Tag results for 'dispute resolution'
Challenges and Opportunities in Addressing Investors’ Environmental Contractual Obligations Through State Counterclaims in Investor-State Dispute Settlement
Released on Dec 13, 2023
The Power of Arbitrators to Remove Counsel – One Step Too Far?
This article discusses the power of arbitral tribunals to remove legal counsel from arbitration proceedings under two scenarios: conflicts of interest and counsel misconduct. Many leading arbitration institutions have amended their arbitration rules to explicitly grant arbitral tribunals authority to remove counsel based on conflicts of interest. Investment arbitration tribunals have also established that tribunals possess this authority when conflicts arise between counsel and the tribunal or opposing parties. In the case of counsel misconduct, apart from the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules and the International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration, the current arbitration rules of the major institutions do not expressly empower a tribunal to sanction, let alone remove, counsel based on misconduct. Although there is growing demand for institutions to adopt rules regulating counsel misconduct, criticisms exist, raising the question of whether this is one step too far.
Released on Dec 13, 2023
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct: Judges as Arbitrators
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002), although not binding on states, are widely supported as a means of promoting judicial integrity. Diverse jurisdictions with different traditions have relied on the principles as a template in codifying judges’ conduct. The article explores practices across 67 jurisdictions with regard to whether active or serving judges are permitted to act as arbitrators. The article investigates reasons why judges should not act as arbitrators and the effect of active judges acting as arbitrators on setting aside proceedings, prevalent in many jurisdictions, and on appeals on a point of law found in restricted jurisdictions. It also analyses sample judicial codes of conduct and relates this to whether active judges should act as arbitrators. In addition to the different jurisdictions, the article looks briefly at the practice at the International Court of Justice.
Released on Dec 13, 2023
Dispute Resolution International November 2023
Released on Dec 12, 2023
A Brief Discussion on the Implications, Regulation and Prospects of AI in Dispute Resolution Practice with a Focus on China
Released on Dec 12, 2023
Editorial – Dispute Resolution International – November 2023
Released on Dec 12, 2023
Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration: A Plea for a (Practical) Balance between Confidentiality and Transparency for the Publication of Arbitral Awards
This article pleads for a (practical) balance between confidentiality and transparency for the publication of arbitral awards in international commercial arbitration. A contemporary question regarding confidentiality in international commercial arbitration is whether more transparency is desirable within the international commercial arbitration practice. This article argues that this is the case for the publication of arbitral awards, where a practical balance between confidentiality and transparency of arbitral awards should be sought, especially, considering that commercial companies prefer at this stage confidentiality over transparency within international commercial arbitration. The current opt-in and opt-out systems enacted in institutional arbitration rules for the publication of arbitral awards as a compromise between those different perspectives have proven to be insufficient. This article recommends allowing publication of awards with complete anonymisation, except if an arbitral tribunal grants a request by a party to not publish an anonymised award by an arbitral decision. Parties will, however, always have the opportunity to settle on a different approach in their arbitration agreement, since such agreements must be honoured by the arbitral tribunals and contracting states to the New York Convention (Article II(1) and Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention). Along these lines, a practical balance between confidentiality and transparency in respect to the publication of arbitral awards could be provided for by arbitral institutions without delegitimising the practice from the viewpoint of the commercial sector, which prefers confidentiality over transparency.
Released on Jun 5, 2023
The Damages in International Arbitration (DIA) App
This article provides an introduction to the Damages in International Arbitration (DIA) app, an interactive web application prepared by the ICCA-ASIL Task Force on Damages following five years of work. It has been prepared on the basis of the author’s contribution at the 2022 IBA Day Istanbul in March 2022 in the panel chaired by Mark Friedman and including David Dearman and Smitha Menon. The DIA guides users through the key legal, quantitative and procedural issues implicated by quantifying damages in international arbitration. The article is illustrated with some screen shots from the DIA web application and also refers to Friedman’s presentation on the suggested Quantum Academy (see pages 69–78).
Released on Jun 5, 2023
Inadequate Handling of Damages in International Arbitration
The portion of the award that causes considerable consternation for parties and tribunals is often the section dealing with damages. Tribunals do not always award all or even the bulk of the damages claimed and this increases the dissatisfaction from users of arbitration services, dissatisfaction brought about by unexpected outcomes of arbitration claims. As parties become more sophisticated and hire the relevant legal and financial expertise who have time and resources to dedicate to the case, it is inevitable that complexity is inherent in damages claims and this needs to be competently addressed to ensure arbitration remains relevant. Large awards of damages, in and of themselves, don’t undermine the system. It is the lack of analysis or improper analysis that does. This article takes a closer look at three of the drivers that could lead arbitration practitioners to inadequately handle quantification of loss and damages claims in international arbitration: differences in approach, practitioners not stepping up, and damages experts.
