This paper sets out a multi-dimensional approach that parties drafting a "hybrid clause" for their arbitration agreement can adopt, for purposes of maximizing enforceability, taking into account the multi-jurisdictional interplay between the seat Court, the governing law and the enforcement Court(s), as well as mandatory rules that can be present in the lex arbitrii, the governing law, and/or the law of the enforcement for a. This paper draws on both the co-authors' practice experience, as well as first principles of party autonomy in light of mandatory rules, based predominantly on the scholarship of Briggs and Nygh.

Arbitration clauses or institutional arbitration rules rarely, if ever, specify the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. A wide range of laws may thus govern this question, such as the law at the place of arbitration, the law where the agreement or the award is enforced or the law of the main contract between the parties. It is also conceivable that international uniform law or soft law may play a role. Tribunals and courts seized with this question must consequently decide which of these various laws shall apply to verify the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. This paper picks up on this controversially debated conflict of laws issue. At times, this debate is characterized by a strong divide between arbitration and international trade law practitioners. But are the different approaches really leading to diverging results in arbitral practice?

Since 1855, the federal courts of the United States have been empowered to assist in the gathering of evidence for use before foreign tribunals. Today, the source of that authority is 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$ which permits the courts to order a person "to give [ ] testimony... or to produce a document ... for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal${\cdots}$ ." It was generally assumed, until the United States Supreme Court's decision of Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. in 2004, that arbitration tribunals were not "foreign tribunals" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$. While the issue in Intel did not involve an arbitration tribunal, a statement by the Supreme Court in dicta has called into question the exact parameters of the words "foreign tribunal," resulting in a split of opinion among the federal courts of the United States. This article explores the legislative history of 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$, examines the United States Supreme Court decision in Intel, and discusses the split among the courts of the United States regarding the interpretation of "foreign tribunal." The article further surveys emerging issues: is an arbitration tribunal in a case involving foreign parties and seated in the United States a "foreign tribunal"; does agreeing to the use of the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration circumscribe the use of 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$; can a party be ordered to produce documents located outside the United States; and is there a role for judicial estoppel in determining whether an application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$ should be granted?

This paper discusses the problem of extraordinary delay in the commercial arbitration process, increased arbitration fees, and denial of the benefits of arbitration to other parties due to the abuse of procedural rights by relevant parties in commercial arbitration process. This paper proposes measures to reduce abuse of process in commercial arbitration, such as statutory modification, judicial supervision, amendment of arbitration rules and the intervention of disciplinary bodies.

This article reviews some recent decisions of the Supreme People's Court (SPC) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the recognition and enforcement of several South Korean arbitral awards. It explains the implementation of the New York Convention in the PRC and in particular the so-called Report System under the current Mainland Chinese law and judicial practice. It identifies some deficiencies in the People's Courts' approaches to the application and interpretation of the New York Convention and argues that the Mainland Chinese courts should adopt the pro-enforcement principle in the determination of the relevant issues under the New York Convention. It proposes further enhancement of the Report System and that the current categorization of 'domestic, foreign-related and foreign' in the context of arbitration agreements and arbitral awards needs to be further reviewed and clarified by the SPC. Last but not the least, it recommends some steps that South Korean parties should take to enhance the enforceability of South Korean Arbitral Awards in Mainland China.

The European Union has adopted the ADR Directive and ODR Regulation in 2013 with the purpose to strengthen the e-commerce within the EU. Not covered by these legislations is the trade in the B2B sector. The author examines the question of whether online ADR under the currently applicable legal framework would be possible in Germany. At the center of his review is the possibility of an arbitration clause which refers exclusively to an online ADR scheme, may be included in the General Terms and Conditions of an online trader.

This paper addresses the question of what kinds of dispute resolution choices can effectively handle complex intellectual property disputes, given the rising importance of IP, the increasing frequency and complexity of IP disputes, and the lack of research on dispute resolution strategies. For this analysis, the study adopted the analytic hierarchy process approach, which covers complex, multi-criteria decision problems, to quantify the expert's judgments on IP dispute resolution choice. Its results show that the effectiveness of resolution methods differs, depending on the type of IP dispute classified into seven issues, which are (i) requirement for validity of IP right, (ii) range and duration of IP right, (iii) transfer of IP right, (iv) licensing, (v) use of IP right, (vi) declaration of IP infringement, and (vii) estimation of damage. The disputes over IPR ownership and IP infringement remain challenging issues in due to strong requirement of the cross-border enforcement. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), especially arbitration, is determined to be a more effective method to deal with international IP disputes, but various advanced types of ADR techniques should be further developed to deal with the increasing complexity of IP disputes.

As in some developing countries and more recently some developed countries worldwide and in the Asian region, Australia has faced significant internal opposition and public debate especially over treaty-based investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). As outlined in Part II(1), concerns have re-emerged and escalated since the first-ever claim was brought against Australia regarding its tobacco plain packaging legislation, in 2011 by Philip Morris Asia under an old BIT with Hong Kong. However, Australia signed bilateral FTAs with Korea in 2014 and with China in 2015, including ISDS protections, prompting several sets of parliamentary inquiries (Part II(2)). Australia's close trading partner, New Zealand, had already concluded an FTA with China in 2008 that included more expansive ISDS-backed investor protections. In 2015, the New Zealand Parliament has been debating ratification of its own FTA with Korea, with ISDS also now attracting growing scrutiny, as elaborated in Part III below. In both bilateral FTA negotiations, the present Korean government seems to have reverted to a strong preference for concluding investment agreements with extensive ISDS protections, despite public and parliamentary debate around 2011 in the context of ratifying its FTA with the United States. As mentioned briefly in the concluding Part IV, Korea's stance has significant implications for the future trajectory of treaty-based ISDS - and indeed international arbitration more generally - in the Asia-Pacific region, and perhaps even globally.