commercial arbitration
Recently Published Documents

The concept of sustainable development has captured the world. It is altering society, generating new social patterns, reorganizing business and management models, testifying to the ultimate connectedness of the world and, as a result, encourages rethinking the legal superstructure, adapting supernova normative arrays to the current legal taxonomy, which is not always possible with taking into account the positivist approach to law. ESG principles have today become a kind of model for sustainable business development, due to which the goals of companies’ involvement in solving environmental, social and management problems are achieved. They have not only a vector effect, but also a regulatory, reputational; they have also an increasing impact on international business in a variety of industries. In addition, they are updating relatively new rating mechanisms that form the basis of investment, financial, credit, trade, corporate, management and other policies of companies. At the same time, ESG principles are segmented, fragmented and, as a rule, objectified externally in the form of norms of nonstate, often industry regulation. Without legally binding force, ESG principles are quite comparable with law in terms of the degree of impact on public relations and in terms of the resulting legal and economic consequences. Cross-border contracting practices are also changing, leading to the incorporation of “sustainability” clauses into contracts, as well as the emergence of the concept of a sustainable contract. The pre-contractual stage becomes more complicated, it requires human due diligence procedures, the formation and assessment of supply chains, the development of strategies for the disclosure of non-financial information, the study of legal risks taking into account the global law enforcement practice, as well as the establishment of methods and a jurisdictional forum for the resolution of disputes. International Commercial Arbitration claims to be attractive in resolving ESG disputes. These and other issues, taking into account their relevance, are studied in this paper.

Since arbitrator’s impartiality and independence constitutes the bedrock of international arbitration, more and more recent arbitral awards have been annulled or vacated on the grounds of lack of arbitrator’s impartiality. This work investigates whether a common international public policy core exists with regard to the concepts of impartiality and independence of arbitrators in international commercial arbitration. The book addresses the different constellations of arbitrator bias as considered by the courts of various jurisdictions, especially France, England, Switzerland, Greece and Germany. By introducing the ‘justifiable doubts’ to an arbitrator’s impartiality criterion and analyzing the above-mentioned national case law, the book categorizes instances that constitute lack of impartiality with reference to and interpretation of the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration 2014. The work examines and systematizes how arbitrator impartiality can be contested at different stages of procedure: upon constitution of the arbitral tribunal, during arbitration proceedings, as well as after the rendering of the award at annulment, recognition or enforcement stage, while providing answers to the following questions: what must an arbitrator disclose; should an arbitrator investigate a possible fact or circumstance that may affect her impartiality, and to what extent; what is the relevance of the fact affecting arbitrator impartiality being obvious, well-known or easily accessible by the parties; under which preconditions could a party waive its right to contest lack of impartiality-implicitly or expressly. This study focuses specifically on the institution of waiver and analyses how it prevents a party from contesting arbitrator impartiality at the next procedural stage, should it fail to follow the specific procedures and preconditions - an issue that is unexamined in the literature to date.

Drawing on a wide range of previously unpublished sources, this unique history of international commercial arbitration in the modern era identifies three periods in its development: the Age of Aspirations (c. 1780–1920), the Age of Institutionalization (1920s–1950s), and the Age of Autonomy (1950s–present). Mikaël Schinazi analyzes the key features of each period, arguing that the history of international commercial arbitration has oscillated between moments of renewal and anxiety. During periods of renewal, new approaches, instruments, and institutions were developed to carry international commercial arbitration forward. These developments were then reined in during periods of anxiety, for fear that international arbitration might be overstepping its bounds. The resulting tension between renewal and anxiety is a key thread running through the evolution of international commercial arbitration. This book fills a key gap in the scholarship for anyone interested in the fields of international arbitration, legal history, and international law.

This article provides an independent analysis of the scope and extent of arbitration under investment agreements, and the implications of the possible convergence in the process of harmonization of international commercial arbitration law.The successful settlement of any dispute depends on the compatibility of the nature of the dispute with the technique to which it is submitted for resolution. In the last decade, there was a constant increase in the number of disputes that were subjected to arbitration and a major chunk of those disputes covered a comparatively new but known area called international investment law. With economic globalization allowing the free flow of foreign direct investment (FDI) in and out of a country, the existing regulatory framework in international law to standardize investment liberalization is often seen as ineffective, hence the consequent disputes. Here, arbitration offers a suitable framework for the amicable settlement of commercial disputes covering investment agreements with the assistance of bilateral or multilateral agreements between the states. Preferential trade agreements pertaining to investment often contain an arbitration clause for the settlement of future disputes between parties. At this juncture, one may find that there exists a fundamental dilemma in ascertaining the true nature of investment arbitration and how it is different from commercial arbitration. For example, the protection being offered to human rights under the purview of investment arbitration may generate doubts in the minds of investment arbitrators. In commercial arbitration, divergences in a pluralistic order become particularly relevant whereas the diverse legal cultures supported by individual constitutional frameworks have a direct impact on investment arbitration due to their practical application. The article also discusses the need for harmonized rules governing arbitration procedures while maintaining the functional dissimilarities between commercial and investment arbitration.

<p>This paper examines the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v The Minister of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan, a rare case where an English court refused enforcement of an international arbitral award under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention).  Although in Dallah the United Kingdom Supreme Court acknowledged the trend to limit reconsideration of the findings of arbitral tribunals in fact and in law, the Court considered it was bound to decide the question of validity de novo. Contrary to the tribunal, the Court held the arbitration agreement was not valid under the law to which it was subject and refused enforcement of the arbitral award.  This paper analyses how the English Supreme Court decided the legal issues before it. It concludes the English court could have reached the same decision on a more convincing basis. Even where the issue is initial consent, holding the court at the place of enforcement is always bound to decide a matter de novo neither serves the objectives of international commercial arbitration nor is necessary to promote the fundamental integrity of arbitral proceedings.</p>

<p>This paper examines the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v The Minister of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan, a rare case where an English court refused enforcement of an international arbitral award under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention).  Although in Dallah the United Kingdom Supreme Court acknowledged the trend to limit reconsideration of the findings of arbitral tribunals in fact and in law, the Court considered it was bound to decide the question of validity de novo. Contrary to the tribunal, the Court held the arbitration agreement was not valid under the law to which it was subject and refused enforcement of the arbitral award.  This paper analyses how the English Supreme Court decided the legal issues before it. It concludes the English court could have reached the same decision on a more convincing basis. Even where the issue is initial consent, holding the court at the place of enforcement is always bound to decide a matter de novo neither serves the objectives of international commercial arbitration nor is necessary to promote the fundamental integrity of arbitral proceedings.</p>

Abstract This article assesses the traditional approach adopted to making an order of security for costs in international arbitration, which focuses almost exclusively on the financial standing of the claimant. The article argues that this approach is inappropriate, and has the potential to undermine the purpose of the remedy itself; namely, to protect a respondent who has been dragged into an arbitration against his will, and may subsequently struggle to enforce a costs award against the claimant if he is successful in due course. The author therefore argues that the financial position of the respondent—and the impact of the proceedings on that respondent—should be hardwired into the assessment undertaken by arbitral tribunals when considering whether to order the claimant to provide security for the respondent’s costs.