International Commercial Arbitration Law

The nature of the arbitration agreement in most legal systems (at least legal systems other than common law) is somewhat unclear. Presently, it is not possible to make any decisive statements as to which theory is the only correct one. On the other hand, it is necessary to examine each arbitration agreement invoked by the parties at the beginning of the proceedings and choose one of the current theories mentioned above. The classification of the arbitration agreement might, under certain circumstances, be the decisive element in determining the rules, i.e. procedural or substantive rules, applicable to the arbitration agreement. In civil law tradtion arbitration agreements may be defined as procedural agreements in broader sense, which does not have effects in proceedings only, but which are of substantial significance for qualitative evaluation of the substantive contractual relation between parties. Nevertheless, despite a mixed nature of arbitration agreements (as well as all jurisdictional agreements), jurisdiction is a procedural and not substantive category in the civil law tradition and jurisdiction remains the procedural condition (procedural requirement). Taking decision on jurisdiction in arbitration by partial award is in contradiction to the concept of jurisdiction as a procedural category, rather an interim award may be used for such decisions. Jurisdictional decisions taken in course of arbitration are, however, not substantive decisions and do not effect any Res Judicata. Some of civil law jurisdictions, completely in compliance with the concept of jurisdiction as procedural category, therefore deny to set-aside jurisdictional awards rendered prior to rendering award(s) on the merits of the dispute. Having any civil law dimension in arbitration, it may cause significant problems to the parties, if the arbitral tribunal decides on jurisdiction by a separate jurisdictional award.

The subject of this article holds relevance both to the business world and to judges and arbitrators. It provides a comparative law exploration of the nuances of arbitration clause interpretation under the legal systems of France and Russia.

Procedural flexibility and party autonomy are likely the most distinguishing features of arbitration that allow for arguably more efficient, cost-effective and individualised dispute resolution process than traditional recourse to national courts. However, this freedom in some cases might come at a cost of essential guarantees of a fair trial that would normally apply to court proceedings by virtue of Article 6 ECHR. Arbitral tribunals and national courts are expected to safeguard those guarantees and are vested with certain powers in order to do so, however, the extent of involvement of national courts in arbitration remains a controversial issue. Hence, this paper examines the guarantees of Art. 6(1) ECHR, its scope and application in every stage of the arbitral process together with the role of arbitral tribunals and national courts.

We can conclude that non-state rules may include both lex mercatoria, i.e. the law of international merchants, which is not perceived in any uniform way, and currently perhaps also selected rules of EU law, provided that no legal relations are involved that have no connection to the European area. Lex mercatoria can be defined as including international trade usages (such as INCOTERMS, which have become rather popular), generally recognised legal principles (for instance, pacta sunt servanda), and collections of principles governing international agreements (e.g. UNIDROIT Principles).

Lex mercatoria can be applied both in arbitration and in litigation based on four theoretical approaches. The first applicable method is subsidiary application, i.e. lex mercatoria is applied within the limits of binding provisions of applicable law – this method does not raise any problems in practice. Another possibility is application equivalent to national legal systems, i.e. based on the conflict-of-laws method. This method is currently considered controversial and is suitable for arbitration, rather than litigation. The third possibility is the preferential application of lex mercatoria – this is, however, a very extreme approach, even within international commercial arbitration, and requires the due assessment of all relevant circumstances. This category may also include negative choice of law, which postulates that the parties opted for lex mercatoria, because they did not choose any applicable law. This is, again, controversial doctrine, which may only be applied if we first take into consideration all of the circumstances of the case, and primarily the will of the parties. The fourth and last possibility is the ex post choice of law.

As concerns practical possibilities of application, the most frequently employed method is the application of non-state rules in connection with arbitration, where the courts control the proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Academics agree that the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award cannot be refused, should the sole grounds for refusal be the fact that the award is based on lex mercatoria. Another possibility of applying non-state rules in courts is application based on domestic laws. The third possibility is the application of non-state rules based on the parties’ choice, i.e. the parties may opt for non-state law. Even if some of the parties disagree, it is possible to envisage the application of non-state rules in litigation, though rather as soft law, i.e. a tool or inspiration for the resolution of the given case. This would be similar to the application of foreign law or foreign case law.

