Practitioner's Handbook on International Commercial Arbitration

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
General Introduction ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Model Law ◽  
New York Convention

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.

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

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sester Peter
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
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.

Part III International Arbitration Agreements: Issues and Perspectives, 6 Some Reflections on the Making of International Arbitration Agreements for the Resolution of Commercial Disputes

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saville Lord
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
Model Law ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
Legal Procedures ◽  
Commercial Disputes

This chapter presents some thoughts on international arbitration. It begins with brief descriptions of the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law, which serve as the foundations of international dispute resolution. It then discusses arbitration agreements, the role of institutions, the role of law, and the disadvantages of arbitration. It argues that international commercial arbitration has become much more like that of the London Commercial Court; more often than not lawyers are called in from the outset. Pleadings, discovery, and the like are commonplace. The arbitral process has also become more expensive, notwithstanding substantial efforts by arbitral institutions and others to limit costs. It further suggests that where the tribunal considers that the dispute can be dealt with fairly and more cheaply without the full panoply of such legal procedures as the parties’ lawyers propose, that they make certain that the parties themselves, not just their lawyers, are made aware of the tribunal’s view.

Understanding Public Policy as an Exception to the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 316-350
Author(s):  
Wasiq Abass Dar
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
New York ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Or Practice ◽  
Wide Definition ◽  
Model Law ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
Definition Of

The paper, as the title suggests, aims at understanding and exploring the doctrine of public policy as a ground for refusing enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Public Policy is one such ground provided in the New York Convention as well as in the uncitral Model Law, which is most often invoked in the national courts to challenge or refuse the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. What makes it more complicated is the lack of common world-wide definition of public policy or practice on its application, as the same varies from State to State. The traces of ambiguity, subjectivity (at the hands of the courts in terms of interpretation of the concept), and unpredictability associated with the concept of public policy have at times significantly thwarted the effectiveness and efficiency of international commercial arbitration. This paper attempts to understand and explore the enigma of public policy as an exception to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Apart from revisiting various scholarly works on this issue, interpretation of this concept by various judicial institutions across the globe (with special focus on India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) has been attempted, followed by a comparative analysis, to analyse its application on the ground. This paper argues and suggests that a more desirable method of interpreting public policy, i.e. narrow interpretation, is the need of the hour, keeping in consideration the growing demands of international trade and commerce.

Jurisdiction and admissibility: a case study

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 373-413
Author(s):  
Tolu O Obamuroh
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Judicial Intervention ◽  
Model Law ◽  
New York Convention

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.

scholarly journals International Commercial Arbitration in Malaysia

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 ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Model Law ◽  
New York Convention

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.

scholarly journals International Commercial Arbitration Institutes

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uğur Sayın
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
The People ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
Domestic Law

Because of exportation and importation of countries, the amount of commerce enlarged, therefore foreign agreements increased. Because of having differnet law systems of the contries the people, working on permanent investment and commerce wishes to have the suitable arbitration that they want.From this point of view, begining from the year 1898, It has been worked on to develop contraptions do international authorized commercial court’s duty. Then permanent arbitration council was established, Cenevre Convention, New York Convention was established, and the rules of international arbitration called UNCITRAL was constituted. The countries which are the contracting parties of these agreements, agreed that the implement of rules on their own domestic law systems. In addition, they delegated compulsory execution for these rules. Beside this, to organise the international commercial arbitration, countries and private institues are founded arbitration institues. Today there are hundereds of international commercial arbitration institues, which are called as the same name of their city’s, the most favorite and their woking systems are explaned.

