The foundation of the arbitration jurisdiction is the arbitration agreement entered into by the parties to a contract. Usually, only the signatory parties to a contract and the disputes arising from a contract that includes an arbitration clause or to which the arbitration clause relates are the ones that can be submitted to arbitration. This article discusses some of the arguments for extending the arbitration clause in complex arbitrations, that is, in those cases where there are more than two parties, more than two contracts or more than two parties and contracts. Particularly, this paper addresses multiple contract arbitration when the contracts are related. One of the arguments used by the arbitral tribunal for the extension of jurisdiction is the existence of a link between the contracts. Additional arguments include implied consent, participation in the negotiation and performance of a contract and good faith. The article also discusses some of the typical cases of linked contracts in many civil law countries, such as subcontracts, third party beneficiaries and standard terms of contracts, from which arbitral jurisdictions problems may arise. Finally, special attention is given to Article 14 of the 2008 Peruvian Arbitration Law as the first provision in an arbitration law in Latin America that extends the arbitration agreement to non-signatory parties using for this a mixed approach.

Amiable composition is a means of dispute resolution based on the arbitrator's authority to base his decision on equity. Although this method has been used frequently in the last decades of the 20th Century, the number of the published awards by amiable compositeur arbitrators is getting lower and lower. The reason(s) for unpopularity of amiable composition should be sought in its very nature, in its relationships with other institutions such as arbitration in law, equity, ex aequo et bono arbitration, other means of dispute resolution and in its role in the development of the rules specific to international commerce. A brief look at the history of law shows that the concept of equity comes to the scene every time that the rigidity of the rules of law challenges the justice. This has been the case in the 20th Century with respect to international commercial law which was deprived of specific rules. The role of amiable composition has been to contribute to the development of the rules specific to international commerce. The progressive codification of such rules in the last decades is also owed to amiable composition, which has accomplished its mission in the evolution of these rules.

Ever since its introduction in the 1927 ICC Arbitration Rules, scrutiny of awards by the ICC Court has been a cornerstone feature of ICC arbitration. Most players involved in the arbitral process are likely to concede that a certain level of review of arbitral awards is both desirable and beneficial. Indeed, proponents among the users are frequently influenced in their choice of the ICC as the administering arbitral institution, based on their strong conviction that time and money invested in the resolution of a dispute is ultimately only well spent if awards are voluntarily complied with or at least less susceptible to be set aside. By providing a look behind the scenes of the scrutiny process, the article does away with tales of excessive intervention on behalf of the arbitral institution when reviewing and approving awards and demystifies the role played by the ICC Court throughout its close interaction with arbitral tribunals operating under the ICC Rules. The article further argues that the scrutiny process can be a highly efficient tool that helps to increase the quality and enforceability of awards rendered under the aegis of the ICC.

In light of increasing international trade in recent years, international arbitration has been more widely used by international parties to resolve their conflicts. Thus, the need for reliable and effective enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has amplified. To facilitate the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the New York Convention lists grounds for the refusal of recognition and enforcement in Article V. This paper examines prominent U.S. case law on Article V(1)(b), which is put in place to ensure that arbitration proceedings are conducted properly in accordance with due process requirements: proper notice to parties and an opportunity to a fundamentally fair hearing. This examination of case law conveys that U.S. courts refuse to enforce foreign arbitral awards pursuant to Article V(1)(b) only when due process rights of the party against whom the award is to be enforced are clearly violated by the arbitral tribunal. This paper also reveals that U.S. courts mainly defer to arbitral tribunals' discretion, especially as to evidentiary matters. Therefore, it is predicted that U.S. courts will likely continue to narrowly construe the grounds in Article V to facilitate reliable and effective enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the U.S.

There is a growing interest in resolving intellectual property rights disputes through arbitration rather than in state courts. The internationalization of commercial relations, one of the most significant drivers of the growth of international arbitration in general, encompasses intellectual property relationships as well. In 2014, the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center revised its arbitration rules. The revision is part of a wave of recent updates of institutional arbitral rules. After briefly introducing the WIPO Center as an arbitral institution, this article assesses the features of the WIPO Rules that make them suitable for the particular challenges of IP-related disputes. A second part reviews the salient new aspects of the WIPO Rules from a comparative perspective.

In France, arbitration, both domestic and international, has recently been subjected to a major reform. This article discusses the content of the 2011 reform and its aftermath, while putting into perspective the current arbitration act in South Korea, an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction that contemplates reforming its own law. The two legal systems are characterized by their concern for efficiency and rationalization of the arbitration proceedings, through the codification of essential principles previously established by case law and through the promotion of the independence of this ADR vis-$\grave{a}$-vis state courts. The efficiency consideration is strengthened at every stage of the proceedings: from the arbitration agreement often considered valid and rarely challenged, through the proceedings for annulment, recognition and enforcement of the award, up to the judicial assistance of the French supporting judge towards the actual arbitral proceedings. Finally, new concerns are emerging: the increase of transparency and the arbitrability of disputes in some uncertain fields of law.