We can also imagine, subject to certain conditions, the application of non-state rules in domestic disputes: (i) if the parties agree to do so, in which case, again, non-state rules would be applied within the limits of binding rules of the applicable law, or (ii) at the court’s discretion. In such case, the court should have regard for any and all circumstances, such as the parties’ experience with international trade, as well as the method of application. The application of non-state rules as soft law can be accepted without objections. Both arbitral tribunals and courts have become more open to non-state rules – for instance, the fact that a decision or award is based on lex mercatoria is not eo ipso contrary to public policy (ordre public).
The application of non-state legal standards is intertwined with the irreplaceable role of a first-rate pre- and post-graduate system of education, and with interactions between extensive practice, on the one hand, and education and training, on the other. This is the reason why schools and other educational institutions must be addressed, and such quality of lectures and courses must be emphasised that will guarantee a high level of theoretical training and high-quality and solid incentives and information from practice. The reason is that this very requirement attains qualified dimensions in the case of trade and legal usages (international, as well as national and regional). The potential of cooperation between educational institutions and international organisations mostly remains untapped – and not only those that create and apply contract templates, unify recommendations, or formulate trade and legal principles, etc.

В заключение можно сказать, что негосударственные правила могут включать в себя, во-первых, lex mercatoria, т. е. право участников международных коммерческих отношений, относительно понимания которого отсутствует единое мнение, во-вторых, в настоящее время, очевидно, и некоторые правовые нормы ЕС, при условии, что речь идет о правоотношениях, в которых отсутствует связь с европейским пространством. Составляющей lex mercatoria можно считать международные торговые обычаи (например, ИНКОТЕРМС, которые в значительной степени стали популярными), общепризнанные правовые принципы или основы (например, pacta sunt servanda) и свод принципов международных договоров (например, Принципы УНИДРУА).

Lex mercatoria может применяться как арбитражами, так и судами общей юрисдикции на основе четырех теоретических подходов. Первым является субсидиарное применение, когда lex mercatoria применяется в рамках когентных положений применяемого права – на практике данный способ применения не встречается с какими-либо проблемами. Вторым вариантом является применение, равноценное национальным правовым системам, т. е. на основании коллизионного метода. В настоящее время данный способ является спорным и применяется скорее арбитражными судами, чем судами общей юрисдикции. Третий вариант – это преимущественное применение lex mercatoria, которое, однако, является крайним случаем даже в контексте международного торгового арбитража, требующего рассмотрения всех существенных обстоятельств. Сюда также можно включить отрицательный выбор права (negative choice), когда предполагается, что стороны, не выбрав применимое право, выбрали именно lex mercatoria. И в данном случае речь снова идет о спорной доктрине, перед применением которой необходимо взвесить все обстоятельства дела и, прежде всего, учесть волеизъявление сторон. Четвертым и последним вариантом является дополнительный выбор права.

С точки зрения практического применения на первом месте (с учетом частоты применения) находится применение негосударственных правил в связи с арбитражным разбирательством, когда суды осуществляют контрольную функцию в ходе разбирательства о признании и приведении в исполнение иностранных арбитражных решений. В этом случае доктрина признает, что нельзя отказать в признании и приведении в исполнение решения иностранного суда только по той причине, что оно основано на lex mercatoria.  Следующим возможным применением негосударственных правил в судах общей юрисдикции является применение на основании национальных правовых норм. Третьим вариантом является применение негосударственных правил на основании выбора сторон, когда стороны могут выбрать негосударственное право. Даже если не все стороны согласны, можно рассматривать возможность применения негосударственных норм судами общей юрисдикции, однако, скорее как т. н. soft law, т. е. в качестве пособия или источника инспирации при рассмотрении и разрешении спора. Аналогично применяется иностранное право или иностранные документы судебной практики.

При определенных условиях также возможно применение негосударственных правил во внутригосударственных спорах. Это, прежде всего, споры, в которых стороны согласуют применение негосударственных правил в рамках когентных положений применяемого права, или по усмотрению суда. В данном случае суд должен рассмотреть все обстоятельства, например, опыт сторон с международной торговлей, а также способ применения. Против применения негосударственных правил как soft law нельзя возражать. В контексте наблюдается растущий интерес арбитражных судов, а также судов [общей юрисдикции/государственных] к негосударственным правилам, который проявляется, например, в том, что основание решения на lex mercatoria еще не означает противоречие публичному порядку.
В связи с применением негосударственных правовых норм важную роль играет качественная вузовская и послевузовская образовательная система и взаимодействие широкой практики с воспитанием и обучением. Поэтому необходимо обращать особое внимание на воспитательные и образовательные учреждения, а также на качество содержания обучения, гарантирующее как высокий уровень теоретической подготовки, так и качественные и обоснованные стимулы и сведения из практики. Именно это требование в торговых и правовых обычаях (международных, а также национальных и региональных) приобретает важность с точки зрения квалификации. В основном остается нереализованным потенциал в области сотрудничества между образовательными учреждениями и международными организациями, причем не только теми, которые занимаются созданием и применением образцов договоров, объединяющих рекомендаций, формулировок торговых и правовых принципов и т. п.

