UNCITRAL's Project for a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (ICCA Congress Series No. 2), General Editor Pieter Sanders

1990 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 294-296
Author(s):  
B. Davenport
Keyword(s):  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
General Editor ◽  
Model Law

Notes: To stay or not to stay? Admiralty proceedings after the International Arbitration Act 15 of 2017: Atakas Ticaret Ve Nakliyat AS v Glencore International AG

2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-57
Author(s):  
Dusty-Lee Donnelly ◽  
Seshni Govindasamy
Keyword(s):  
Case Note ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
High Court ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Model Law

The decision in Atakas Ticaret Ve Nakliyat AS v Glencore International AG 2019 (5) SA 379 (SCA) made important remarks to the effect that the discretion to effect a joinder to admiralty proceedings under s 5(1) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983, and the discretion to refuse a stay of proceedings under s 7(1)(b) of the Act, are ‘untouched’ by art 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration that is incorporated under the International Arbitration Act 15 of 2017. The court reached this decision on the basis that, in terms of art 1(5), the Model Law does not affect other laws of the Republic under which matters may not be referred to arbitration, or may only be so referred subject to conditions. This case note analyses the nature and extent of the court’s discretion under art 8(1) of the Model Law, the argument for an implied repeal of s 7(1)(b) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, the interpretation of art 1(5) of the Model Law, and the questions left unanswered by the judgment. It argues that although the Model Law does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of the high court exercising admiralty jurisdiction to hear a maritime claim, the court only retains a narrow discretion to refuse a stay of those proceedings when an international commercial arbitration agreement exists in respect of the dispute.

Intellectual Composition of Arbitral Tribunals According to the New Saudi Arbitration Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-108
Author(s):  
Reyadh Mohamed Seyadi
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Significant Feature ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Legal Tradition ◽  
Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Model Law ◽  
Law Degree

Abstract One significant feature of arbitration that distinguishes it from litigation in national courts, is the parties’ freedom to select the arbitrator or members of the arbitral tribunal familiar with the kind of dispute that might arise or already has arisen. In 2012, a new arbitration law was issued in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) inspired by the texts of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. In all its provisions it included the requirement not to violate Sharīʿah law (Islamic legal tradition). However, according to this law, the sole arbitrator or presiding arbitrator must hold a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) or Sharīʿah law degree. This provision is mandatory, and the parties cannot agree otherwise. This article seeks to provide some thoughts on this restriction through an analysis of arbitrator qualifications under Sharīʿah law in order to provide a better understanding of the position adopted by the KSA Arbitration Law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document