Search

The 1996 Act has completed its quarter-century cycle of existence. At the time of its enactment, it was praised by scholars and practitioners as a “masterful… comprehensive” piece of legislation and one that was destined to “enhance the attractiveness of England as an arbitral forum”. These predictions proved exceedingly accurate. However, over time the legislation’s various shortcomings began to surface. Itsreview by the Law Commission was, therefore, very timely. This paper considersthe present state of English arbitration lawconsidering the provisions ofthe 1996Act and substantive and/or noteworthy recommendations proposed to the legislation, alongside the relevant case-law, and considers the appropriateness and potential utility of these recommendations. In particular, this article considers the following issues: the governing law of an arbitration agreement, the arbitrators’ duty of disclosure,theirimmunity from liability,the summary disposal of claims and defences,the confidentiality of arbitration and court powersin support of arbitral proceedings and emergency arbitrations. The paper concludesthat although the reform proposals are mostly commendable and sufficient to satisfy users’ concerns and expectations, not all are agreeable. Reform proposals do not go far enough. Most notably, the rule concerning the arbitrators’ duty of disclosure should recognise that, in appropriate instances, the subjective expectations of the parties should be addressed in the assessment. The parties’ reasonable and/or legitimate expectations should not be ignored when deciding what facts and circumstances to disclose to ensure that the partiesretain confidence in the process and remain the ultimate arbiters of their dispute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arbitration is the best method to resolve a dispute, due to the flexibility in its mechanism and issuing of a final judgment, known as an 'award'. The winning party usually seeks to apply that award in the state where the assets of the losing party exist. In this regard, the New York Convention 1958 guarantees that the award is enforceable in the state where the winning party sought to apply. Jordan is party to the Convention; it has regulated its own arbitration law and has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law 1985. However, not all provisions were adopted where specific provisions in Jordanian law relating to certain matters differed from the Model Law provisions. These differences may positively or adversely affect the arbitration procedure in Jordan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

“We are living in unprecedented times” - a statement in all aspects of our lives for the past year. This is also valid for international commercial arbitration. Like never before COVID 19 is changing and reshaping the world of arbitration. From expensive places for arbitral hearings to online platforms, from in-person hearings to virtual hearings. The direct impact of the lack of universal lex arbitri can be observed in the field of online and offline arbitration. In this sense, the terms “online” and “offline” arbitration are used to demonstrate the difference between in-person and virtual conduct of the arbitration. Traditional arbitration is converting into e-arbitration. By doing so, many national legislators and arbitral institutions are modernizing their rules just to provide an appropriate framework for e-arbitration. However, some of the theoretical concepts are more vivid now than before. The detach of international arbitration as a concept in the arbitration theory once again is attracting the attention of many legal scholars. Adapt, improve, and overcome – is the new standard in international arbitration. And this standard needs to fit with the basic principle of international commercial arbitration – due process and right to be heard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi is the property of Marmara University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Judgments by the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes / Uyusmazlik Mahkemesi Dergisi is the property of Court of Jurisdictional Disputes of the Republic of Turkey and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Delocalization is a modern development, and while difficulty arises in defining it, the concept is regarded as a theoretical shield for the arbitral process, often called „a security blanket”. Thus, with party autonomy being the core fabric of arbitration, delocalization was thought as enabling the arbitral process to be independent of the national legal system at the seat of an arbitration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the decision of Nikolay Viktorovich Maximov v Open Joint Stock Company ‘Novolipetsky Metallurgichesky Kombinat’, the English High Court dismissed the claimant's application to enforce a Russian arbitral award that had been set aside in Russia. The High Court held that in order to refuse recognition of the annulment decision, ‘[t]he decision of the foreign court must be deliberately wrong, not simply wrong by incompetence’. The High Court found that the claimant had failed to discharge this heavy burden, notwithstanding its ‘severe criticism’ of the Russian annulment decision. The case serves as a reminder of the difficulties that a party will face in seeking to enforce an arbitral award in England if it has been set aside in the country of origin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of International Trade & Arbitration Law / Uluslararasi Ticaret ve Tahkim Hukuku Dergisi is the property of Journal of International Trade & Arbitration Law / Uluslararasi Ticaret ve Tahkim Hukuku Dergisi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)