993) 15 Adelaide Law Review 5.
- 67.
Andrew Horrocks (ed), Commercial Litigation: Jurisdictional Comparisons (European Lawyer October 2011) 12, 126, 221, 362, 393: for example, in Belgium, Guernsey, The Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates.
- 68.
Marc Fallon and Stephanie Francq, ‘Private Enforcement of Antitrust Provisions and the Rome I Regulation’ in Jurgen Basedow, Stephanie Francq and Laurence Idot (eds), International Antitrust Litigation: Conflict of Laws and Coordination (Hart Publishing 2012) 78.
- 69.
William J Barry, Appropriate Dispute Resolution (Wolters Kluwer 2018) 117.
- 70.
Harold Frey and Dominique Müller, ‘Arbitrating M&A Disputes’ in Manuel Arroyo (ed), Arbitration in Switzerland: The Practitioner’s Guide (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2018) 1133.
- 71.
Franz Xaver Stirnimann Fuentes, ‘Revision of Awards’ in Arroyo (n 70) 1271.
- 72.
Michael Lazopoulos, ‘Part II: Commentary on the Swiss Rules, Article 15 [General provisions]’ in Arroyo (n 70) 612.
- 73.
The New York Convention’s ‘principal aim is that foreign and non-domestic arbitral awards will not be discriminated against and it obliges Parties to ensure such awards are recognized and generally capable of enforcement in their jurisdiction in the same way as domestic awards. An ancillary aim of the Convention is to require courts of Parties to give full effect to arbitration agreements by requiring courts to deny the parties access to court in contravention of their agreement to refer the matter to an arbitral tribunal’. See generally the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) < http://www.newyorkconvention.org/ > accessed 29 December 2019.
- 74.
Jan Paulsson, ‘Moral Hazard in International Dispute Resolution’, (2010) 25(2) ICSID Review: Foreign Investment Law Journal 340.
- 75.
UNCITRAL, ‘Status: Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards’ (New York, 1958) (the New York Convention) < < https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/conventions/foreign_arbitral_awards/status2 > accessed 23 November 2021.
- 76.
Pedro J Martinez-Fraga, ‘Adam, How About a Second Bite at the Apple? Revisiting the Need for a Uniformity in the Application of Res Judicata to International Commercial and Treaty-Based Arbitration’ in Arthur W Rovine (ed), Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers 2011 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012) 149.
- 77.
Andreas Börner, ‘Article III’ in Herbert Kronke and others (eds), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on the New York Convention (Kluwer Law International 2010) 116.
- 78.
Jonathan Hill and Adeline Chong, International Commercial Disputes: Commercial Conflict of Laws in English Courts (4th edn, Hart Publishing 2010) 844 para 24.2.10.
- 79.
Jan Paulsson, The Idea of Arbitration (Oxford University Press 2013) 210.
- 80.
Peter Gillies, ‘Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards – The New York Convention’ in Roger Jones and Gabriël Moens (eds), International Trade and Business Law Review (Cavendish Publishing 2005) 19.
- 81.
Anton G Maurer, Public Policy Exception Under the New York Convention: History, Interpretation and Application (JurisNet, LLC 2013) 147.
- 82.
Neither the US nor China have agreed to substantial reciprocity in their courts’ treatment of Australian judgments as per the Foreign Judgments Act 1992 – Schedule Superior Courts.
- 83.
Louise Hauberg Wilhelmsen, International Commercial Arbitration and the Brussels I Regulation: Elgar Arbitration Law and Practice (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018) 57 para 3.06.
- 84.
Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), ‘37: Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements’ < https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=98 > accessed 27 December 2019.
- 85.
Emmanuel Gaillard and John Savage, Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 1999) 1.
- 86.
Bruce H Jackson, ‘Dispute Resolution Clauses I: Whether to Choose Arbitration’ in Grant Hanessian and Lawrence W Newman (eds), International Arbitration Checklists (2nd edn, JurisNet, LLC 2009) 210.
- 87.
Joel Lee Tye Beng, ‘Conflict of Laws’ (2016) 17 Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases 279; Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460.
- 88.
André Janssen and Navin G Ahuja, ‘Bridging the Gap: The CISG as a Successful Legal Hybrid Between Common Law and Civil Law?’ in Francisco de Elizalde (ed), Uniform Rules for European Contract Law? (Hart Publishing 2018) 138.
- 89.
Steven L Smith, ‘Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards under the New York Convention’ in Richard Chernick, Daniel M. Kolkey and Barbara Reeves Neal (eds), Practitioner’s Handbook on International Arbitration and Mediation (3rd edn, JurisNet, LLC 2012) 298.
- 90.
Charles H Brower, ‘The Place of Arbitration’ in Todd Weiler (ed), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (Cameron May 2005) 161.
- 91.
Neil Andrews, Arbitration and Contract Law: Common Law Perspectives in Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice 2016 (Springer 2016) 56.
- 92.