Released on Jun 5, 2023
Quantum Academy
Damages issues arise in almost every international arbitration. As arbitration disputes grow larger and more complex, so, too, does the complexity of damages issues. There is no doubt that ‘getting it right’ on damages is of utmost importance to the clients we serve and to the legitimacy of the arbitration system as a whole. Yet, damages issues are too often delegated to experts without sufficient critical engagement by counsel. In this article, Mark W Friedman proposes the creation of one or more quantum academies – forums offering a multidisciplinary approach to discourse and learning about damages issues in international arbitration. By providing counsel, arbitrators and other international arbitration participants with the skills to engage rigorously on damages issues, quantum academies would demonstrate to clients and the broader legal community that it is not only safe, but desirable, to entrust the largest, most complex commercial cases to international arbitration.
Released on Jun 5, 2023
Introduction to the China International Commercial Court and Procedural Innovations in Aid of Arbitrations in Hong Kong
This article provides an overview of the China International Commercial Court (CICC) and its ‘one-stop’ platform for diversified international dispute resolution, as well as the new developments and benefits that this brings to users of arbitration in Hong Kong, in particular at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC). It begins by introducing the purpose of CICC’s establishment, the composition of the CICC, and the functions of the CICC. It then introduces the significance of the HKIAC’s inclusion into the CICC’s ‘one-stop’ platform, as the HKIAC is the only arbitral institution outside Mainland China to be so included. This article explains the existing mechanisms and practices through which arbitration users in an appropriate Hong Kong-seated arbitration may seek interim relief and enforcement of arbitral awards in Mainland China. Finally, this article explores the potential developments for users through the CICC’s new mechanisms and their likely impact.
Released on Jun 5, 2023
Crypto Disputes: The Valuation Challenge
The advent of the ‘crypto winter’ in early 2022, which saw cryptoasset values decline sharply and major crypto businesses fall into bankruptcy, has prompted an increase in disputes related to cryptoassets and associated businesses. A notable consequence of this trend is that national courts and arbitral tribunals will face a wave of complex and novel valuation issues over the coming months and years, including in the context of quantifying damages for highly volatile cryptoassets. This article aims to identify valuation challenges in the fast-developing area of business, law and practice that surrounds crypto disputes before making practical suggestions to help parties and their counsel successfully navigate these challenges.
Released on Jun 4, 2023
Promoting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion through Procedural Rules and Institutional Reforms
Although there is a broad consensus that there is a problem of under-representation in the field of international arbitration, progress in tackling this problem has been painfully slow. This is in part due to the difficulty of defining ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ (DEI) in the field of international arbitration. However, this difficulty should not inhibit or distract from tackling the problem of under-representation. Although users of international arbitration and those who serve as arbitrators shoulder some of the responsibility for promoting DEI, arbitral institutions have an unrivalled platform of opportunity and authority to advance the objectives of DEI in international arbitration. This article therefore offers several measures that arbitral institutions could adopt to advance DEI with more intentionality. These proposals are offered along a ‘Continuum of DEI Intentionality’, reflecting how easy or difficult they would likely be to implement, the boldest proposal being a set of optional rules for arbitral equity.
Released on Jun 4, 2023
Editorial – Dispute Resolution International – May 2023
Released on Jun 4, 2023
Dispute Resolution International May 2023
Released on Jun 4, 2023
Testing the Reliability of Expert Evidence in International Arbitration
In recent years there has been an evolution in expert evidence in international arbitration towards the Anglo-Saxon practice of party-appointed witnesses as the preferred means of evaluating highly technical questions. Yet regardless of the type of expert appointed, the fundamental principles of party autonomy in arbitration have to a certain extent divorced the arbitral procedure for expert evidence from the local framework usually in place to control its reliability. This article explores two areas in which the absence of guidance for expert evidence in international arbitration stands in contrast with the procedural safeguards for expert evidence in litigation: first, as to the admissibility of an expert’s opinion, and secondly, as to the professional and ethical regulation of expert testimony. Most of the research is drawn from common law jurisdictions, but consideration is also given to civil law procedures with the example of France being used as a primary counterpart.
Released on Oct 14, 2022
Commencing the Arbitration: An Arbitrator’s Perspective on Procedural Order No 1
This article discusses, from an arbitrator’s perspective, the approach to preparing the first Procedural Order for the conduct of an Arbitration (Procedural Order No 1), so that it fits with the case specifications. The author advocates the approach discussed at the panel led by Lucy Reed at the 23rd Annual IBA Arbitration Day on 25 March 2022 that arbitrators should consider the specific needs of the case and collaboratively engage with the Parties to identify the relevant issues and appropriate procedure for the case, before circulating Procedural Order No 1. The author gives examples of techniques the Arbitral Tribunal can use to engage in a collaborative approach while retaining the final power to decide upon the procedure, including Procedural Order No 1.
