• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.28
• /
• pp.91-117
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this paper is to examine practical and legal considerations in the choice of the "Seat of Arbitration". As the selection of the "Seat of Arbitration" in an international commercial contract is vital both judicially and practically, so to speak, in terms of enforceability of award, judical interference in arbitration proceedings, relative convenience and expense, and the selection of arbitrators, the selection should be carefully considered and examined. In case of institutional arbitration, when the arbitration clause does not nominate the seat, the administrator or the secretariat of the institution or the arbitrator tribunal would usually determine the seat. On the contrary in case of ad hoc arbitration, Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the "Seat of Arbitration" would be determined according to the rules which are selected by parties or their arbitrators. To avoid confusing situation about the selection of the seat, this writer would like to recommend ICC or LCIA with each Standard Arbitration Clause. If the parties want any national arbitration institution because of the expenses incurred in international institution, AAA or CEPANI is recommendable in terms of the reputation, operating system and recognized performance. Specially ICC Court of Arbitration usually examines the award before it is issued, so the enforceablity would go up. Thus when the parties lay down the arbitration clause in their contract they should confirm whether the "Seat of Arbitration" is fixed or not. If not, at least they should examine the arbitration rules which would be applied, and know in advance how the seat be determined.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.76
• /
• pp.49-76
• /
• 2017

Lex arbitri, a law that regulates arbitration procedures at arbitral seat, can be viewed as an additional procedural law. In addition, the lex arbitri refers to mandatory provision imposed by each country on arbitrators in their own territory. The reason is that the lex arbitri often relates to matters of public policy of the place of arbitration. In Korea, the LMAA terms is frequently mentioned in the shipping industry in Korea, and the LMAA terms clause is often set up in the contract between Korean companies. However, the study of the UK Arbitration Act 1996, which regulates the LMAA arbitration, is not so much in Korea. On the other hand, Lex Arbitri, a corporation that regulates mediation procedures in arbitration, can be viewed as an additional procedure. There may also be procedures that must be followed compulsorily by the Arbitration Act of Arbitration. The reason is that Lex Arbitri seems to be related to the public policy of the arbitration. Therefore, the arbitration law of the country of arbitration seat may be the most important regulations in relation to the legality of the arbitration procedure. If the proceedings of the arbitration violate the Lex Arbitri, the arbitral award may be nullified. The purpose of this study is to analyze the arbitration theory, international arbitration and Lex Arbitri, focusing on the UK Arbitration Act 1996.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.217-230
• /
• 2006

Singapore is a dual-track arbitration regime. Where seat of arbitration is Singapore, the governing procedural law for domestic arbitration is AA and for international arbitration is IAA. The parties may by agreement opt-out of and opt-into a specific regime. SIAC is a leading arbitral institution in Singapore. It offers wide range of services: administer arbitration proceedings, arrangement of logistics for arbitration hearing, appointment of arbitral tribunal for ad hoc arbitration in Singapore as well as registry and authentication of arbitral awards.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

This paper purposes to examine the setting aside and the refusal of enforcement of arbitral awards and their implications for practitioners. The aim of challenging an award before a national court at the seat, or place, of arbitration is to have it modified in some way by the relevant court, or more usually, to have that court declare that the award is to be disregarded (i.e. "annulled" or "set aside") in whole or in part. If an award is set aside or annulled by the relevant court, it will usually be treated as invalid and accordingly unenforceable, not only by the courts of the seat of arbitration but also by national courts elsewhere. This is because, under both the 1958 New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law, the competent court may refuse to grant recognition and enforcement of an award that has been "set aside" by a court of the seat of arbitration. The New York Convention set out various grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award. The provisions of the Model Law governing recognition, enforcement or setting-aside of awards are almost identical to those set out in the Convention. Especially, the New York Convention and the Model Law state that an arbitral award may be refused and set aside if a national court of the place of arbitration finds that the award is in conflict with the public policy of its own country. Each state has its own concept of what is required by its "public policy". It is possible to envisage, for example, a dispute over the division of gaming profits from a casino. In many states, the underlying transaction that led to the award would be regarded as a normal commercial transaction and the award would be regarded as valid. Indeed, it is a consistent theme to be found in the legislation and judical decision of many countries. If a workable definition of "international public policy" could be found, it would provide an effective way of preventing an award in an international arbitration from being set aside and refusal for purely domestic policy consideration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.169-183
• /
• 2013

Egypt has gone through a major metamorphosis following the Egyptian Revolution that began on 25 January 2011. The aim of this article is to analyze the influence of the aforementioned metamorphoses on the Egyptian Arbitration Law and Practice and to shed light on the recent developments of the latter. Whilst positive legislative amendments have been recently achieved with regards to enforcement of arbitral awards, it is crystal clear that the January 2011 Revolution has negatively impacted the jurisprudence of the Administrative Court of the Conseil d'Etat which has annulled several arbitration clauses enshrined in contracts related to privatization. However, save for disputes arising from administrative contracts, Egypt has been and shall remain a friendly seat of Arbitration as it possesses an arbitration-friendly legislation, its Ordinary Judicial Courts are familiarized with international arbitration practice and it has a prominent and famous arbitration Centre.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.6
• /
• pp.101-114
• /
• 2020