For example, the Arbitration Rules of the LCIA, effective 1 October 2020 < https://www.lcia.org/Dispute_Resolution_Services/lcia-arbitration-rules-2014.aspx > accessed 15 September 2020, (the LCIA Arbitration Rules 2020) art 30, states ‘30.1 The parties undertake as a general principle to keep confidential all awards in the arbitration, together with all materials in the arbitration created for the purpose of the arbitration and all other documents produced by another party in the proceedings not otherwise in the public domain, save and to the extent that disclosure may be required of a party by legal duty, to protect or pursue a legal right, or to enforce or challenge an award in legal proceedings before a state court or other legal authority. The parties shall seek the same undertaking of confidentiality from all those that it involves in the arbitration, including but not limited to any authorised representative, witness of fact, expert or service provider. 30.2 Article 30.1 of the LCIA Rules shall also apply, with necessary changes, to the Arbitral Tribunal, any tribunal secretary and any expert to the Arbitral Tribunal. Notwithstanding any other provision of the LCIA Rules, the deliberations of the Arbitral Tribunal shall remain confidential to its members and if appropriate any tribunal secretary, save as required by any applicable law and to the extent that disclosure of an arbitrator’s refusal to participate in the arbitration is required of the other members of the Arbitral Tribunal under Articles 10, 12, 26.6 and 27.5. 30.3 The LCIA does not publish any award or any part of an award without the prior written consent of all parties and the Arbitral Tribunal’.
- 93.
Ileana M Smeureanu, Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2011) 17.
- 94.
Smeureanu (n 93) 175.
- 95.
For example, the 2018 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, effective 1 November 2018 < https://www.hkiac.org/arbitration/rules-practice-notes/hkiac-administered-2018 > accessed 17 May 2020, (the HKIAC Arbitration Rules 2018) art 45 states: ‘45.1 Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, no party or party representative may publish, disclose or communicate any information relating to: (a) the arbitration under the arbitration agreement; or (b) an award or Emergency Decision made in the arbitration. 45.2 Article 45.1 also applies to the arbitral tribunal, any emergency arbitrator, expert, witness, tribunal secretary and HKIAC… 45.4 The deliberations of the arbitral tribunal are confidential…’.
- 96.
For example, HKIAC Arbitration Rules 2018, art 45(3) states: ‘Article 45.1 does not prevent the publication, disclosure or communication of information referred to in Article 45.1 by a party or party representative: (a) (i) to protect or pursue a legal right or interest of the party; or (ii) to enforce or challenge the award or Emergency Decision referred to in Article 45.1; in legal proceedings before a court or other authority; or (b) to any government body, regulatory body, court or tribunal where the party is obliged by law to make the publication, disclosure or communication; or (c) to a professional or any other adviser of any of the parties, including any actual or potential witness or expert; or (d) to any party or additional party and any confirmed or appointed arbitrator for the purposes of Articles 27, 28, 29 or 30; or (e) to a person for the purposes of having, or seeking, third party funding of arbitration’.
- 97.
Domitille Baizeau and Juliette Richard, ‘Addressing the Issue of Confidentiality in Arbitration Proceedings: How is This Done in Practice?’ in Elliott Geisinger (ed), Confidential and Restricted Access Information in International Arbitration: ASA Special Series No 43 (JurisNet, LLC 2016) 54.
- 98.
Anselmo Reyes, The Practice of International Commercial Arbitration: A Handbook for Hong Kong Arbitrators (Informa Law from Routledge 2017) 9.
- 99.
Adesina Temitayo Bello, ‘Why Arbitration Triumphs Litigation: Pros of Arbitration’ < https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=760122118067096092111090126088066011060032009009023085005124122125009117025114023092041103027101109063041077115020025122028006050069029073037025068114086021121022003018086004082030120116101094026070127092067070079011106067109103124010024102093098066071&EXT=pdf > accessed 11 March 2020.
- 100.
Elza Reymond-Eniaeva, Towards a Uniform Approach to Confidentiality of International Commercial Arbitration (Springer 2019) 161.
- 101.
Andrew Tweeddale, ‘Confidentiality in Arbitration and the Public Interest Exception’ (2005) 21(1) Arbitration International 59–69; City of Moscow v Bankers Trust Company [2004] EWCA Civ 314.
- 102.
Jan Paulsson, Nigel Rawding and Lucy Reed, The Freshfields Guide to Arbitration Clauses in International Contracts (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2011) 82.
- 103.
Daniel M Kolkey and Richard Chernick, ‘Drafting an Enforceable Arbitration Clause’ in Chernick, Kolkey and Neal (n 89) 37.
- 104.
Bommel van der Bend and others, ‘Article 31: Experts (Tribunal-Appointed)’ in Bommel van der Bend, Marnix Leijten and Marc Ynzonides (eds), A Guide to the NAI Arbitration Rules: Including a Commentary on Dutch Arbitration Law (Kluwer Law International 2009) 151.
- 105.
Joachim G Frick, Arbitration in Complex International Contracts (Kluwer Law International 2001) 235.
- 106.
Christopher R Drahozal, ‘Behavioral Analysis of Arbitral Decision Making’ in Christopher R Drahozal and Richard W Naimark (eds), Towards a Science of International Arbitration: Collected Empirical Research (Kluwer Law International 2005) 319.
- 107.
Drahozal (n 106).
- 108.
Yves Derains and Eric A Schwartz, A Guide to the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2005) 149.
- 109.
Derains and Schwartz (n 108).
- 110.
Didier Danet, ‘A Cognitive Approach to Judicial Strategies’ in Antoine Masson and Mary J Shariff (eds), Legal Strategies: How Corporations Use Law to Improve Performance (Springer 2010) 184.
- 111.
Danny Cullenward and David Weiskopf, ‘Science Advocacy and the Legal System: is Life Cycle Assessment Unconstitutional?’ in Jeanette L Drake, Yekaterina Y Kontar and Gwynne S Rife (eds), New Trends in Earth-Science Outreach and Engagement: The Nature of Communication (Springer 2014) 59.
- 112.