An Analysis of Jordanian Jurisdiction as a Seat for International Arbitration

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Zaid M. Aladwan ◽  
Mutaz M. Aladwan
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
The State ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Arbitration Procedure ◽  
Model Law ◽  
New York Convention

Abstract Arbitration is the best method to resolve a dispute, due to the flexibility in its mechanism and issuing of a final judgment, known as an ‘award’. The winning party usually seeks to apply that award in the state where the assets of the losing party exist. In this regard, the New York Convention 1958 guarantees that the award is enforceable in the state where the winning party sought to apply. Jordan is party to the Convention; it has regulated its own arbitration law and has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law 1985. However, not all provisions were adopted where specific provisions in Jordanian law relating to certain matters differed from the Model Law provisions. These differences may positively or adversely affect the arbitration procedure in Jordan.

scholarly journals NATIONAL COURT INTERVENTION IN ARBITRATION AS AN INVESTMENT TREATY CLAIM

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 485-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Garnett
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
National Court ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Model Law ◽  
Court Intervention ◽  
New York Convention

International commercial arbitration has long been a popular method for resolving cross-border business disputes. The opportunity for parties to choose their adjudicators and the dispute resolution procedure, the scope for privacy and the greater capacity for enforcement of awards compared to court judgments are all important reasons that parties prefer international arbitration over litigation. Reinforcing this trend in favour of international commercial arbitration has been a general consensus among national courts and legislatures that support, rather than interference, should be provided to the arbitral process. Such a philosophy is apparent, for example, in the requirements in the widely adopted New York Convention for States to recognize and enforce both foreign arbitration agreements and awards, and in international instruments such as the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, which authorize national courts to assist, rather than intervene, in the conduct of arbitrations within their borders. Moreover, international commercial arbitration has proven to be sufficiently flexible as a dispute resolution method to be used both in disputes between private parties, and between private and State entities.

Some Private International Law Aspects of the Arbitration Act 1996

1997 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Hill
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Law ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
International Level ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Model Law ◽  
New York Convention

As a method for resolving commercial disputes which have connections with two or more countries, arbitration has been given a tremendous boost this century by two developments at the international level. The New York Convention of 1958—which was first implemented in England and Wales by the Arbitration Act 1975—introduced a regime which went a long way toward ensuring that arbitration agreements are respected and that arbitral awards are easily enforceable. The Convention has been hugely successful in that it has been ratified by upwards of 90 States, including all the countries of Western Europe (with the exception of Iceland) and nearly all countries which are significant commercial centres. More indirect has been the influence of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, which was adopted by UNCITRAL in 1985. Although the Model Law, which seeks to encourage States to modernise their arbitration laws, has not been enacted by a very large number of countries, it has had a significant impact in that it has set an agenda for reform—even for those countries which have decided not to enact it. The Model Law has become “a yardstick by which to judge the quality of… existing arbitration legislation and to improve it”.

scholarly journals The UAE’s Pilgrimage to International Arbitration Stardom

2014 ◽  
pp. 193-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed M. Almutawa ◽  
A.F.M. Maniruzzaman
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Court System ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Financial Centre ◽  
Free Zone ◽  
Arbitration Process ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
New York Convention

The last two decades have witnessed a growing interest and participation of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states in international arbitration as they have also joined the New York Convention and the Washington Convention. Still, scepticisms abound as to the efficacy of international arbitration in the GCC states. However, Dubai is considered to have the potential of being a Middle East business hub as it is modernising its arbitration law and practice in light of international developments. Forward thinking and innovative pro-arbitration institutions like the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) - the leading arbitration centre in the UAE; the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) - a common law free zone within Dubai with its own sets of laws, including the DIFC Arbitration Law, and its own court system (DIFC Courts) both of which are separate from Dubai and UAE laws and judicial systems; and the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre, have turned Dubai into a growing propitious arbitration hub (i.e. a pro-arbitration and pro-enforcement jurisdiction) in the Middle East. While doubts continue to be raised with regard to the role and influence of the Shari’a on the arbitration process and on the enforceability of arbitral awards in Dubai, an examination of recent developments and trends in the arbitration rules and case law in Dubai reveals a promising environment for international arbitration, except for a few cases that followed formalistic grounds for denying enforcement. Recent cases from the UAE, and especially from Dubai, reveal a new attitude pervading the UAE judiciary that is more welcoming of the New York Convention and that is less likely to interfere with the merits of an arbitral award. However, the new UAE Draft Federal Arbitration Law is yet to be enacted. The article provides a critical appraisal of the recent legislative and institutional developments and international arbitral practice in the UAE and assesses Dubai’s prospect to be a Middle East business hub.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document