Model Law on Scientific, Technical and Innovative Activities of a Constituent Entity of the Russian Federation as a Factor in the Scientific and Technological Modernization of Regions (on the Example of the Altai Territory)

The publication presents the concept and content of the draft law of the Altai Territory, prepared by the team of authors – the draft law of the Altai Territory “On Science, Scientific-Technical Activity and Innovation Activity in the Altai Territory”. The paper notes the urgent need to update the legislation of the Altai Territory on science and innovations as a pillar for technological development and the growth of well-being of residents of the Altai Territory. The structure of the draft law includes general provisions, powers of state authorities of the Altai Territory in the field of science and innovations, measures to support scientific and innovative activities, the status of a scientist and the legal regime of innovation territories. Particular attention in the bill is given to a system of measures to support scientists and especially young scientists to retain talent in the Altai Territory.

The scope of rights of appeal (not recourse) from arbitration awards

<p>This paper examines the scope of rights of appeal from arbitration awards in New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. In countries that have drafted their legislation after the UNCITRAL Model Law appeals are often excluded and only recourse based on very narrow grounds is available. While many countries are more permissive with regards to appeals than the Model Law in that they allow the parties to opt for more expansive review, none of the examined jurisdictions give the parties the right to opt for appeals on questions of law and fact. In several cases parties have tried to expand the rights of appeal by agreement. Such agreements are deemed invalid in all jurisdictions. When examining whether the invalid clause renders the entire arbitration agreement invalid, courts in common law jurisdictions have applied the doctrine of severance in some variations. Civil law courts usually examine whether the parties would have concluded the contract without the invalid clause (“but for”-test). This paper suggests that many of these tests are not suitable for arbitration agreements where the parties do not exchange considerations but rather promise one another exactly the same. The preferable approach is to combine the “but for”-test with a test that assesses if severance alters the nature of the agreement.</p>

The scope of rights of appeal (not recourse) from arbitration awards

<p>This paper examines the scope of rights of appeal from arbitration awards in New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. In countries that have drafted their legislation after the UNCITRAL Model Law appeals are often excluded and only recourse based on very narrow grounds is available. While many countries are more permissive with regards to appeals than the Model Law in that they allow the parties to opt for more expansive review, none of the examined jurisdictions give the parties the right to opt for appeals on questions of law and fact. In several cases parties have tried to expand the rights of appeal by agreement. Such agreements are deemed invalid in all jurisdictions. When examining whether the invalid clause renders the entire arbitration agreement invalid, courts in common law jurisdictions have applied the doctrine of severance in some variations. Civil law courts usually examine whether the parties would have concluded the contract without the invalid clause (“but for”-test). This paper suggests that many of these tests are not suitable for arbitration agreements where the parties do not exchange considerations but rather promise one another exactly the same. The preferable approach is to combine the “but for”-test with a test that assesses if severance alters the nature of the agreement.</p>

The scope of rights of appeal (not recourse) from arbitration awards

<p>This paper examines the scope of rights of appeal from arbitration awards in New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. In countries that have drafted their legislation after the UNCITRAL Model Law appeals are often excluded and only recourse based on very narrow grounds is available. While many countries are more permissive with regards to appeals than the Model Law in that they allow the parties to opt for more expansive review, none of the examined jurisdictions give the parties the right to opt for appeals on questions of law and fact. In several cases parties have tried to expand the rights of appeal by agreement. Such agreements are deemed invalid in all jurisdictions. When examining whether the invalid clause renders the entire arbitration agreement invalid, courts in common law jurisdictions have applied the doctrine of severance in some variations. Civil law courts usually examine whether the parties would have concluded the contract without the invalid clause (“but for”-test). This paper suggests that many of these tests are not suitable for arbitration agreements where the parties do not exchange considerations but rather promise one another exactly the same. The preferable approach is to combine the “but for”-test with a test that assesses if severance alters the nature of the agreement.</p>

The scope of rights of appeal (not recourse) from arbitration awards

<p>This paper examines the scope of rights of appeal from arbitration awards in New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. In countries that have drafted their legislation after the UNCITRAL Model Law appeals are often excluded and only recourse based on very narrow grounds is available. While many countries are more permissive with regards to appeals than the Model Law in that they allow the parties to opt for more expansive review, none of the examined jurisdictions give the parties the right to opt for appeals on questions of law and fact. In several cases parties have tried to expand the rights of appeal by agreement. Such agreements are deemed invalid in all jurisdictions. When examining whether the invalid clause renders the entire arbitration agreement invalid, courts in common law jurisdictions have applied the doctrine of severance in some variations. Civil law courts usually examine whether the parties would have concluded the contract without the invalid clause (“but for”-test). This paper suggests that many of these tests are not suitable for arbitration agreements where the parties do not exchange considerations but rather promise one another exactly the same. The preferable approach is to combine the “but for”-test with a test that assesses if severance alters the nature of the agreement.</p>

The Courts’ Discretion under UNCITRAL articles 34 and 36.

<p>This paper addresses the question whether or not courts have the discretion to disregard one of the grounds listed in arts 34 and 36 of the UNCITRAL Model Law and not set aside or enforce an award despite one of the grounds being proven. It further more analyses in what circumstances the courts disregard the grounds. This paper comes to the conclusion that the issue is not a question of the use of the word “may” in the relevant provisions because courts that do not accept the discretion nevertheless disregard grounds for the same reasons as courts that do accept the discretion as a matter of narrow interpretation of the grounds. This paper then moves on to discuss estoppel and materiality as reasons to disregard the grounds. It concludes that these two principles are international recognised and therefore justify the preservation of an award. It suggests that to reach further harmonisation in this issue the Model Law should include provisions on estoppel and materiality.</p>

Review of arbitral awards for breach of natural justice: an internationalist approach

<p>While international commercial arbitration is widely regarded as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism to litigation in national courts, those courts are frequently engaged in the review arbitral awards in the context of annulment as well as recognition and enforcement. A key purpose of this review is to ensure that the arbitral procedure is consistent with the fundamental principles of natural justice. These principles find their origin in the general principles of law common to civilised nations, and their application is mandated by both the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law. This paper argues that the content of these principles should be ‘internationalised’. That is, it is both appropriate and desirable that domestic courts, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which they happen to be sitting, apply the basic rules of natural justice in uniform way. It is submitted that this would not only result in a consistent and therefore reliable recognition and enforcement regime, but would also contribute to the success and increased adoption of international arbitration as a key alternative dispute resolution mechanism.</p>