For example, Judicial Office, The Judicial System of England and Wales: A Visitor’s Guide < https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/international-visitors-guide-10a.pdf > accessed 5 May 2020: however, Magistrates of Justices of the Peace who act as judges in the Magistrates’ Court might not have a legal background. That said, they deal with criminal cases and they sit with a qualified legal adviser.
- 113.
Mauro Rubino-Sammartano, International Arbitration Law and Practice (3rd edn, JurisNet, LLC 2014) 475: If an arbitrator is faced with difficult legal issues, such as, for example, an interim relief application, which is a very serious matter and can affect a party’s business and reputation, a non-lawyer arbitrator may find it challenging to apply the appropriate test for interim relief – which varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and procedure to procedure – and it is questionable whether the right outcome would be reached. That said, as a basic proposition, an arbitrator can educate himself or herself on the dos and don’ts as there are some courses available on becoming an arbitrator, which would assist to a degree.
- 114.
Holtzmann and Neuhaus (n 4) 348: ordinarily, an uneven number of arbitrators may be needed, to prevent any deadlocks.
- 115.
With a three-member tribunal, the parties have three professionals deciding the dispute of their case, instead of just one. There are obvious benefits to a three-member tribunal. It gives the parties the feel of importance of their case as appellate courts generally have more than one judge for the same reason. If there are differences in the legal, cultural and commercial backgrounds of the parties, a three-member tribunal might be more appropriate to possibly link such differences, given each party could appoint an arbitrator from their respective background. Moreover, the parties might feel more protected by their respected appointed arbitrators as they may be able to better understand their appointing party’s arguments and could also prevent and/or protect that party from any error or wrongdoing by the tribunal. Also, one arbitrator alone may not have the needed linguistic or other required skills. A three-member tribunal might be more suited to complex cases. For example, in one panel, the parties could elect at least one arbitrator with expertise on technical matters, possibly one on financial matters and one on case management matters. Furthermore, there is less likelihood of an arbitrator being partial or biased, as the arbitrators, when deliberating, will have to explain their opinion with reasoning, before an award is issued. Of course, one could nonetheless fight a cause in favour of a sole arbitrator. With a sole arbitrator, the fees and expenses of the arbitrators could be up to three times lower. In a complex case, expert witnesses could be relied upon and the cost still be significantly lower than a three-member tribunal. Scheduling meetings and hearings would be easier. Also, there would be no dissenting opinions undermining the arbitral award.
- 116.
There is a split approach amongst many of the arbitral institutions on the default number of arbitrators to be appointed. Some provide a default rule for a sole arbitrator to be appointed whereas others provide a default rule for three arbitrators to be appointed. On the other hand, a few institutions, rather than having a default rule, provide the parties a limited time to reach an agreement after the claim has commenced, failing which, the institution would consider inter alia the circumstances of the case before deciding whether the case should be referred to one or three arbitrators.
- 117.
For example, UNCITRAL Model Law, art 34 states: ‘(1) Recourse to a court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside’. This is not the same as an appeal.
- 118.
ibid; UNCITRAL Model Law, art 34(2) states: ‘An arbitral award may be set aside by the court specified in article 6 only if: (a) the party making the application furnishes proof that: (i) a party to the arbitration agreement referred to in article 7 was under some incapacity; or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of this State; or (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Law from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Law; or (b) the court finds that: (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of this State; or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy of this State’.
- 119.
For example, the Arbitration Rules of CEPANI (the Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation) effective 1 January 2020 < https://www.cepani.be/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/RULES-ENG-2020.pdf > accessed 17 May 2020 (the CEPANI Arbitration Rules 2020), art 35 states: ‘1. The Award is final and is not subject to appeal. The parties undertake to comply with the Award without delay. 2. By submitting their dispute to arbitration under the Rules and except where an explicit waiver is required by law, the parties waive their right to any form of recourse insofar as such a waiver can validly be made’.
- 120.
Theodore K Cheng, ‘Merits-Based Review of Arbitration Awards: A Potentially “Appealing” Option’ (Fall 2017) 22(2) The NYLitigator 21.
- 121.
New York Convention, art V: ‘1. Recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the competent authority where the recognition and enforcement is sought, proof that: (a) The parties to the agreement referred to in article II were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made; or (b) The party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (c) The award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration may be recognized and enforced; or (d) The composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place; or (e) The award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. 2. Recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the competent authority in the country where recognition and enforcement is sought finds that: (a) The subject matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of that country; or (b) The recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of that country’.
- 122.
Susan Cunningham-Hill and Karen Elder, Civil Litigation 2015–2016 (Oxford University Press 2015) 389.
- 123.
Rupert M Jackson, Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report (TSO) The Stationery Office) December 2009) 342.
- 124.
Christian Bühring-Uhle, Lars Kirchhoff and Gabriele Scherer, Arbitration and Mediation in International Business (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2006) 96.
- 125.
Amazu A Asouzu, International Commercial Arbitration and African States: Practice, Participation and Institutional Development (Cambridge University Press 2001) 49.
- 126.
Carla Crifò, Cross-border Enforcement of Debts in the European Union: Default Judgments, Summary Judgments and Orders for Payment (Kluwer Law International 2009) 71, 152.
- 127.
Tan Chuan Thye and John Choong, ‘Disclosure of Documents in Singapore International Arbitrations: Time for a Reassessment?’ (2005) 1(1) Asian International Arbitration Journal 54.
- 128.
Hakeem Seriki, Injunctive Relief and International Arbitration (Informa Law from Routledge 2015) 16.
- 129.
Alexis Mourre, ‘Precedent and Confidentiality in International Arbitration: The Case for the Publication of Arbitral Awards’ in Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi (eds), IAI Series on International Arbitration No 5, Precedent in International Arbitration (Juris Publishing, Inc 2008) 50.
