Dispute Resolution Section
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Law Section online
Here you will find information, updates, news and other resources relevant to your section.
The role of the Dispute Resolution Section is to coordinate the activities of the following committees.
This year the sections and committees of the IBA's Legal Practice Division are once again offering scholarships to young lawyers who wish to participate in the IBA Annual Conference. Read more
Third-party funding of international disputes has grown rapidly around the globe in recent years, in particular for international arbitration claims. Some jurisdictions in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region are now embracing funding, particularly in relation to international arbitration claims. This article gives a brief overview of third-party funding, including its modern-day history, how funding arrangements work and the regulation of funding in some key jurisdictions, including in the MENA region. The article also looks at recent trends, including funding for solvent companies and as a means to access liquidity in difficult economic times, as well as practical issues relating to funding, including some important issues that may potentially arise in international arbitration, particularly those relating to conflicts of interest and disclosure of funding arrangements. Finally, it briefly considers funding for enforcement of awards and judgments and provides two case studies where funding has assisted in cases relating to the MENA region.
From modest beginnings and expectations of the process of commercial mediation in the 1970s and the work of Professor Frank Sander, mediation has grown in application internationally, culminating in the introduction of the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation known as ‘the Singapore Convention on Mediation’ (‘the Convention’ or ‘SMC’). Mediation is described in the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law as ‘… a process, whether referred to by the expression mediation, conciliation or an expression of similar import, whereby parties request a third person or persons (“the mediator”) to assist them in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute arising out of or relating to a contractual or other legal relationship. The mediator does not have the authority to impose upon the parties a solution to the dispute’. The definition is broad and allows for use across jurisdictions and differing cultural contexts; however, one of the novel features of this convention relates to the conduct of the mediator, in the sense that the mediator’s conduct can affect the enforceability of a settlement agreement. This factor and the central tenets of this convention are examined in this article as is the framework for international settlement agreements in the context of international trade and commerce.
This article discusses, primarily by reference to and comparison of mainland and Hong Kong cases and legislations, the impact of the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-Ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the ‘Arrangement’). Before the Arrangement, only Hong Kong courts were entitled to grant interim measures in aid of mainland arbitral proceedings, while mainland courts were unable to grant interim relief to Hong Kong arbitration due to the lack of legal basis. Now, the Arrangement explicitly empowers the mainland courts to grant interim measures in aid of arbitral proceedings seated in Hong Kong and administered by recognised arbitration institutions. It may also motivate parties to mainland-related transactions to use institutional arbitration seated in Hong Kong and prospectively enhance the leading status of Hong Kong as an international arbitration hub.