The Shape of Public Policy as a Limitation to Party Autonomy in International Arbitration — the Philippines and Singapore Experience as Model Law Jurisdictions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Jude Marvel
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
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.

Part 2 National and Regional Reports, Part 2.2 Asia: Coordinated by Yuko Nishitani and Béligh Elbalti, 35 Singapore: Singaporean Perspectives on the Hague Principles

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yeo Tiong Min
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
Important Principle ◽  
Settlement Agreements ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Model Law ◽  
New York Convention

This chapter describes Singaporean perspectives on the Hague Principles. Party autonomy is recognized as a very important principle in the private international law of Singapore. The primacy given to the role of party autonomy is evidenced by the adoption of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law for international arbitration, the adoption of the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements for international litigation, and the palpable support of the UNCITRAL Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation. Most of private international law in Singapore is sourced in judge-made law. In the absence of direct Singapore authority, Singapore courts have traditionally looked to English case law for guidance, but increasingly, the courts have looked to the laws of other jurisdictions, and indeed international instruments which do not have binding force in Singapore law. Given the level of sophistication of existing common law contract choice of law rules, it is unlikely that Singapore will engage in radical law reform. However, it is likely that the Singapore courts will continue to look to the Hague Principles for guidance in areas where the common law is unclear or where there is a gap or strong imperative for change.

Part 1 Fundaments of Arbitration in Brazil, 2 Comments of the Brazilian Arbitration Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sester Peter
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Model Law ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
Definition Of

This chapter examines the Brazilian Arbitration Law (BAL) of 1996. The BAL is a standalone act encompassing roughly 40 articles. It is divided into eight chapters and is applicable to both domestic and international arbitration, except for Chapter VI (The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards), which is modelled on the New York Convention (NYC). Hence, the BAL legislator adopted a monistic approach. Consequently, the BAL contains no definition of domestic or international arbitration, but only defines the term foreign award. According to article 34, sole paragraph BAL, an award is considered a foreign award if it was rendered outside the territory of Brazil. The present translation of the BAL builds on the terminology of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Commercial Arbitration and the NYC because both documents inspired the authors of the BAL and are cornerstones of international arbitration. This chapter of the book then provides comments on the BAL article by article.

Transnational Public Policy in International Arbitration

2020 ◽  
pp. 119-149
Author(s):  
Stavros Brekoulakis
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
New York ◽  
Clear Distinction ◽  
Historical Evolution ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
Almost All

This chapter focuses on the role of transnational public policy in international arbitration. Public policy is a key concept for international arbitration because it has provided the underpinning foundations for the development of theories on transnational autonomy of arbitration. Moreover, it is enshrined in the 1958 New York Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards as well as almost all national laws as a ground to resist enforcement of arbitral awards. The chapter then traces the historical evolution of transnational public policy and provides an overview of its legal function and rules and principles. The clear distinction between legal and non-legal conceptions of transnational public policy matters because it has important implications on the judicial function of tribunals in international arbitration.

The Oxford Handbook of International Arbitration

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Central Values ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
One Stop ◽  
Environmental Considerations

This Handbook presents and discuss today’s cutting-edge knowledge in the area of international arbitration. It reflects the different ‘languages’ used in the field and offers the reader a one-stop-shop entry into the main things we know and the main ways in which we think about international arbitration today. The Handbook is divided into seven parts. Part 1 provides an overview of the key legal notions needed to understand how international arbitration technically works, such as the relation between arbitration and law, the power of arbitral tribunals to make decisions, the appointment of arbitrators, and the role of public policy. Part 2 analyses some of the main developments that changed the field over the last 15 years, including the rise of human rights concerns, environmental considerations, and the need for greater transparency. Part 3 focuses on key actors in international arbitration, such as arbitrators, parties choosing arbitrators, and civil society. Part 4 examines the central values at stake in the field, including efficiency, legal certainty, and constitutional ideals. Part 5 discusses intellectual paradigms structuring the thinking in and about international arbitration, such as the idea of autonomous transnational legal orders and conflicts-of-law thinking. Part 6 presents the empirical evidence we currently have about the operations and effects of both commercial and investment arbitration. Finally, Part 7 provides different disciplinary perspectives on international arbitration, including historical, sociological, literary, economic, and psychological accounts.

Part V Safeguarding the Process, 11 Exclusionary Rules of Evidence

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sourgens Frédéric Gilles ◽  
Duggal Kabir ◽  
Laird Ian A
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
High Standard ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Rules Of Evidence ◽  
Evaluation Of Evidence ◽  
Material Evidence ◽  
Do So

This chapter outlines the exclusionary rules of evidence. In the context of investor-state arbitration proceedings, all evidence proffered by the parties is admitted into the record in the absence of exceptional circumstances. A party seeking to exclude evidence typically carries the burden to convince the tribunal that it should exclude the evidence in question. In seeking to do so, it will have to meet a reasonably high standard of proof. Consequently, exclusion of evidence is warranted only in the limited circumstances when its inclusion would violate another party’s right to be heard, the equality of the parties, or fundamental principles of international public policy. Given the exceptional nature of excluding relevant and material evidence in international arbitration, the burden is on the party seeking to exclude evidence. The exceptional nature of these limitations indicates the premium placed by international arbitration on the free evaluation of evidence by the arbitrators.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document