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.
Recently we have reached one interesting publication “Enforcement of Arbitration Awards in Russia and Ukraine: Dream or Reality?”, prepared under the auspices of the American Bar Association, Section of International Law and the Center for Continuing Legal Education.
Though I do not completely agree with certain opinions of the authors (in some cases they sound too critically, I think) I recommend to read that material. Not only because some of the authors are my colleagues and acquaintances. The publication is full of practical situations illustrated by cases.
A Paris court of arbitration has provisionally restricted Siemens' actions in joining a partnership with Russia's Rosatom.
This post opens the set of short comments concerning the most common stereotypes related to the advantages and disadvantages of international arbitration as well as other myths related to international arbitration.
Stereotype No 1. Speed and economy
“Arbitration is faster and less expensive than litigation in the courts. Although a complex international dispute may sometimes take a great deal of time and money to resolve, even by arbitration, the limited scope for challenge against arbitral awards, as compared with court judgements, offers a clear advantage. Above all, it helps to ensure that the parties will not subsequently be entangled in a prolonged and costly series of appeals. Furthermore, arbitration offers the parties the flexibility to set up proceedings that can be conducted as quickly and economically as the circumstances allow. In this way, a multi-million dollar ICC arbitration was once completed in just over two months.”
ICC International Court of Arbitration
“Introduction to arbitration. Advantages of arbitration”