- 130.
Mourre n (171).
- 131.
For example, three cases with almost identical facts went through arbitration but the arbitral tribunal in each case reached different outcomes: Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company and California Asiatic Oil Company v Government of Libya (1979) 53 ILR 389, Libyan Oil Company v Libyan Arab Republic Award of 12 April 1977 (1982) 62 ILR 40, and BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Government of the Libyan Arab Republic Award of 10 October 1973 (1979) 53 ILR 297. However, it could be that such inconsistent result is inevitable. For example, three cases with almost identical facts went through different forums of dispute resolution with each decision maker reaching different conclusions: Deutsche Bank AG v Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case no ARB/09/02, Citibank v Ceylon Petroleum Corporation before the LCIA, and Standard Chartered Bank v Ceylon Petroleum Corporation [2011] EWHC 1785 (Comm), affirmed on appeal [2012] EWCA Civ 1049.
- 132.
For example, ICC, ‘ICC Issues Updated Note Providing Guidance to Parties’ (19 December 2018) < https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/icc-issues-updated-note-providing-guidance-parties/ > accessed 1 June 2020: ‘all awards made as from 1 January 2019 may be published, no less than two years after their notification, based on an opt-out procedure…The parties may agree to a longer or shorter time-period. Any party may at any time object to publication of an award, or request that the award be sanitized or redacted. In such a case, the award will either not be published or be sanitized or redacted in accordance with the parties’ agreement’. See also David D Caron, ‘The Nature of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and the Evolving Structure of International Dispute Resolution’ (1990) 84(1) American Journal of International Law 104: ‘The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal has been called ‘the most significant arbitral body in history’; its awards, ‘a gold mine of information for perceptive lawyers’. See also LCIA, ‘LCIA Releases Challenge Decisions Online’ (12 February 2018) < https://www.lcia.org/News/lcia-releases-challenge-decisions-online.aspx > accessed 1 June 2020: ‘As part of its ongoing commitment to transparency, the LCIA is making available online digests of 32 LCIA arbitration challenge decisions from between 2010 and 2017. This release, together with the LCIA’s 2011 publication of 28 challenge decision summaries from between 1996 and 2010, provides users with an increasingly significant research tool, and one which illustrates the effectiveness of the LCIA’s challenge procedure’.
- 133.
Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC Rules 6th Edition, effective 1 August 2016 < https://www.siac.org.sg/our-rules/rules/siac-rules-2016 > accessed 17 May 2020 (the “SIAC Arbitration Rules 2016”), r 5; ICC 2021 Arbitration Rules, effective 1 January 2021 < https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/rules-of-arbitration/ > accessed 21 September 2021 (the “ICC Arbitration Rules 2021”), art 30, app VI; the 2016 KCAB International Arbitration Rules, effective 1 June 2016 < http://www.kcabinternational.or.kr/common/index.do?jpath=/contents/sub020101&CURRENT_MENU_CODE=MENU0008&TOP_MENU_CODE=MENU0007 > accessed 31 May 2020 (the “KCAB Arbitration Rules 2016”), art 43; ACICA 2021 Arbitration Rules, effective 1 April 2021 < https://acica.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ACICA_Rules_2021-WFF3.pdf > accessed 21 September 2021, art 8; and HKIAC Arbitration Rules 2018, art 42.
- 134.
Charlie Lightfoot, James Woolrich and Thomas Wingfield, ‘Summary Awards in International Arbitration – Slow Getting up to Speed?’ (2017) Mealey’s International Arbitration Report 3: first introduced by SIAC in its arbitration rules which came into force in 2016 (see SIAC Arbitration Rules 2016, r 29), and subsequently followed by others such as SCC and HKIAC.
- 135.
HKIAC Arbitration Rules 2018, art 43.1.
- 136.
Tribunals may be reluctant to summarily dismiss a claim or defence because of the perceived risk of the arbitral award being challenged on the grounds that inter alia a party was unable to present its case.
- 137.
Cole and Ortolani (n 5) 140; Jan Paulsson and Georgios Petrochilos, UNCITRAL Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2018) 218.
- 138.
Johannes Koepp, Dorine Farah and Peter Webster, ‘Arbitration in London: Features of the London Court of International Arbitration’ in Cordero-Moss (n 21) 248.
- 139.
Bello (n 99).