Purpose - This paper examines the "Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" (the Arrangement), which became effective on October 1, 2019, calling on courts of mainland China and Hong Kong for reciprocal commitment in support of court-ordered interim measures in aid of arbitral proceedings. Because the Hong Kong courts have granted interim measures in aid of arbitral proceedings seated in and outside of Hong Kong even prior to the Arrangement becoming effective, this paper focuses on the significance of the Arrangement making Hong Kong the first and only seat outside of mainland China from which parties to arbitral proceedings may successfully obtain interim measures to preserve of assets, properties, and/or evidence from Chinese courts to be enforced in China. Design/methodology - The significance of interim measures in international arbitration and the existing circumstances of interim measures in support of international arbitral proceedings in mainland China and Hong Kong are discussed first in this paper. Due to the confidential nature of arbitral proceedings, while the details of applications for interim measures pursuant to the Arrangement cannot be discussed, in examining the implications of the Arrangement, the relevant and necessary information was made available from the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, as it is one of the six qualified arbitral institutions under the Arrangement. Findings - This groundbreaking Arrangement provides a mechanism for parties with China-related matters to more effectively resolve their disputes, the opportunity for Hong Kong to become an unparalleled seat of arbitration, and for mainland China to overcome some of its negative perceptions in international arbitration. Because the Arrangement also allows parties to directly apply for interim measures from mainland Chinese courts, parties with China-related matters should take note of this potential bypassing of the procedural hurdle, which usually requires an arbitral institution to submit such applications in China, and make strategic decisions accordingly as may be appropriate. Originality/value - Because the Arrangement is a recent yet a significant agreement calling on courts of mainland China and Hong Kong for reciprocal commitment in support of court-ordered interim measures in aid of arbitral proceedings, this study will provide useful guidance for parties with China-related matters all over the world, especially in light of China's rapid economic growth and extensive and prominent trade relationships in today's world. Parties who foresee the need for interim measures from mainland Chinese courts should designate Hong Kong as their seat of arbitration and select one of the six qualified arbitral institutions under the Arrangement to administer their arbitral proceedings in order to benefit from the Arrangement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.25-42
• /
• 2021

Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism based on the parties' agreement to resolve any disputes parties may have by arbitration rather than litigation in court. Parties' consent to arbitrate, which must be manifest in the parties' arbitration clause or agreement, is the foundation for arbitration; thus, the language of an arbitration agreement is often of utmost importance in determining the intent of the parties regarding many aspects of arbitration proceedings, such as, the scope of arbitral proceedings, arbitral seat, and authority of arbitral tribunals, among others. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) that ambiguity in arbitration agreement as to availability of class arbitration should be resolved in favor of individual arbitration, and therefore, class arbitration would be precluded. Such holding was met with criticism by four separate dissenting opinions, in which the dissenting Justices have disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the arbitration agreement at issue, as well as, its rejection of application of state law in resolving contractual ambiguity. This article analyzes the Supreme Court's decision and reviews the Court's approach in construction of the arbitration agreement. Nevertheless, because the Supreme Court declined to provide clear guidelines as to precisely what contractual basis is required to permit class arbitration, either silence or ambiguity in arbitration agreements will be resolved by disallowing class arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.19-47
• /
• 2015

International arbitration is an increasingly popular means of alternative dispute resolution for cross-border commercial transactions. The primary advantage of international arbitration over court litigation is enforceability. An international arbitration award is enforceable in most countries in the world. Especially, statistics indicate of ASEAN such as Malaysia and Singapore that the vast majority of defeated companies comply with the terms of international arbitral awards against them or settle soon after the award is rendered. Unlike Malaysia and Singapore, in Indonesia, there are several grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award including where both the nature of the dispute and the agreement to arbitrate do not meet the requirements set out in the Arbitration Law. Because Indonesia does not acknowledge decisions of foreign courts, theoretically they could enforce an international arbitral award which was set aside by the court in the seat of arbitration. This paper introduces the legal system and cases of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in ASEAN, especially Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. Secondly, by comparing their law and cases, the paper emphasized the international suitability and global fitness in involved in recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.161-184
• /
• 2020

In the process of the annulment of arbitral awards, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court contributes to keeping Switzerland as a venue for international arbitration. Challenges to an award rendered in Switzerland are handled by the Swiss Supreme Court only. Furthermore, the Swiss law provides extremely limited grounds (PILA 190) for the potential challenge of the award and those are different from what model law countries have. For example, violations of the parties' agreed procedural arrangements will not be grounds for the annulment of an award in Swiss. In arbitration, the intervention of a national court is necessary to protect justice but at the same time, it can impede the process of arbitration, even making it useless. Limited intervention of the Swiss Supreme Court protects the efficiency, autonomy, and justice of international arbitration. International Arbitration has to be simple and fast to solve complex international commercial problems and to promote trade. Therefore, the process and technique to be applied on an Arbitration-friendly Swiss court should be considered.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2022

On 27 October the Supreme Court of UK handed down its much anticipated decision in Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2021] UKSC 48. The issues for the Supreme Court to decide were as follows: (1) which law governed the validity of the arbitration agreement; (2) if English law applied, whether, as a matter of English law, there was any real prospect that a court might find that KFG became a party to the arbitration agreement, and (3) whether, procedurally, the Court of Appeal was correct in giving summary judgment refusing recognition and enforcement the award, or whether there should have been a full rehearing of whether there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement for the purposes of the New York Convention and the AA 1996 (the 'procedural' issue) The decision in Kabab-Ji provides further reassuring clarity on how the governing law of the arbitration agreement is to be determined under English law where the governing law is not expressly stated in the arbitration agreement itself. The Supreme Court's reasoning is consistent with its earlier decision on the same issue, albeit in the context of enforcement pursuant to the New York Convention, rather than considering the arbitration agreement before an award is rendered. This paper presents some implications of Kabab-Ji case. Also, it seeks to provide a meaningful discussion and theories on the arbitration system in Korea.