INTRODUCTION
Arbitration in is no longer a strange concept of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Nigeria. The idea of inserting an Arbitration Clause in an agreement as a means of resolving controversies in the event that one arises is fast becoming a trend for most corporate and commercial transactions. One can only wonder why, my guess is as good as yours. Litigation simply is not time effective. Arbitration seems to have eliminated the delay occasioned by parties when they resolve issues by litigation. This paper is based on the nature and effect of an Arbitration Clause in a contract. The purpose of this paper is to review the provisions of an Arbitration Clause, the doctrine of separbility and economic importance of Arbitration and the implications of inserting a well constructed Arbitration Clause in a contract. This paper will also examine the attitude of Nigerian Courts when parties are trying to circumvent an Arbitration clause.
In this paper, there are some words that are key to understanding the above topic. The words are stated below and same will be defined in accordance with the interpretation of case laws.

Sostiene el autor que la clave de la eficiencia en el arbitraje no radica tanto en una intervención del árbitro puramente procedimental, externa, cuantitativa, consistente en la poda de plazos o posibilidades probatorias, cuanto en una adecuada y temprana intervención cualitativa, que contribuya a armonizar elementos jurídicos y terminológicos dispares, configurar con claridad los términos del debate sobre el fondo del litigio y trazar los cauces por los que éste deba discurrir. Siendo el arbitraje, además, un verdadero sistema de justicia, la eficiencia requiere el concurso de todos cuantos participan en él: abogados, árbitros y, muy en especial, jueces. De la lealtad de todos y cada uno de ellos dependerá la mayor o menor eficiencia del arbitraje como proceso y como sistema.

The author maintains that the key to efficiency in arbitration does not lie in the arbitrator's purely procedural, external, quantitative intervention, consisting in pruning deadlines or probative possibilities, but rather in an adequate and early qualitative intervention. This early intervention can contribute to harmonize disparate legal and terminological elements, clearly set the terms of the debate on the merits of the dispute, and trace the channels through which this debate will run. In addition, since arbitration is truly a justice system, efficiency requires the participation of all those who intervene in the arbitration process: counsel, arbitrators, and especially judges. The greater or lesser efficiency of arbitration is dependent on the loyalty of each and all of them to arbitration as a process and as a system.

In September 2017, the UAE Minister of Justice passed the new Executive Regulations to the UAE Legal Profession Law no. 23 of 1991. The 2017 Regulations restrict the ability of foreign counsel to appear on behalf of arbitrating parties in UAE-seated proceedings. Article 2 of the 2017 Regulations provides that arbitral tribunals shall not accept the representation of arbitrating parties by persons who are not registered on the Roll of Practising Lawyers in the UAE. Article 17 provides that only UAE nationals can be registered on the Roll of Practising Lawyers. Hence, only UAE lawyers can appear on behalf of the parties in UAE-seated arbitrations. The 2017 Regulations come at a critical time when the UAE arbitration community has not yet recovered from the shock of Article 257 of the Federal Penal Code. While there are potential solutions to the restrictions imposed by the 2017 Regulations on foreign counsel, it is fairly early to predict the potential consequences that may follow. Other than Article 2 of the 2017 Regulations being amended, the promulgation of the long-awaited draft UAE law on arbitration could effectively repeal the effects of Article 2.

In a changing international commercial dispute resolution landscape, the combined use of mediation and arbitration has emerged as a dispute resolution approach offering parties a number of benefits. These include resolving parties’ disputes cost-effectively and quickly and obtaining a binding and internationally enforceable decision. However, to date there has been little agreement on several aspects of the combined use of processes. The academic debate is ongoing about acceptable ways of combining mediation and arbitration. At the same time, there is little evidence to suggest that practitioners actually use a combination of mediation and arbitration.This article analyses the results of a recent empirical study of the current use of mediation in combination with arbitration in international commercial dispute resolution. The results reveal that the combined approach is used to a relatively low extent, which contrasts with widespread recognition of the benefits that it seems to offer. In vast majority of cases, the mediation and arbitration stages are conducted by different neutrals, while the mediation stage usually involves the use of caucuses. Surprisingly, as appears from the study, the absence of a unified enforcement mechanism for international mediated settlement agreements does not present any obstacle to recording the outcome of the combined use of processes in a mediated settlement agreement rather than in an arbitral award.