References
Primary Sources
Arbitral Awards
BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Government of the Libyan Arab Republic Award of 10 October 1973 (1979) 53 ILR 297
Citibank v Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, first Partial Award, LCIA ab# 81215, 31 July 2011
Deutsche Bank AG v Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case no ARB/09/02
Libyan Oil Company v Libyan Arab Republic, Award of 12 April 1977 (1982) 62 ILR 40
Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company and California Asiatic Oil Company v Government of Libya (1979) 53 ILR 389
Arbitration Laws and Related Sources
Commonwealth Secretariat, ‘UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration Explanatory Documentation prepared for Commonwealth Jurisdictions’ (The Commonwealth Secretariat 1991). https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/Model-Law-Arbitration-Commonwealth.pdf. Accessed 29 Mar 2020
Department of Justice, ‘Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance 2017’ (November 2019). https://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/pdf/arbitration_briefNote.pdf. Accessed 26 Dec 2019
Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL Secretariat on the 1985 Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as amended in 2006. https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/MLARB-explanatoryNote20-9-07.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2020
Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, Chapter 609. https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap609. Accessed 30 May 2020
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985, as amended in 2006. https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/07-86998_Ebook.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2020
Arbitration Rules
Arbitration Rules of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA) 2021, in force from 1 April 2021. https://acica.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ACICA_Rules_2021-WFF3.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2021
Arbitration Rules of the Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (CEPANI), in force as from 1 January 2020. https://www.cepani.be/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/RULES-ENG-2020.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2020
Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) (6th edn), in force as from 1 August 2016. https://www.siac.org.sg/our-rules/rules/siac-rules-2016. Accessed 17 May 2020
Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre Administered Arbitration Rules (HKIAC), in force as from 1 November 2018. https://www.hkiac.org/arbitration/rules-practice-notes/hkiac-administered-2018. Accessed 17 May 2020
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) 2021 Arbitration Rules, in force as from 1 January 2021. https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/rules-of-arbitration/. Accessed 21 September 2021
LCIA Arbitration Rules, in force as from 1 October 2020. https://www.lcia.org/Dispute_Resolution_Services/lcia-arbitration-rules-2014.aspx. Accessed 15 Sept 2020
The 2016 Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) International Arbitration Rules, in force as from 1 June 2016. http://www.kcabinternational.or.kr/common/index.do?jpath=/contents/sub020101&CURRENT_MENU_CODE=MENU0008&TOP_MENU_CODE=MENU0007. Accessed 31 May 2020
Court Decisions
England
City of Moscow v Bankers Trust Company [2004] EWCA Civ 314
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460
Standard Chartered Bank v Ceylon Petroleum Corporation [2011] EWHC 1785 (Comm), affirmed on appeal [2012] EWCA Civ 1049
Domestic Legislation and Related Sources
Australia: Foreign Judgments Act 1992, Statutory Rules 1992 No. 321 as amended made under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2004C00005. Accessed 31 May 2020
International Conventions and Related Sources
New York Arbitration Convention, ‘Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 10 June 1958’. http://www.newyorkconvention.org/english. Accessed 21 Sept 2021
Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), ‘37: Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements’. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=98. Accessed 27 Dec 2019
New York Arbitration Convention, ‘Travaux Préparatoires—History 1923–1958’. http://www.newyorkconvention.org/travaux+preparatoires/history+1923+-+1958. Accessed 14 April 2020
Secondary Sources
Articles in Journals
Ahuja N G, ‘Rimsky Yuen, GBM, SC, JP and David W. Rivkin Co-Chairs of Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC)’ (August 2020) Hong Kong Lawyer. http://www.hk-lawyer.org/content/rimsky-yuen-gbm-sc-jp-and-david-w-rivkin-co-chairs-hong-kong-international-arbitration. Accessed 5 Nov 2021
Caron D D, ‘The Nature of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and the Evolving Structure of International Dispute Resolution’ (1990) 84(1) American Journal of International Law
Cheng T K, ‘Merits-Based Review of Arbitration Awards: A Potentially “Appealing” Option’ (Fall 2017) 22(2) The NYLitigator
Henderson A, ‘Lex Arbitri, Procedural Law and the Seat of Arbitration’ (2014) 26 Singapore Academy of Law Journal
Lee J T B, ‘Conflict of Laws’ (2016) 17 Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases
Lightfoot C, Woolrich J and Wingfield T, ‘Summary Awards In International Arbitration – Slow Getting Up To Speed?’ (2017) Mealey’s International Arbitration Report
Paulsson J, ‘Moral Hazard in International Dispute Resolution’, (2010) 25(2) ICSID Review: Foreign Investment Law Journal
Platt R, ‘The Appeal of Appeal Mechanisms in International Arbitration: Fairness over Finality?’ (2013) 30(5) Journal of International Arbitration
Pryles M, ‘Drafting Arbitration Agreements’ (1993) 15 Adelaide Law Review
Stephens D B, Stephens R D and Kohl J P, ‘A Longitudinal Review of Labour Relations Coursework in U.S. Business Schools:1977-2002-2010’ (2012) 12(4) Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice
Sturges W A and Reckson R E, ‘Common-Law and Statutory Arbitration: Problems Arising From Their Coexistence’ (1962) 46 Minnesota Law Review
Tan C T and Choong J, ‘Disclosure of Documents in Singapore International Arbitrations: Time for a Reassessment?’ (2005) 1(1) Asian International Arbitration Journal
