The 2015 International Arbitration Survey (download) conducted by Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) is the third survey carried out in partnership with White & Case. The theme of this year's survey is improvements and innovations in international arbitration. The survey examined the effectiveness of past innovations and what could be improved in the future.
- 90% of respondents surveyed prefer international arbitration to resolve cross border commercial disputes.
- London and Paris are the most preferred venues for international arbitration. Hong Kong and Singapore are gaining momentum and are now ranked third and fourth.
- Initiatives to further improve the efficiency of the arbitral process are welcomed. Arbitrators and arbitration counsel need to be more proactive in promoting efficiency, not just arbitral institutions.
- 70% of respondents think there is an adequate amount of regulation although specific areas require further 'micro-regulation'.
Download White & Case infographic summary:
Retrieved from White & Case
International arbitration is a very tricky area, there are too many peculiarities so that even an academic course in this field is only a small amount of knowledge that the practitioner should have. We are often asked by young lawyers starting their practice in arbitration about the general information that could help them to have a general picture of what is arbitration.
Do you want to have a detailed knowledge about what the Guerrilla Tactics in international arbitration and litigation mean and what are counsel’s and the arbitral tribunal’s tools to deal with those? Where does poor behavior end and guerrilla tactics start? How do arbitral institutions view the issue of Guerrilla Tactics? How may arbitral institutions and state courts support fighting Guerrilla Practices? How much state court support is desirable?
Dear arbitration practitioners, be precise in specifying the name of an arbitral institution in a contract
With this post we continue the Ukraine – arbitration-friendly jurisdiction set of comments. In our previous posts we already warned arbitration practitioners, attorneys and solicitors who are dealing with drafting arbitration agreements so that they should be precise in specifying the name of an arbitral institution in a contract if the dispute somehow is connected to the Ukrainian jurisdiction. The reason why is that Ukrainian state courts are not trained in favor of arbitration and in many cases do not consider seriously the doctrine of competence-competence in international commercial arbitration.
On October 13, 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine ruled in case upon the petition of VKT ARDO LLC against the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Ukraine issued in favor of Аrсеlоrmittal Аmbalaj Сеligі Sanауі ve Тісаrеt Аnоnіm Sіrkеtі against VKT ARDO LLC for app. USD 3 mln. Since I have no interest in that case I believe that I can share my opinion.
The admissibility of requests and orders for Document Production has been a disputed subject for considerable time now. The aim of Document Production is to give the requesting party the opportunity to close evidentiary gaps in their own submissions. It is based on the principle that the two contesting parties will have the option to survey all relevant documents. In practice, it is often used by parties for much more than just the gathering of evidence and the dispute on its admissibility and scope focuses to a high degree on the divide between civil and common law traditions.
Arbitrators usually are sensitive to arguments about their jurisdiction. Though under the competence-competence doctrine even issues of the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement may go initially to the arbitrators, the authority of an arbitrator arises from a contract between the parties.
If you have sufficient arguments against the jurisdiction of a tribunal present them immediately. Do not be afraid to antagonize the arbitrators. It is much better to resolve the issues of jurisdiction at the beginning of the process, than to face the restrictions on challenging an arbitrator's award on substantive jurisdiction after it is issued.
Arbitration DO’S and DON’T’S
There are checklists of do's and don'ts while drafting arbitration agreement. Probably later we will discuss those very interesting issues. However, in this series we would like to pay your attention to what the counsels may (and in some cases what they must) do after the arbitration process is initiated. In some cases we will illustrate our comments with the practice of particular arbitration institutions and arbitration rules. We will focus not only on the issues related to the strategy and tactics in international arbitration, but also on ethical rules and codes of conduct, since there are a lot of rules for arbitrators, but few for parties and their counsels.