Este artigo analisa algumas questões surgidas no caso Petrobras v. ANP julgado pelo Superior Tribunal de Justiça em outubro de 2017. O Tribunal proferiu uma decisão que pode ser considerada favorável à arbitragem, mas algumas questões ainda merecem maior reflexão em uma próxima oportunidade.

The seat of arbitration seems to be one of the most important issues to be agreed within an arbitration agreement. It directly influences a number of issues: arbitrability, determination of the governing law, whether substantive or procedural, and determination of the place for the proceedings on annulment of the arbitral award (and for the exercise of the juge d´appui and supervisory functions of courts with respect to arbitration). The examples of many countries clearly illustrate that the ideas of the denationalization of arbitration are somewhat chimerical, especially because the states desire to preserve a certain degree of control over arbitration; it also demonstrates the fact that the denationalization of arbitration generally does not even correspond to the actual interest of the parties. The reason often inheres in the greater security guaranteed in localized proceedings. Consequently, the denationalization of arbitration has never been fully implemented, and it appears that it has become a very marginal issue.

The subject of remedies in investment treaty arbitration is one of the issues that have not been elaborated extensively yet. This article aims to shrink this gap. To find out the remedies that are available in the investment arbitration mechanism and compatible with investment disputes, it first examines the systemic features of investment treaty arbitration (rules, policy considerations, parties’ interests) regarding applicable remedies. Then, it focuses on the scope of protection of different kinds of rights held by investors. It emphasizes that investment treaty undertakings do not trigger the application of the same remedies as property and contractual rights do. In the light of these findings, this article attempts to ascertain when remedies such as restitution, cessation of the wrongful act and specific performance are available in investment treaty arbitration.

International treaties therefore have priority over provisions of domestic origin (domestic lex arbitri). This mainly concerns two conventions, namely the New York Convention (1958) and the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (1961). In the field of international arbitration, specifically the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, these two conventions were historically preceded by two international treaty acts. If it is possible to apply both the provisions of bilateral interstate treaties (as mentioned above, primarily the legal assistance treaties) and the provisions of multilateral conventions, then the bilateral treaties are usually prioritized as a quasi lex specialis. Mainly the reflection the bilateral treaties (legal assistance treaties), but often also the reflection of the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (1961) will often be omitted.

Among so many writings devoted to the third-party funding phenomenon, very few elaborate on one specific feature of this business model. Rather than a hidden facet, it is a real overarching characteristic, amounting to a fundamental principle of law: the right of access to justice. This aspect may have a potential impact in investment arbitration: serving as a capsule for new perspectives on the third-party funding realm, it may lead us to consider that a third-party funding investment is a protected investment under international investment agreements.
On the other hand, consideration of recent developments and the experience of financial products in the investment arbitration setting may also provide additional grounds to posit such protection.
This article endeavours to assess whether this protection may be accorded to third-party funding business models.

The recognition and enforcement of annulled foreign arbitral awards in the country of origin under the 1958 New York Convention is subject to doctrinal discussions. A relevant article of the1958 New York Convention become the subject matter of many cases in some large economies. These cases and doctrinal views are very important for other countries that did not host such a case before their national courts. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to analyse the relevant article of the 1958 New York Convention and compare delocalization and territorial theories.

This paper explores whether in an investor-state arbitration the state sovereignty poses a challenge to the arbitral tribunal in ordering interim measures in aid of arbitration. It also examines whether the tribunal can order interim measures that are binding on the state party and whether the sovereign status of the state may, in practical terms, influence the considerations of the arbitral tribunal while deciding on the grant of interim measures against the state party. In examining these issues the notion of sovereignty has been looked at through various lenses or perspectives, viz. classical, teleological and objective.

... said it was important for him to engage himself" not in the discovery of facts ... Interview with Mr. D. Sengupta, Deputy Secretary, Indian Chamber of Commerce, on 10 June 2003 ... Telephone conversation with Mr. JP Sil, former Head of the Tribunal of Arbitration, Bengal Chamber of ...

