Part III Where to Arbitrate? Distinctive Features of Maritime Arbitral Seats, 12 Common Types of Shipping Arbitration: In Singapore and London

Distinctive Features ◽

Institutional Rules ◽

Institutional Services ◽

Model Law ◽

This chapter reflects on developments in maritime arbitration in Singapore, highlighting its distinctive features via a comparison with London, the shipping world’s preferred arbitration centre. In Singapore, the Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) governs domestic arbitration whereas the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) (the ‘IAA’) governs international arbitration. The IAA gives the force of law to the UNCITRAL Model Law 1985 and the New York Convention on the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Singapore offers the possibility to arbitrate under the institutional rules of either the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA) or the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). The SIAC provides institutional services, including the appointment of arbitrators. The SCMA was in recent years taken outside the structure of the SIAC to provide a service more comparable to that provided by the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA).

Part 1 Fundaments of Arbitration in Brazil, 2 Comments of the Brazilian Arbitration Law

International Arbitration: Law and Practice in Brazil ◽

10.1093/law/9780198840114.003.0002 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Sester Peter

Keyword(s):

New York ◽

Commercial Arbitration ◽

Model Law ◽

New York Convention ◽

Definition Of

This chapter examines the Brazilian Arbitration Law (BAL) of 1996. The BAL is a standalone act encompassing roughly 40 articles. It is divided into eight chapters and is applicable to both domestic and international arbitration, except for Chapter VI (The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards), which is modelled on the New York Convention (NYC). Hence, the BAL legislator adopted a monistic approach. Consequently, the BAL contains no definition of domestic or international arbitration, but only defines the term foreign award. According to article 34, sole paragraph BAL, an award is considered a foreign award if it was rendered outside the territory of Brazil. The present translation of the BAL builds on the terminology of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Commercial Arbitration and the NYC because both documents inspired the authors of the BAL and are cornerstones of international arbitration. This chapter of the book then provides comments on the BAL article by article.

11 Mexico City

10.1093/law/9780199655717.003.0012 ◽

2014 ◽

Author(s):

Wobeser Claus von

Keyword(s):

New York ◽

Legal Framework ◽

Trade Law ◽

International Trade Law ◽

Primary Means ◽

Model Law ◽

New York Convention ◽

Judicial Assistance

This chapter evaluates the merits of Mexico as a venue for international arbitration proceedings. It discusses the history and development of arbitration in Mexico; the processes and rules involved as well as the role of courts in the conduct of arbitration proceedings; and rules for arbitral awards. It concludes that Mexico is an attractive venue to conduct arbitration because of its complete and exhaustive legal framework, coupled with the availability of effective judicial assistance. Mexican law is modern and supportive of arbitration. The numerous free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties (BITs) entered into by Mexico establish international arbitration as the primary means of resolving disputes. The adoption of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law and ratification of the New York Convention had also made the judicial approach towards the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards favorable.

The Singapore Convention on Mediation—A Brighter Future for Asian Dispute Resolution

Asian Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/s2044251318000309 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

pp. 195-205 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Eunice CHUA

Keyword(s):

New York ◽

Dispute Resolution ◽

Critical Analysis ◽

Trade Law ◽

International Trade Law ◽

Settlement Agreements ◽

Model Law ◽

New York Convention ◽

Brighter Future

AbstractOn 26 June 2018, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law [UNCITRAL] approved, largely without modification, the final drafts of the Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (the Singapore Convention) and amendments to the Model Law on International Commercial Mediation prepared by Working Group II. These instruments aim to promote the enforceability of international commercial settlement agreements reached through mediation in the same way that the New York Convention facilitates the recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards. This paper provides a critical analysis of the Singapore Convention, and some commentary from an Asian perspective.

Transnational Public Policy in International Arbitration

The Oxford Handbook of International Arbitration ◽

10.1093/law/9780198796190.003.0005 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 119-149

Author(s):

Stavros Brekoulakis

Keyword(s):

Public Policy ◽

New York ◽

Clear Distinction ◽

Historical Evolution ◽

Rules And Principles ◽

New York Convention ◽

Almost All

This chapter focuses on the role of transnational public policy in international arbitration. Public policy is a key concept for international arbitration because it has provided the underpinning foundations for the development of theories on transnational autonomy of arbitration. Moreover, it is enshrined in the 1958 New York Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards as well as almost all national laws as a ground to resist enforcement of arbitral awards. The chapter then traces the historical evolution of transnational public policy and provides an overview of its legal function and rules and principles. The clear distinction between legal and non-legal conceptions of transnational public policy matters because it has important implications on the judicial function of tribunals in international arbitration.

Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitration Awards in Kazakhstan

The Journal of Social Sciences Research ◽

10.32861/jssr.spi5.358.367 ◽

2018 ◽

pp. 358-367

Keyword(s):

Public Policy ◽

New York ◽

General Meeting ◽

Civil Procedure ◽

Procedure Code ◽

The Law ◽

The Republic ◽

Arbitration, as an alternative way to resolve commercial disputes, has been used in Kazakhstan for more than twenty years. Arbitration Court is governed by Civil Procedure Code, The Law On Enactments and the Regulatory Resolution. The expansion of the list of documents in the Regulatory Resolution does not comply with the requirements of the New York Convention and therefore, the purpose of our study is to clarify it. The research institute of private law of the Caspian University together with Kazakhstan International Arbitration prepared proposals for making amendments and supplements to the Law On Arbitration and the CPC at the request of the Arbitration Chamber of Kazakhstan. Most of the proposals developed by us were approved and included in the Draft Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan On Amendments and Supplements to Certain Enactments of the Republic of Kazakhstan On Enhancing Protection of Title and Arbitration after discussion at the meetings of the General Meeting members of Arbitration Chamber of Kazakhstan. It was proposed to bringing in compliance with the New York Convention some paragraphs of the Art. 255 and the Art. 504 of CPC and a series of articles in the Law on arbitration. In this article also given answers to some questions of the arbitration court regarding corporate and marriage dispute, as well as an issue of contradiction public policy.

Settlement of Disputes by Way of Arbitration in Pakistan

World Journal of Social Science Research ◽

10.22158/wjssr.v3n4p518 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 3 (4) ◽

pp. 518

Author(s):

Sohaib Mukhtar

Keyword(s):

New York ◽

Rural Areas ◽

Poor People ◽

Procedural Law ◽

Model Law ◽

New York Convention ◽

Alternate Dispute Resolution ◽

Settlement Of Disputes ◽

International Conventions

Arbitration is a method, through which, parties resolve their disputes; outside the court of law; by avoiding all types of technicalities of procedural law. It is one of the modes of Alternate Dispute Resolution. The Arbitration Act 1940 is the only statute in Pakistan, which deals with all types of arbitration processes in Pakistan, but it does not deal with the recognition and enforcement process of International Arbitral Awards in Pakistan. The New York Convention 1958 is enforced in Pakistan, through the Recognition and Enforcement Act 2011 and it deals with the recognition and enforcement process of International Arbitral Awards in Pakistan. The problem in Pakistan is that the majority arbitration processes are not conducted, in accordance with the provisions of the prescribed laws of arbitration, they are usually conducted, in accordance with the customs and usages of the society, which are not prescribed in the current Arbitration Act 1940. There are private Jirga and Punchayat systems; in rural areas; throughout Pakistan, to resolve disputes of the poor people of the locality and the decision of that proceeding usually are not submitted in the court of law, for the implementation, which is the requirement under the Arbitration Act 1940, for the smooth implementation of the decision; through the executive wing of the state. Many countries of the world have amended their arbitration laws, as per the customs and usages of the society and under the light of the relevant International Conventions and Treaties. Similarly, in Pakistan, the Arbitration Act 1940 needs a lot of changes, as per the customs and usages of the society, relevant principles laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad and in accordance with the related International Conventions and Treaties. The UNCITRAL Model Law 1985 is not applicable in Pakistan, thus it is also a requirement and need of the time to be implemented in Pakistan, through the act of the Parliament.