Tweeddale A, ‘Confidentiality in Arbitration and the Public Interest Exception’ (2005) 21(1) Arbitration International
Books
Andrews N, Arbitration and Contract Law: Common Law Perspectives (Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice) (Springer 2016)
Ashford P, Handbook on International Commercial Arbitration (2nd, JurisNet, LLC 2014)
Asouzu A A, International Commercial Arbitration and African States: Practice, Participation and Institutional Development (Cambridge University Press 2001)
Barry W J, Appropriate Dispute Resolution (Wolters Kluwer 2018)
Born G B, International Commercial Arbitration, vol 1 (Kluwer Law International 2009)
Born G B, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2014)
Born G B, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2021)
Bühring-Uhle C, Kirchhoff L and Scherer G, Arbitration and Mediation in International Business (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2006)
Casey J B, Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure (2nd edn, JurisNet, LLC 2011)
Cole T and Ortolani P, Understanding International Arbitration (Routledge 2019)
Crifò C, Cross-border Enforcement of Debts in the European Union: Default Judgments, Summary Judgments and Orders for Payment (Kluwer Law International 2009)
Cunningham-Hill S and Elder K, Civil Litigation 2015-2016 (Oxford University Press 2015)
Derains Y and Schwartz E A, A Guide to the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2005)
Frick J G, Arbitration in Complex International Contracts (Kluwer Law International 2001)
Friedland P D, Arbitration Clauses for International Contracts (2nd edn, JurisNet, LLC 2007)
Gaillard E and Bermann G A, Guide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: New York, 1958 (Brill Nijhoff 2017)
Gaillard E and Savage J, Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 1999)
Greenberg S, Kee C and Weeramantry J R, International Commercial Arbitration: An Asia-Pacific Perspective (Cambridge University Press 2011)
Holtzmann H and Neuhaus J, A Guide To The UNCITRAL Model Law On International Commercial Arbitration: Legislative History And Commentary (Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Deventer 1989)
Horrocks A (ed), Commercial Litigation: Jurisdictional Comparisons (European Lawyer October 2011)
Jackson R M, Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report (TSO) The Stationery Office) December 2009). https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/jackson-final-report-140110.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2020
Lew J DM, Mistelis L A and Kröll S M, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2003)
Maurer A G, Public Policy Exception Under The New York Convention: History, Interpretation and Application (JurisNet, LLC 2013)
Mcllwrath M and Savage J, International Arbitration and Mediation: A Practical Guide (Kluwer Law International 2010)
Noussia K, Reinsurance Arbitrations (Springer-Verlag 2013)
Paulsson J, The Idea of Arbitration (Oxford University Press 2013)
Paulsson J and Petrochilos G, UNCITRAL Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2018)
Paulsson J, Rawding N and Reed L, The Freshfields Guide to Arbitration Clauses in International Contracts (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2011)
Poudret J-F and Besson S, Comparative Law of International Arbitration (2nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2007)
Reyes A, The Practice of International Commercial Arbitration: A Handbook for Hong Kong Arbitrators (Informa Law from Routledge 2017)
Reymond-Eniaeva E, Towards a Uniform Approach to Confidentiality of International Commercial Arbitration (Springer 2019)
Rubino-Sammartano M, International Arbitration Law and Practice (3rd edn, JurisNet, LLC 2014)
Schwarz F T and Konrad C W, The Vienna Rules: A Commentary on International Arbitration in Austria (Kluwer Law International 2009)
Seriki H, Injunctive Relief and International Arbitration (Informa Law from Routledge 2015)
Smeureanu I M, Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2011)
Tang Z S, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements in International Commercial Law (Routledge 2014)
Wilhelmsen L H, International Commercial Arbitration and the Brussels I Regulation (Edward Elgar Pub 2018)
Zekos G I, International Commercial and Marine Arbitration (Routledge-Cavendish 2008)
Chapters and Other Contributions in Books
Baizeau D and Richard J, ‘Addressing the Issue of Confidentiality in Arbitration Proceedings: How is This Done in Practice?’ in Elliott Geisinger (ed), Confidential and Restricted Access Information in International Arbitration: ASA Special Series No 43 (JurisNet, LLC 2016)
Baker C M and Greenwood L, ‘The Regionalisation of International Arbitration: Maintaining International Standards in Appointing Arbitrators: A Comment on Jivraj v Hashwani’ in Patrick Wautelet, Thalia Kruger and Govert Coppens (eds), The Practice of Arbitration: Essays in Honour of Hans van Houtte (Hart Publishing 2012)
Bend B V D and others, ‘Article 31: Experts (Tribunal-Appointed)’ in Bommel van der Bend, Marnix Leijten and Marc Ynzonides (eds), A Guide to the NAI Arbitration Rules: Including a Commentary on Dutch Arbitration Law (Kluwer Law International 2009)
Börner A, ‘Article III’ in Herbert Kronke and others (eds), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on the New York Convention (Kluwer Law International 2010)
Brower C H, ‘The Place of Arbitration’ in Todd Weiler (ed), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (Cameron May 2005)
Collins L, ‘The Law Governing the Agreement and Procedure in International Arbitration in England’ in Julian DM Lew (ed), Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1987)
Cullenward D and Weiskopf D, ‘Science Advocacy and the Legal System: is Life Cycle Assessment Unconstitutional?’ in Jeanette L Drake, Yekaterina Y Kontar and Gwynne S Rife (eds), New Trends in Earth-Science Outreach and Engagement: The Nature of Communication (Springer 2014)
Danet D, ‘A Cognitive Approach to Judicial Strategies’ in Antoine Masson and Mary J Shariff (eds), Legal Strategies: How Corporations Use Law to Improve Performance (Springer 2010)
Drahozal C R, ‘Behavioral Analysis of Arbitral Decision Making’ in Christopher R Drahozal and Richard W Naimark (eds), Towards a Science of International Arbitration: Collected Empirical Research (Kluwer Law International 2005)
