Michael Pryles (ed.), Dispute Resolution in Asia. Kluwer Law Iuternational, The Hague / London / Boston 1997, ISBN 90-411-0484-4, xxiv+324 pp., EUR 148.50 / USD 165.50 / GBP 95.75

2003 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 472
Author(s):  
STEPHAN WITTICH
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
The Hague

Part 1 General and Special Reports, 6 UNIDROIT: The Model Clauses for the Choice of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and Article 3 of the Hague Principles

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veneziano Anna
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
National Court ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Appropriate Use ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Way

This chapter looks at the relationship between the ‘Model Clauses for the use of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts’ and Article 3 of the Hague Principles. The Model Clauses were drafted with the aim to give parties to international commercial contracts a range of options in order to make the most appropriate use of the UNIDROIT Principles (UPICC) in accordance with their interests and the specific circumstances of the case. At the same time, their goal is also to raise awareness on the variety of possible ways the UPICC may be used as an advantageous tool in international contracting and dispute resolution. Being drafted as choice of law clauses, they fit within the scope of Article 3 of the Hague Principles. Article 3 opens the way towards a wider acceptance of internationally recognized non-national codifications, expressly allowing the choice of ‘rules of law’, irrespective of whether the dispute is solved by an arbitrator or a national court, when such rules are generally accepted on an international, supranational, or regional level as a neutral and balanced set of rules. The UPICC are expressly cited, in the commentary to Article 3, as ‘rules of law’ satisfying such requirements.

scholarly journals THE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES BEFORE THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL COURT

2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 439-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Man Yip
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
High Court ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Near Future

AbstractThe jurisdictional framework of the Singapore courts has become more nuanced with the establishment of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) on 5 January 2015 and the signing of the Hague Convention on the Choice of Court Agreements 2005 (Hague Convention) on 25 March 2015. Although the Hague Convention has yet to be incorporated in domestic law, it is expected this will happen in the near future. The SICC project, on the other hand, is part of Singapore's strategy to promote the jurisdiction as an international dispute resolution hub. In essence, the SICC is a domestic specialist court established to deal with international commercial litigation. Adapted from the arbitral model but underpinned by judicial control, central to the SICC framework are party autonomy and flexible procedural rules. The Hague Convention complements the SICC project by increasing the number of jurisdictions in which Singapore judgments will be recognized and enforced. These 2015 developments—key to establishing Singapore as the regional hub for dispute resolution—requires careful working out and an evaluation is needed of the jurisdictional regime that applies to the SICC and the internal allocation of jurisdiction as between the SICC and the Singapore High Court sans the SICC, as well as the impact of the Hague Convention. This article focuses on explaining the in personam jurisdictional rules of the Singapore High Court that now includes the SICC division. Its chief objective is to offer the international community an overview of the working framework of Singapore's version of an ‘international’ commercial court.

scholarly journals The Nature of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and the Evolving Structure of International Dispute Resolution

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
David D. Caron
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Gold Mine ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Hague

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.” In a recent international commercial arbitration, however, an arbitrator reportedly stated that decisions of the Tribunal, although on point, were not persuasive because the Tribunal, after all, involves a special type of arbitration. This arbitrator is not alone. A lecturer at the Hague Academy of International Law, speaking on international commercial arbitration, reportedly did not refer to the Tribunal’s jurisprudence because he did not find it relevant to his work for the same reason. Viewed as a gigantic experiment in international dispute resolution rather than merely a claims settlement device for this particular group of disputes, the Tribunal thus appears (at least to some) to yield decisions of unclear precedential value. Millions of dollars have been spent on its operation and hundreds of awards rendered, yet an apparently not uncommon perception is that the work of this, in some respects unique, institution is not applicable elsewhere.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document