Released on Oct 14, 2022
Procedural Timetable No 1 - Topped and Tailed: Improved Case Management
By including active case management tools in Procedural Order No 1 and Procedural Timetable No 1, the tribunal lays the foundation for maximising efficiency over the life of the proceeding. In this article, the author proposes a number of innovations to be implemented, as the title suggests, to top and tail the process, with additional steps in the middle. The author provides a template Procedural Timetable No 1 and then discusses selected procedural steps with the corresponding text for Procedural Order No 1. The proposals include pre-scheduling several case-management conferences to address procedural issues early and often; holding a mid-stream meeting (aka a Kaplan Early Opening), where parties give short oral arguments and present limited witness evidence; identifying a pre-scheduled mediation window to allow the parties to consider mediation, without either side having to request it; directing the parties to provide a Joint List of Issues and Schedule of References; and scheduling both a pre-hearing Tribunal meeting (aka a Reed Retreat) and deliberation days in the Timetable.
Released on Oct 14, 2022
Tuning Up: Making Arbitration Fit for the Future
This paper was given at the 23rd Annual IBA Arbitration Day in 2022 which considered new and novel ideas for the practice of arbitration. It equates the role of a tribunal in an arbitration to that of the conductor of an orchestra, noting that it is the conductor who unifies the different sections of the orchestra to achieve harmony. By focusing on the role played by tribunals, the paper considers radical ideas to improve the services provided by arbitrators to the users of arbitration. The first innovation debated is the creation of an Arbitrator Academy to teach those necessary skills required by an arbitrator which are not typically learnt as counsel. The paper then turns to acknowledge the importance of appraisals for professionals and considers whether arbitrators would benefit from receiving appraisals and, if so, how appraisals could be given to arbitrators. The paper then considers the utility of peer-to-peer coaching and whether it would be helpful to aspiring and experienced arbitrators before finally considering the importance of cognitive diversity in tribunal deliberations.
Released on Oct 14, 2022
EU, UK & US ‘Sanctions’: Procedural and Substantive Impact on International Arbitration?
There has been tangible change in international commercial relations in light of the 2022 economic sanctions imposed by the EU, UK and US following developments in Ukraine in February 2022. Lord Mance (at a Global Arbitration Review ‘GAR Live London’ in July 2022) made the comment ‘by far the most likely effect of sanctions in international arbitration is to the funding of cases outside Russia where one party is sanctioned and their assets frozen’. This article considers the implications on international arbitration from both procedural and substantive perspectives. It also touches on the implications under international law. In short, there are a number of ‘procedural’ difficulties to ongoing international arbitrations and on the ability to effectively enforce international arbitral awards. There are also risks, although more limited in scope, to substantive provisions of contract which may or may not lead to an increase in arbitration. Although there will be changes and limitations to international arbitration in light of the EU, UK and US sanctions, this article concludes that those limitations and will be minimal in scope and application. This is because arbitral rules and tribunal case management powers can happily regulate the disruption caused by sanctions. The article also concludes that international arbitration will see an increase in the use of orthodox substantive rights and obligations relating to frustration, impossibility, illegality and hardship. Hardship pursuant to various Civil Codes will be especially popular.
Released on Oct 13, 2022
Editorial – Dispute Resolution International – October 2022
Released on Oct 13, 2022
Book Review: Emergency Arbitration
Released on May 30, 2022
Editorial – Dispute Resolution International – May 2022
Released on May 30, 2022
Cross-border Provision of Information under New Chinese Data Protection Legislation
Chinese enterprises and individuals have increasingly become involved in cross-border investigations in relation to extraterritorial enforcement activities or other activities for which provision of information is required by foreign entities. However, under the Chinese legal framework – especially the new 2021 Data Security Law – cross-border provision of information has become increasingly difficult. The provision of such requested information to an entity in a foreign jurisdiction may conflict with mandatory Chinese laws. This article first provides an overview of Chinese legislative framework under the new Data Security Law, the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) – both promulgated in 2021 – and the Cybersecurity Law. It includes reference to the definitions of ‘important data’ under the 2017 draft recommended national standard ‘Guidelines for Cross-Border Data Transfer Security Assessments’ and of ‘personal information’ under the PIPL, and the latest consultation on cross-border data transfer security assessment under the Cross-border Data Transfer Security Assessment Measures (Draft for Comment) issued on 29 October 2021. By reference to different scenarios in which a Chinese company or individual may be required by a foreign entity to provide information to it, it then discusses the requirements for evaluating whether any approval from Chinese competent authorities is required, and discusses the criteria for evaluating how, if permissible, the information could be transferred in compliance with Chinese data protection legislation.