The doctrine of separability is often called the cornerstone of international commercial arbitration. This doctrine serves to maximize the effectiveness of arbitration as an efficient means of resolving international commercial disputes and to minimize the temptation and effect of delay tactics. This principle arises from the autonomous nature of the arbitration agreement, even when included as a clause within a broader container agreement.
Separability provides that certain defects in the container agreement do not affect the arbitration agreement within it, unless those defects relate specifically to the arbitration agreement. This allows the tribunal to rule in an award on a variety of contract defenses without affecting its jurisdiction under the arbitration agreement. This paper will shed some light on the positive and negative implications of the applicability of the separability principle.

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) has advanced to the point that machines can compare and contrast historical cases in order to predict the outcome of a dispute at hand. AI studies that predict the outcome of litigation have stirred heated debate about the possible arrival of AI judges. Few scientific and legal studies have investigated the prediction of legal decision-making in arbitration despite the fact of AI predicting case outcomes and the emerging talk of AI judges. Inspired by these debates and to fill this gap in legal scholarship, the article poses the question of whether AI will be able to replace arbitrators, enquires into AI’s ability to predict outcomes of future cases in the context of international commercial arbitration, and scouts the potential implications if AI does, in fact, replace arbitrators. Although this article focuses on the international arbitration perspective, it looks at examples and studies from a wide range of legal fields, and its findings apply adjudicatory decision-making more generally.

Η Σύμβαση της Νέας Υόρκης του 1958 για την αναγνώριση και εκτέλεση αλλοδαπών διαιτητικών αποφάσεων διαθέτει το προνόμιο της επιτυχέστερης διεθνούς σύμβασης στο πεδίο των αστικών και εμπορικών διαφορών. Η Ελλάς ήταν πρωτοπόρος στην κύρωση [Ν.Δ. 4220/1961].
Με αφορμή τη συμπλήρωση 60 ετών, επιλέχθηκαν και δημοσιεύονται στο παρόν τεύχος τέσσερις αποφάσεις δικαστηρίων της πόλης μας, σχετικά με την κήρυξη εκτελεστών αλλοδαπών διαιτητικών αποφάσεων σύμφωνα με την πολυμερή σύμβαση, και με εφαρμογή του ελληνικού νομοθετικού διατάγματος. Η αποθησαύριση της νομολογίας είναι ασφαλώς επιλεκτική, και δεν καλύπτει το σύνολο των ζητημάτων που εμφανίστηκαν στην πράξη.

The objective of this paper is to understand how arbitration in sports matters relates to commercial arbitration in general. More specifically, the focus will be on institutional arbitration, since the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) forms the main study object of this paper.

The ultimate purpose is to understand why the CAS is so unique in institutional arbitration. Despite the distinct and specific nature of sports disputes, the structure of sports arbitration is a very interesting study object in international commercial arbitration. Why is the need for arbitration so pressing in sports disputes? What are the most important assets of this system? What are the main points of criticism and what could potentially be improved? Finally, what is there to learn for other branches, or is it all about the specificity of sport?

The seat of arbitration has essential practical importance in arbitration, and it directly determines a number of issues: arbitrability, determination of governing law, whether substantive, or (mainly) procedural, and annulment of the arbitral award or its recognition and enforcement etc. Pursuant to author´s opinion the seat of arbitration is the main factor determining arbitration, while denationalization of arbitration seems to be a myth widely remote from international reality. The seat of arbitration need not be the place in which the individual procedural acts are conducted. From the seat of arbitration has to be distinguished also the place, where the arbitral award has been rendered and/or signed. Consequently, the place where the arbitral award is made usually determines whether the award is a domestic or a foreign award. The seat of arbitration can exceptionally be changed in course of arbitration, but not after an arbitral award has been rendered. International arbitration is usually subject to a two-tier control exercised by courts. The first control is exercised by the state of the seat of arbitration, and the second control is exercised by the state in which the parties seek recognition and enforcement. Consequently, if the parties internationalize their dispute (both parties from the same country agree on a seat of arbitration in a different country) and the arbitral award is rendered abroad (foreign arbitral award vis-à-vis the country of parties’ origin/domicile), the award has no effects in the country of parties´ origin/domicile until its recognition.

One of the intrinsic beliefs of law can be expressed through the legal maxim, consensus facit legem, that is “consent makes the law”. The docket explosion that exists in the domestic litigation and the confusion that exists in regards to the laws applicable in the international sphere have found recluse in arbitration. Arbitration has been used for centuries, with Plato writing about the same amongst the ancient Greeks. In modern times, with expansion and globalisation of cross border investment, the trade, commerce and intercourse has increased manifolds, but at the same time complications in regards to commercial relationships as existing between the business organisations, investors and States have also complicated. When the business relationships go sour and the business-deals go ugly, parties to the dealings seek the best amicable means to resolve the disputes. In many cases they opt for alternate dispute resolution methods such as arbitration, conciliation and mediation for resolution of disputes. International community is fast realising the effectiveness of arbitration as a means for resolution of disputes, and so is Bahrain with the establishment of the BCDR-AAA.

