International arbitration News, analytics and practice


Intention to arbitrate or Pathological arbitration clause?

With this post we continue the Ukraine – arbitration-friendly jurisdiction set of comments. We already discussed the approach that was typical for Ukrainian courts concerning the validity and enforceability of ad hoc arbitration clauses till recent times. Ukrainian courts’ practice still is not a pro-arbitration one. However, there is the understanding of difference between a pathological arbitration clause and a poorly drafted clause which though may be rescued. mistakes in arbitration 500x466 Intention to arbitrate or Pathological arbitration clause?


Ad hoc arbitration

This is the second post in the Ukraine – arbitration-friendly jurisdiction set of comments after the post dedicated to Ukrainian “perception” of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.

It may sound strange, but in some cases the practice of Ukrainian courts concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards is based not on laws and international treaties that specify international obligations of Ukraine to recognize and enforce the awards, but on domestic currency control rules and even tax legislation. Let the currency control rules be formally interpreted, which was the case during several years, and you may come to a ridiculous result: the monopoly of the International Commercial Arbitration Court and the Maritime Arbitration Commission at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry “on the market” of resolution of disputes where one party is a Ukrainian entity.

ad hoc


Ukraine – arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. Stockholm

Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce

There are not many cases in public domain which may help us to determine all significant issues of recognition and enforcement of the awards of this world-renowned arbitration institution.

In case No. 22/200 the economic court of Donetsk Region adopted decision on 13.01.2010 on termination of the consideration of case since the parties agreed to arbitrate in “Arbitration Court of Stockholm” (not the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC)). Thus, you may think that Ukrainian courts are liberal in their attitude to such details as the name of an arbitration institution.

stockholm Ukraine   arbitration friendly jurisdiction. Stockholm


New category!

Ukraine - arbitration-friendly jurisdiction

There are countries whose legal system is very friendly to arbitration. Though Ukraine is a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards  1958 for a long time, we may find the statements of reputable lawyers that Ukrainian court system is not friendly to arbitration.

There are no grounded arguments against the Ukrainian arbitration legislation. Ukraine is a UNCITRAL Model Law country and a member of all major international arbitration treaties. Its International Arbitration Law was drafted based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. The main issue which created Ukraine the reputation of a country unfriendly to arbitration is the disputable practice of recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards by Ukrainian courts.

Herewith we start the discussion whether Ukrainian court system is friendly to arbitration. However, we will share the information concerning the court “attitude” to a particular arbitration institution (LCIA, SCC, ICC, etc.) so that you can have the full picture on what arbitration forums are “in respect” of Ukrainian courts. We will provide you with the details of the descision so that you can apply the court practice properly.

(c) by International arbitration blog