Fallon M and Francq S, ‘Private Enforcement of Antitrust Provisions and the Rome I Regulation’ in Jurgen Basedow, Stephanie Francq and Laurence Idot (eds), International Antitrust Litigation: Conflict of Laws and Coordination (Hart Publishing 2012)
Frey H and Müller D, ‘Arbitrating M&A Disputes’ in Manuel Arroyo (ed), Arbitration in Switzerland: The Practitioner’s Guide (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2018)
Gillies P, ‘Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards – The New York Convention’ in Roger Jones and Gabriël Moens (eds), International Trade and Business Law Review (Cavendish Publishing 2005)
Herrmann G, ‘The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: Introduction and General Provisions’ in Petar Šarčević (ed), Essays on International Commercial Arbitration (Martinus Nijhoff 1989)
Jackson B H, ‘Dispute Resolution Clauses I: Whether to Choose Arbitration’ in Grant Hanessian and Lawrence W Newman (eds), International Arbitration Checklists (2nd edn, JurisNet, LLC 2009)
Janssen A and Ahuja N G, ‘Bridging the Gap: The CISG as a Successful Legal Hybrid Between Common Law and Civil Law?’ in Francisco de Elizalde (ed), Uniform Rules for European Contract Law? (Hart Publishing 2018)
Jermini C and Gamba A, ‘Language (Art. 17)’ in Tobias Zuberbühler, Christoph Müller and Philipp Habegger (eds), Swiss Rules of International Arbitration: Commentary (2nd edn, Juris Publishing 2013)
Kolkey D M and Chernick R, ‘Drafting an Enforceable Arbitration Clause’ in Richard Chernick, Daniel M. Kolkey and Barbara Reeves Neal (eds), Practitioner’s Handbook on International Arbitration and Mediation (3rd edn, JurisNet, LLC 2012)
Knudtzon S, ‘Arbitration in Norway: Features of the Oslo Chamber of Commerce’ in Cordero-Moss (ed), International Commercial Arbitration: Different Forms and Their Features (Cambridge University Press 2013)
Koepp J, Farah D and Webster O, ‘Arbitration in London: Features of the London Court of International Arbitration’ in Giuditta Cordero-Moss (ed), International Commercial Arbitration: Different Forms and Their Features (Cambridge University Press 2013)
Lazopoulos M, ‘Part II: Commentary on the Swiss Rules, Article 15 [General provisions]’ in Manuel Arroyo (ed), Arbitration in Switzerland: The Practitioner’s Guide (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2018)
Martinez-Fraga P J, ‘Adam, How About a Second Bite at the Apple? Revisiting the Need for a Uniformity in the Application of Res Judicata to International Commercial and Treaty-Based Arbitration’ in Arthur W Rovine (ed), Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers 2011 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012)
Mo J S, ‘Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in China’ in George A Bermann (ed), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: The Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention by National Courts (Springer 2017)
Moser M J and Choong J, ‘China and Hong Kong’ in Frank-Bernd Weigand (ed), The Practitioner’s Handbook on International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2010)
Mourre A, ‘Precedent and Confidentiality in International Arbitration: The Case for the Publication of Arbitral Awards’ in Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi (eds), IAI Series on International Arbitration No 5, Precedent in International Arbitration (Juris Publishing, Inc 2008)
Park W W, ‘The Procedural Soft Law of International Arbitration: Non-Governmental Instruments’ in Loukas A Mistelis and Julian DM Lew (eds), Pervasive Problems in International Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2006)
Pfitzner T V and Schroeder H-P, ‘Do We Need a Woolf Reform for International Arbitration’ in Marianne Roth and Michael Geistlinger (eds), Yearbook on International Arbitration, vol 1 (DJØF Publishing 2010)
Smith S L, ‘Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards under the New York Convention’ in Richard Chernick, Daniel M. Kolkey and Barbara Reeves Neal (eds), Practitioner’s Handbook on International Arbitration and Mediation (3rd edn, JurisNet, LLC 2012)
Stirnimann Fuentes F X, ‘Revision of Awards’ in Manuel Arroyo (ed), Arbitration in Switzerland: The Practitioner’s Guide (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2018)
Wagner G and Arntz A, ‘Commercial Courts in Germany’ in Lei Chen and André Janssen (eds), Dispute Resolution in China, Europe and World (Springer 2020)
Wallgren-Lindholm C, ‘Ad Hoc Arbitration V Institutional Arbitration’ in Giuditta Cordero-Moss (ed), International Commercial Arbitration: Different Forms and Their Features (Cambridge University Press 2013)
Electronic Articles, Webpages and Blogs
AAA, ‘2018 B2B Key Statistics’. https://go.adr.org/2018-b2b-statistics. accessed 25 December 2019
Altenkirch M and Boussihmad M, ‘International Arbitration Statistics 2018 – Another busy year for Arbitral Institutions’ (2 July 2019) Global Arbitration News. https://globalarbitrationnews.com/international-arbitration-statistics-2018-another-busy-year-for-arbitral-institutions/. accessed 5 May 2020
Asia Business Law Journal ‘Arbitration Centre Launches in Myanmar’ (11 September 2019) Vantage Asia. https://www.vantageasia.com/myanmar-launches-arbitration-centre/. accessed 26 December 2019
Astana Finance Days, ‘The launch of the AIFC International Arbitration Centre in London’ (28 June 2018). https://astanafindays.org/en/news/prezentaciya-mezhdunarodnogo-arbitrazhnogo-centra-mfca-v-londone. accessed 6 January 2020
Bello A T, ‘Why Arbitration Triumphs Litigation: Pros of Arbitration’. https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=760122118067096092111090126088066011060032009009023085005124122125009117025114023092041103027101109063041077115020025122028006050069029073037025068114086021121022003018086004082030120116101094026070127092067070079011106067109103124010024102093098066071&EXT=pdf. accessed 11 March 2020
CIETAC, ‘CIETAC 2018 Work Report and 2019 Work Plan’. http://www.cietac.org/index.php?m=Article&a=show&id=15822&l=en. accessed 17 May 2020
CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center, ‘Introduction’. http://www.cietachk.org/portal/mainPage.do?pagePath=\en_US\aboutUs. accessed 26 December 2019