The term “foreign arbitral award” is crucial for the applicability of the respective rules on recognition and enforcement. Most national lex arbitri also lack any explicit definition. The practice in application of the New York Convention (1958) is of essential importance, mainly of its Article 1(1). New York Convention suggests that there are two types of foreign arbitral awards, namely: (i) arbitral awards rendered in the territory of a state other than the state of recognition, and (ii) arbitral awards that are not considered local (national, domestic) awards in the state in which their recognition is sought. The reason for this differentiation consists of the differences in interpretation of the status of arbiral award in different jurisdiction. The Convention employs two criteria,a territorial criterion (as the most important one) and a functional criterion. Although the Convention undoubtedly has major significance, we must not entirely dismiss bilateral treaties, such as legal assistance treaties, which also take precedence over laws of national origin. Any conflict between a [legal assistance] treaty and the New York Convention can be resolved either from the perspective of and with the use of the New York Convention and/or the particular treaty, or with the use of the general methods of resolving conflicts between the application of sources of international law (rules of international origin).

The fact that a state is a party to arbitration does not give the arbitrators the status of public officers or subjects of public law, let alone [public] international law. Arbitration is, above all, a universal procedural mechanism. The principal specifics of investment arbitration become especially apparent in connection with the application of substantive standards.

Confidentiality and publicity/privacy are predominantly procedural issues. Opinions that argue that there exists any global, internationally recognized principle of confidentiality as an intrinsic feature to arbitration are illusory. Standards of confidentiality are subject to important territorial differences that depend on the seat of arbitration. The only universally accepted principle is probably the principle of confidentiality of hearings and the obligation of confidentiality binding on the arbitrators. This applies not only to international commercial arbitration, but also to investment disputes. Even in investment disputes, the parties enjoy a high standard of autonomy when it comes to confidentiality and the disclosure of information. Although we cannot deny the existence of a qualified public interest in investment disputes, this aspect should not influence confidentiality, publicity or the disclosure of information, because the ultimate interest in the disclosure of information in investment protection cases principally benefits the nationals of the host state. The author is of the opinion that these nationals could demand the disclosure of information regarding a particular dispute directly upon the host state and according to the mechanisms that the particular state employs for the purpose of the disclosure of information by the state (legislation regulating access to information, etc.). The author has serious doubts as to the power and the entitlement or authorization of arbitrators to make broad decisions on the disclosure of information concerning the particular proceedings by one of the parties. They cannot assess the interests of a third party (a person who is not a party to the proceedings). This does not apply in exceptional cases where the arbitrators restrict the right of the parties to disclose a specific piece of information in procedural situations that could jeopardize the course and the purpose of the proceedings. This is the only aspect within the power of arbitrators as concerns publicity. Nonetheless, such measures ought to be exceptional and adopted only in cases of specific and imminent danger.

International law now recognizes the right of a foreign investor to bring a claim directly against a host country. The harbinger is the investment treaties entered into between investors’ home states and the host state. However, this noble principle is under serious threat. In order to benefit from favorable international investment agreements between the host country and other countries, ingenious investors have devised means of assuming various nationalities to suit their whim, to the chagrin of their host countries.

“Uyuşmazlık tahkimde de çözülebilir” ya da “uyuşmazlık İstanbul mahkemelerinde veya İstanbul’da tahkimde çözülecektir” gibi uyuşmazlık çözüm şartları karşılaştırmalı hukukta geçerli kabul edilmektedir. Türk hukukunda doktrin ve Yargıtay içtihadında genel kabul gören görüş ise, karşılaştırmalı hukuktaki bu yaklaşımı yansıtmamaktadır: bu tip tahkim şartları tarafların arasında çıkmış olan veya çıkabilecek uyuşmazlıkların mutlak surette tahkim yoluyla çözüme kavuşturulacağını belirtmediği için, bu anlaşmaların geçersiz olduğu ve tarafların açık ve kesin bir tahkim iradesinin bulunmadığı kabul edilmektedir. Ancak tarafların tahkim iradesinin mutlak olarak ve diğer tüm uyuşmazlık çözüm yollarını dışlayacak biçimde ortaya çıkmasını gerektiren bir kural ya da ilke bulunmamaktadır. Tahkim hukukunda böyle bir gerekliliğin bulunmaması karşısında, Türk hukukunda genel olarak kabul gören yaklaşım dayanaksız kalmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Türk hukukunda genel olarak kabul edilen yaklaşımın temellerini bulmaya çalışmakta ve bu yaklaşımı sorgulamaktadır.
Dispute resolution clauses such as “dispute may be submitted to arbitration” or “dispute shall be submitted to Courts of Istanbul or arbitration in Istanbul” are accepted as valid in comparative law. In Turkish law, on the other hand, it is accepted that these clauses are not valid and the parties would not provide a clear and precise consent to arbitration under such clauses, as they do not include an absolute consent for the resolution of disputes between the parties in arbitration. There is not, however, any rule, principle or system of interpretation, which requires the consent to arbitration to exclude any other potential dispute resolution mechanism. Therefore, there is not any basis supporting the approach adopted in Turkish law. This piece examines the foundations of this approach and questions it.