Practitioner's Handbook on International Commercial Arbitration

10.1093/law/9780198784807.001.0001 ◽

2019 ◽

Keyword(s):

New York ◽

International Criminal ◽

Case Law ◽

Criminal Court ◽

General Introduction ◽

Comprehensive Overview ◽

Commercial Arbitration ◽

Model Law ◽

This book provides reports on the arbitration systems and laws of thirteen countries in addition to commentaries on the arbitration rules of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules as well as on the UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention. This comprehensive overview of the key arbitral jurisdictions and the most important arbitral rules and conventions makes it a unique and indispensable work that belongs on the desk of each practitioner. The book combines a practical approach with in-depth legal research and analyses of important national and international case law. This new edition is written to meet the needs of both the non-specialist lawyer requiring quick and useful information on a particular legal system or set of rules or who is interested in a concise general introduction into the law of international arbitration, and the experienced arbitration practitioner looking for well-founded information on a particular issue.

GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC (U.S. Sup. Ct.)

International Legal Materials ◽

10.1017/ilm.2020.54 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 59 (6) ◽

pp. 911-921

Author(s):

Steven Skulnik

Keyword(s):

New York ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Power Conversion ◽

New York Convention ◽

The U.S

On June 1, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC. The decision is significant for its holding that nothing in the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the Convention or the New York Convention) or the Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA) prohibits courts from deciding that non-signatories may be bound by or enforce international arbitration agreements based on contract, agency, equity, or related principles.

Jurisdiction and admissibility: a case study

Arbitration International ◽

10.1093/arbint/aiaa023 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 36 (3) ◽

pp. 373-413

Author(s):

Tolu O Obamuroh

Keyword(s):

New York ◽

National Courts ◽

Judicial Intervention ◽

Model Law ◽

Abstract Arbitrators cannot decide cases if they do not have jurisdiction. For this reason, a challenge to jurisdiction may prompt judicial intervention. Most national courts, however, limit their intervention to question of jurisdiction and do not interfere in the arbitral process if the objection is merely one of admissibility. The distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility is a valuable tool for differentiating when judicial intervention is appropriate and when it is not. The problem is that some national courts generally conflate the concept of jurisdiction, which may properly be the basis for such intervention, with admissibility issues, which should be referred to the tribunal to decide. As a case study, this article focuses on the conflation by Nigerian courts leading to an overly expansive allocation of authority to courts to make initial rulings, which in turn is abused by parties and undermines the efficiency of arbitration in Nigeria. To address the problem, this article proposes that Nigerian courts adopt the distinction between jurisdictional and admissibility objections in international arbitration. This distinction, while not perfect, can promote efficacy in arbitration seated in Nigeria. Adopting the distinction between admissibility and jurisdiction will enable Nigerian courts to exercise greater restraint in cases that do not go to the root of courts’ authority and promote outcomes that are more coherent and more consistent with their obligations under the New York Convention and Model Law.

International Commercial Arbitration in Malaysia

Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities ◽

10.47836/pjssh.29.s2.10 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 29 (S2) ◽

Author(s):

Iyllyana Che Rosli

Keyword(s):

New York ◽

Best Practice ◽

International Treaties ◽

Commercial Arbitration ◽

International Commercial Arbitration ◽

Cross Border ◽

Before And After ◽

Model Law ◽

In the recent two decades, the wave of globalisation has hit the Malaysian market. It hence contributes to the popularity of arbitration as the means to settle cross border commercial disputes. The existing literature concerned with Malaysia suggests that the recent trend in Malaysia is that arbitration has become the dominant choice of dispute resolution forum. Using qualitative and doctrinal methods, this paper seeks to analyse the regulatory framework for international commercial arbitration in Malaysia, before and after Malaysia’s accession to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958 (hereinafter, NYC 1958). The NYC 1958 is one of the most successful international treaties with 161 contracting States. The NYC 1958 aims to promote uniform practical procedures for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in its contracting States, irrespective seat of the awards. In doing so, the paper examines two significant periods of arbitration laws in Malaysia: pre and post-accession to the NYC 1958. The paper concludes that Malaysia no longer follows English arbitration legislation and instead follows international best practice by adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (hereinafter, UML) as the basis of its modern legislation, the Arbitration Act 2005. Malaysian courts are also seen to adopt a positive ‘pro-enforcement’ attitude in the application to recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards, in promoting maximum enforcement of awards as promoted by the NYC 1958 and the UML.