Fisher R, ‘Appeals on Questions of Law’ (First Annual New Zealand Arbitration Day, Auckland, 9 June 2006). https://www.robertfisher.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/05-Appeals-on-Questions-of-Law.pdf. accessed 17 May 2020
HKIAC, ‘HKIAC Achieves Breakthrough by Launching Office in Mainland China’. https://www.hkiac.org/news/hkiac-achieves-breakthrough-launching-office-mainland-china. accessed 26 December 2019
HKIAC, ‘HKIAC Seoul Office’. https://www.hkiac.org/about-us/hkiac-seoul-office. accessed 26 December 2019
HKIAC, ‘Statistics’. https://www.hkiac.org/about-us/statistics. Accessed 5 May 2020
ICC, ‘ICC Arbitration Figures Reveal New Record for Awards in 2018’. https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/icc-arbitration-figures-reveal-new-record-cases-awards-2018/. Accessed 25 December 2019
ICC, ‘ICC Issues Updated Note Providing Guidance to Parties’ (19 December 2018). https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/icc-issues-updated-note-providing-guidance-parties/> accessed 1 June 2020
ICC, ‘New Shanghai Office Lays Groundwork for ICC Asia Developments’. https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/new-shanghai-office-lays-groundwork-for-icc-asia-developments/> accessed 26 December 2019
JDSUPRA, ‘2020: A Record-Breaking Year for International Commercial Arbitration’ (10 June 2021). https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/2020-a-record-breaking-year-for-8640864/> accessed 12 September 2021
Judicial Office, ‘The Judicial System of England and Wales: A Visitor’s Guide’. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/international-visitors-guide-10a.pdf > accessed 5 May 2020
LCIA, ‘2018 Annual Casework Report’. https://www.lcia.org/lcia/reports.aspx> accessed 26 December 2019
LCIA, ‘Director-General’s Review of 2001’. https://www.lcia.org/lcia/reports.aspx> accessed 26 December 2019
LCIA, ‘LCIA Releases Challenge Decisions Online’ (12 February 2018). https://www.lcia.org/News/lcia-releases-challenge-decisions-online.aspx> accessed 1 June 2020
Menon S CJ, ‘The Special Role and Responsibility of Arbitral Institutions in Charting the Future of International Arbitration’, Keynote Address, SIAC Congress 2018, 17 May 2018. https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/Data/Editor/Documents/SIAC%20Congress%202018%20Keynote%20Address%20%20(Checked%20against%20delivery%20with%20footnotes%20-%20170518).pdf> accessed 16 May 2020
Ministry of Law, Singapore, ‘Maxwell Chambers Suites Officially Opens Today Giving Yet Another Boost to Singapore’s Legal Hub Position’ (8 August 2019). https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/news/press-releases/maxwell-chambers-suites-officially-opens-today-giving-yet-another-boost-to-singapore-legal-hub-position> accessed 26 December 2019
SCC, ‘Statistics 2016’. https://sccinstitute.com/media/246918/statistics-2016.pdf> accessed 12 May 2020
SCC, ‘Statistics 2018’. https://sccinstitute.com/media/1678538/statistics-2018.pdf> accessed 12 May 2020
SIAC, ‘Annual Report 2018’. http://www.siac.org.sg/images/stories/articles/annual_report/SIAC_AR2018-Complete-Web.pdf> accessed 5 May 2020
SIAC, ‘SIAC India Representative Offices’. https://www.siac.org.sg/2014-11-03-13-33-43/about-us/siac-india-representative-offices> accessed 26 December 2019
SIAC, ‘SIAC Seoul Office’. https://www.siac.org.sg/2014-11-03-13-33-43/about-us/siac-seoul-office> accessed 26 December 2019
SIAC, ‘SIAC Shanghai Office’. https://www.siac.org.sg/2014-11-03-13-33-43/about-us/siac-shanghai-office> accessed 26 December 2019
The North Africa Post, ‘African Mediation & Arbitration Court opens in Morocco’ (10 April 2019). https://northafricapost.com/29792-african-mediation-arbitration-court-opens-in-morocco.html> accessed 11 May 2021
The School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, ‘2015 International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration’. http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/media/arbitration/docs/2015_International_Arbitration_Survey.pdf> accessed 1 January 2020
The Tashkent Times, ‘Tashkent International Arbitration Center created under Chamber of Commerce’ (2018). http://tashkenttimes.uz/national/3145-tashkent-international-arbitration-center-created-under-chamber-of-commerce> accessed 11 May 2021
Xavier G, ‘Evolution of Arbitration as a Legal Institutional and the Inherent Powers of the Court: Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd v Digital Green Sdn Bhd’ (February 2010) ASLI Working Paper Series No 009. https://law.nus.edu.sg/asli/pdf/WPS009.pdf> accessed 14 April 2020
United Nations Documents, Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL Secretariat on the 1985 Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as amended in 2006. https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/MLARB-explanatoryNote20-9-07.pdf> accessed 17 May 2020
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985, as amended in 2006. https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/07-86998_Ebook.pdf. accessed 31 May 2020
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), ‘Dispute Settlement: International Commercial Arbitration’ (2005). https://unctad.org/en/Docs/edmmisc232add38_en.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2020
UNCITRAL Report of the Secretary-General, ‘Analytical Commentary on Draft Text of a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration’ (25 March 1985) Records of the UNCITRAL, 18th Session UN Doc A/CN9/264. https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/CN.9/264. accessed 14 April 2020
UNCITRAL, ‘Status: Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958) (the New York Convention)’. https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/conventions/foreign_arbitral_awards/status2. accessed 5 May 2020
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ahuja, N.G. (2022). Fundamentals of International Arbitration. In: Taming the Guerrilla in International Commercial Arbitration. International Law and the Global South. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0075-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0075-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-19-0074-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-19-0075-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)