Στις διεθνείς συναλλαγές και στο εμπόριο, η Διαιτησία έχει καταστεί το πλέον πρόσφορο μέσο επίλυσης διαφορών που τυχόν θα ανακύψουν. Πέραν των εκτιμήσεων που γίνονται ετησίως για τη συνεχή ποσοστιαία αύξηση καταφυγής στη Διαιτησία με σκοπό την επίλυση μιας εμπορικής διαφοράς, αξίζει να επισημανθεί ότι σύμφωνα με ορισμένους σχολιαστές σχεδόν όλες οι διεθνείς συμβάσεις διέπονται σήμερα από Ρήτρες Διαιτησίας. Στόχος της συγκεκριμένης μελέτης λοιπόν είναι η ανάδειξη και η ανάλυση των πλεονεκτημάτων που παρουσιάζει η Διεθνής Εμπορική Διαιτησία (International Commercial Arbitration), τα οποία δικαιολογούν σε κάθε περίπτωση τη ραγδαία ανάπτυξη που παρουσιάζει ο θεσμός ιδιαίτερα τα τελευταία χρόνια στο πλαίσιο της εναλλακτικής επίλυσης διαφορών.

Contracts are designed to govern the relations between business partners and allocate risk among them, yet they cannot mitigate all risks; hence, dispute resolution mechanisms have been developed to assist. According to research, arbitration is considered one of the most efficient legally binding dispute resolution mechanisms. Since initiating an arbitration case against business partners often severs the business relationship between them, predicting the arbitrator's decision becomes valuable to the arbitrating parties. To do so, arbitration prediction models are suggested in this paper through modeling the arbitrator's award in two stages: evidence admissibility and evidence evaluation. While arbitrators currently admit evidence in a relatively unsystematic way, this proposed admissibility framework systemizes the current practice by preserving its subjectivity, yet aligning it with the widely deployed rules of arbitration. This research further proposes an evidence evaluation model, providing a rapid answer to the famous commercial arbitration battle, discovery. While the current arbitrators' practice in allowing discovery is not systematic, the proposed optimization model is a tool that could systematically assist arbitrators trading between the arbitration key characteristic, efficiency, and justice. This is achieved by assigning weights to evidence parameters such as sufficiency and credibility, which in turn provide numerical measures to reduce the decision's subjectivity.

The liberal globalised order has brought increased focus on the regulation of international commerce, and especially dispute resolution. Enforcement of contracts has been a concern largely owing to the insufficiencies of the legal systems , especially relating to the institutional structure, and it holds true for India as well. The commercial courts mechanism international and domestic-with innovative features aimed at providing expedited justice is witnessing much traction. India, similar to many other jurisdictions, legislated in favour of specialized dispute resolution mechanisms for commercial disputes that could help improve the procedures for enforcement of contracts. This research attempts to critique the comparable strengths and the reform spaces within the Indian legislation on commercial courts. It parses the status of commercial dispute resolution in India especially in the context of cross-border contracts and critiques India's attempt to have specialised courts to a...

Dans la vie de tous les jours, les hommes sont appelés à conclure un certain nombre d’actes en vue de la satisfaction d’un besoin personnel ou professionnel. Par souci de sécurité, l’établissement d’un rapport contrac- tuel nécessite souvent des garanties de la part de l’un ou de l’autre des cocontractants. Ces garanties peuvent porter sur des biens ou sur des per- sonnes. Lorsqu’elles portent sur des personnes, il s’agit de sûretés person- nelles, lesquelles sont matérialisées soit par un contrat accessoire soit par un acte juridique autonome distinct du contrat principal. Les parties peuvent inclure dans le contrat principal une clause de règlement de différends leur permettant de recourir à l’arbitrage en cas de litige. La présence de ladite clause dans un contrat couvert par des sûretés tenant à des personnes pose ainsi le thème : ''Les sûretés personnelles et l’arbitrage ''.