Released on May 30, 2022
International Human Rights Law and International Investment Law: Perspectives on International Legal Coherence
International human rights law (IHRL) and international investment law (IIL) are two influential subsets of public international law reflecting distinct purposes and historical evolutions. Nonetheless, the two subsets interact in the context of the investor–state dispute settlement system (ISDS), due to the rise in human rights claims under international investment agreements. This article appraises this interaction from the perspective of IHRL in light of the fragmentation of public international law. It argues for the need to recognise and assess concurrent international legal obligations systematically and coherently, suggesting that the principle of systemic integration could support the consideration of human rights treaty obligations in ISDS and promote legal accountability. Foreign direct investment and human rights are linked in complex and non-linear ways. Furthermore, a predictable, coherent and transparent legal approach is necessary to ensure that IIL respects substantive and procedural human rights. This may also bolster the legitimacy of ISDS by redressing perceived power imbalances. It may attenuate the potential negative externalities of granting broad, asymmetrical rights to investors without any concomitant obligations under investment treaties. This article concludes that to prevent accountability gaps, tribunals must recognise: (1) a home–host state continuum of human rights legal accountability; (2) home state obligations to protect against third party violations by its investors abroad; and (3) host state obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights.
Released on May 30, 2022
Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration in China: Where Do We Come From? Where Are We? Where Are We Going?
The Covid-19 pandemic coincidentally fostered the increasing usage of remote digital technologies like online video conferencing, multimedia presentations and real-time electronic texts in dispute resolution. Despite the remote technology boom, when it comes to the application of broadly phrased ‘AI technologies’ in arbitration, the feeling is that we are navigating uncharted waters. This article aims to introduce a Chinese perspective. Exploring the status quo and the prospects of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) technologies into arbitration, it delineates the emerging new legal ecosystem driven by the interaction of AI and law. In particular, it considers to what extent the development of Chinese internet courts and smart courts could shed light on the integration of AI technologies into the realm of arbitration and the challenges – jurisprudential and ethical – such integration might entail. The article ends with the observation that although AI might never become a constitutive part of the legal profession in the sense of AI technologies, independently of humans, providing legal services or making final binding decisions, this remains a technical possibility and its deep application comes with a variety of ethical implications.
Released on May 30, 2022
Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration: A US Perspective
As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to develop, complicated questions arise regarding the scope and role AI technologies play in legal practice. This article identifies and discusses challenges and opportunities that AI’s development pose to legal practice from a US perspective, focusing on AI’s applications to US dispute resolution generally, and to US arbitration in particular. It first discusses problems with defining AI, highlighting competing definitions that conceptualise AI from technical and social perspectives. It then discusses how AI tools currently influence, and will continue to influence, dispute resolution practice in the US. Next, it analyses key US legal considerations influencing how AI will be integrated into US dispute resolution systems, including trends such as how combining a developing technology with an evolving legal landscape is a recipe for uncertainty, and how the variety of relevant actors and sources of law in the US federal system generates complexity when adapting AI tools for use in arbitration. Additionally, it discusses how regulation does not happen in a vacuum, but is coloured by regulatory competition.
Released on May 30, 2022
Arbitration of M&A Transactions: A Practical Global Guide, Second Edition
For legal professionals and graduates active in dispute resolution, especially in the international arbitration field, it is true that every case is unique and there is something fresh to learn every day. The key to winning a case often resides in a legal professional’s in-depth knowledge of each specific industry. Edward Poulton has successfully gathered a group of experienced leading M&A experts around the world to contribute to the second edition of the Arbitration of M&A Transactions: A Practical Global Guide, with publication support from Globe Law and Business.
Released on Oct 20, 2021
A Guide to the CIETAC Arbitration Rules
A Guide to the CIETAC Arbitration Rules, by experts Yu Jianlong and Cao Lijun, is a uniquely comprehensive reference book for practitioners on the Arbitration Rules (the Rules) of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Committee (CIETAC).
Released on Oct 20, 2021
The Impact of Brexit on Dispute Resolution: EU and UK Perspectives
The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit) has brought about significant changes to international dispute resolution in the UK and, insofar as disputes have a UK nexus, in the EU. In particular, since the end of the transition period, the Brussels Recast Regulation, which provides, inter alia, for the free circulation of judgments between EU Member States, no longer applies in the UK. Neither does it apply in the EU to judgments rendered by UK courts. Similarly, the UK has lost its access to the Lugano Convention. As the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement does not include rules on private international law, many important questions for cross-border dispute resolution between the EU and the UK are now determined by other multilateral treaties (notably the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements) and domestic private international law rules. This article discusses the impact of Brexit on the litigation and arbitration of commercial disputes from both EU and UK perspectives. In particular, this article considers the impact of Brexit on the following key issues: jurisdiction agreements and the enforcement of foreign judgments, choice of law and arbitration. The article analyses the changes brought about by Brexit to the legal landscape for dispute resolution and considers the consequences such changes may have for parties’ choice of law and forum.
Released on Oct 20, 2021