This article discusses the concept of imperative norms (either public policy or mandatory rules) in the context of international commercial arbitration. It demonstrates that, as of today, arbitrators are perfectly suited to apply domestic imperative norms and that they have to carry out the difficult task of applying-or at least taking into account-all the imperative norms that may affect the enforceability of the award. The arbitrators' task is, in this regard, to carry out a balancing process between the need to respect party autonomy and the duty to issue an award which is worthy of enforcement. In this regard, the author criticizes and demonstrates the lack of conceptual autonomy of the concept of transnational public policy, a non-identified set of rules grounded in the practice of international commerce which is allegedly binding for international arbitrators.

The complex nature of construction projects and the involvement of a large number of unpredictable correlated factors make them susceptible to disputes. Although a wide range of dispute resolution mechanisms exists, experts in the construction industry favor arbitration over litigation when legally binding dispute resolution mechanisms are concerned. Because initiating a litigation or arbitration case against a business partner often severs the business relationship between them, predicting the arbitrator’s decision becomes valuable to the arbitrating parties. Because arbitration has been extensively treated as a game, and because the proposed approach relies on the wealth maximization concept, which is in turn dependent on the sum of utility sources of a firm, modeling arbitration is best achieved as a game with disputing parties’ utility profiles that would have an agreement zone. A construction-specific utility framework for the disputing parties arbitrating before a single arbitrator is proposed based on the additive expected utility theory. The proposed additive utility framework preserves the industry practicality and, most importantly, considers direct short-term factors and indirect long-term factors that would address factual disputes related to claim entitlement and quantification. It is expected that such a framework could then be used to identify utility equilibrium points between the disputing parties, which would serve the purpose of predicting the arbitration outcome.

Arbitration is a popular dispute resolution method. It is distinct from a typical proceeding in that it is a consensual procedure in which the parties select individuals or institutions to render a judgment in a dispute. Thus, parties enjoy a certain level of autonomy in the arbitral settlement proceedings. arbitration is preferable in international commerce because it enables parties to avoid the risk of different national legal cultures that might prevent them from transacting with one another.

When a dispute arises, in the light of the complex nature of international trade, question may arise as to whether a dispute is an international or national one. But this is a secondary point. The more critical issue is that an arbitral award is enforceable in different jurisdictions.
For a long period, the lack of public interest and lack of a strong judicial enforceability kept international arbitration unpopular and thus negatively impacted international commerce. To promote arbitration and thus international commerce, the international community began ratifying international conventions to improve arbitration perception. In that regard, a watershed moment was the adoption of The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), which took a pro-enforcement stand. Many countries adopted the New York Convention. This in turn created predictability in the enforcement of arbitral awards, which in turn began to engender more and more confidence in international arbitration.

But the New York Convention did provide a framework for national courts to refuse enforcement of arbitral awards based on “irregularities” related to the status of the award, the conduct of the arbitral proceedings, and validity of the arbitration agreement.
Public policy is also one of the irregularities that the New York Convention lists as a manner of denying the enforcement of arbitral awards. It allows national courts not to give effect to an award that contradicts the fundamental principles of the forum state’s legal system. The public policy exception is the focus of this study.

Since the New York Convention entered into force, national courts have formulated wide- ranging interpretations of public policy. The public policy exception presents a safety zone in which the national courts can decide whether an arbitral award and its recognition or enforcement is contrary to the public policy of the forum State where its enforcement is being sought. The New York Convention’s language allows state courts to enjoy wide discretion on the application of public policy. Public policy is subject to moral, cultural, economic and social essentials of each state. However, as social construction of nations has inevitably changed extremely in the last century, the criteria of public policy is subject to the same progressive manner. But the realities of today’s international transaction require a fully functional arbitration system and the finality of an arbitral awards. The more ambiguity there is in the ability to enforce an award based on various states’ public policy, it creates the more uncertainty it pertains to the law.

This study preliminary focuses on the concept of public policy, whether its application has contravened the New York Convention’s pro-enforcement stance, and how the exception has impacted international arbitration and international commerce. This paper also looks into whether there is a standardized application of the public policy globally.