Singapore International Arbitration Centre’s Post

🌍 **Expanding Opportunities in International Arbitration - My Journey into Tribunal Secretarial Practice** 🌍 After gaining some training and experience in arbitration, we may often wonder: what's next? To wait for appointing authorities or parties to call on us as arbitrators? I believe there’s much more to explore. It’s not just about finding a niche; it’s about adding value—not only to ourselves but to everyone involved in the process. Arbitration, like litigation, is a vast and evolving field. With its international scope, there are many roles to consider beyond the typical path. This year, I set a goal to deepen my knowledge of international arbitration, and I was fortunate to attend “The Role of Arbitral Secretaries Training” hosted by the International Senior Lawyers Project (ISLP) in collaboration with the Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration (NCIA) and the Lusaka International Arbitration Centre (LIAC). This training highlighted an important but often overlooked role in the arbitration process: the “Tribunal Secretary” playing a pivotal role in supporting the tribunal to ensure cases are managed smoothly and efficiently—taking us back to the core principles of arbitration. During the 2-day training, we covered several key areas, including: ✅Duties of the Tribunal Secretary - Ethical considerations and professional conduct while assisting the tribunal with non-decisive aspects of arbitration, which can vary depending on the tribunal and jurisdiction. ✅The Legal Framework - Both legislation and soft law governing how Tribunal Secretaries operate across different jurisdictions and arbitral institutions. ✅Appointment & Remuneration - Practical steps for appointing and compensating tribunal secretaries. ✅Case Management - Tools and strategies for managing documents, evidence, and communication protocols throughout arbitration proceedings. A particularly thought-provoking session was on what NOT to do as a Tribunal Secretary. We reviewed international arbitration cases where awards were challenged on the secretary’s role, and which sparked the ongoing debate on the concept of the "fourth arbitrator." This conversation is vital, as it raises important issues on maintaining the legitimacy of the arbitration process. Reflecting on the training, I realize that much of my early experience laid the foundation for this role. Being a Tribunal Secretary isn’t just an administrative task—it’s a crucial function that adds real value to the arbitration process. I’m excited to apply these skills and contribute to international arbitration in a meaningful way. There’s so much untapped potential in arbitration, and as the inner millennial in me would say - I’m here for it!😁 Also grateful for the insight put together and shared by our trainers Lucy Martinez Ndanga Kamau Angelina Petti FCIArb Paulman Chungu CS. Glory Kinyua & Joy Maina of Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration (NCIA)

2024 CPR Africa Arbitration Day - New York (AAD-NY)  📅 1 November 2024 🌐 New York, USA  🔗 https://lnkd.in/evE6aCB9 Format: AAD-NY 2024 will primarily be in-person, streamed live, and posted on the CPR website after the event. Program: AAD-NY 2024 will include an arbitration moot for students, two substantive panels (CLE pending), a coffee break, and a cocktail reception with hors d'oeuvres. CLE: We expect to offer CLE (continuing legal education credits) for the two panel discussions. Registration: Registration is open to the public; discounted rate for CPR members. Advance registration is required. Organized by the 2024 AAD-NY Steering Committee.* About CPR's 2nd Annual AAD-NY CPR held the inaugural AAD-NY on December 8, 2023 at the New York City Bar Association. It was such a resounding success that we decided to make it into an annual event. (CPR Members can click here to view the recordings of the 2023 AAD-NY event.) The purpose of AAD-NY is to: (i) highlight important issues in international arbitration pertinent to the Africa region (ii) foster greater community among international arbitration practitioners in North America and Africa; and (iii) help develop the next generation of Africa-related arbitration practitioners. AAD-NY 2024 will include an arbitration moot for students, two substantive panels, and a cocktail reception with hors d'oeuvres. PROGRAM AAD-NY Program Begins - Welcoming Remarks by Serena Lee and Ank Santens - Opening Remarks by AAD-NY Chair, Nawi Ukabiala Presentation of Arbitration Moot Certificates by Prince-Alex Iwu and Moot Awards by Barbri Panel 1 - Unpacking the SOAS Arbitration in Africa Survey Reports Speakers: - Professor EMILIA ONYEMA- Isaiah Bozimo SAN - Victoria Kigen, Esq. - Remy Gerbay - Alice Gyamfi Panel 2 - Arbitrating Natural Resources Disputes in Africa Disputes are inevitable as Africa’s natural resources continue to attract foreign investments. Arbitration is expected to play a vital role in resolving those disputes. This panel will discuss the role of arbitration in revolving natural resources disputes in Africa and the impact that African states’ reforms of their laws related to natural resources could have on the future of foreign investment in Africa. Speakers: - Jennifer Glasser - Ahmed Abdel-Hakam - Professor James Thuo Gathii - Ucheora Onwuamaegbu, PhD - Mohannad A. El Murtadi Suleiman, FCIArb Closing Remarks by Nawi Ukabiala Cocktail Reception with Hors D'oeuvres CLE Credit CLE credits are pending verification but we anticipate this program will offer 3 credits NY CLE* in the category of Professional Practice. Registration is now open! CPR Institute

I am excited to be a speaker at the ICC Türkiye Arbitration Day on 16 February, where I will share my insights on the use of artificial intelligence in international arbitration. I hope to see you there! #ICCCourt #ICCArbitration #AI

The 13th September 2024 tells the story of the remarkable success of domestic and international arbitration in Zimbabwe. Since the adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration in the Arbitration Act [Chapater 5:17] on the 13th September 1996, Zimbabwe has become a leading jurisdiction for comparative legal analysis i.e., jurisprudence concerning the subject matter in Africa. The swift rise of the Model Law in Zimbabwe has seen the emergence of three (3) leading appointing authorities in the country which are: the Alternative Dispute Solutions Centre (ADSC) in Harare, the African Institute of Mediation & Arbitration (AIMA) and the Commercial Arbitration Centre (CAC) in Harare. I just happen to be the youngest person currently empanelled on all three (3) panels in the country. Furthermore, I am also a panelist on the President of the Law Society of Zimbabwe (LSZ) List of Arbitrators and a member of the Zimbabwe Football Association (ZIFA) Disciplinary Committee. To meet the demand of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the country, a number of people have been trained in the practice and law of both domestic and international arbitration and some arbitrators have been regular i.e., repeat arbitrators in the country given their specialised knowledge. More so counsel, arbitrators, retired judges and academics have also been involved in diverse and complex international arbitratation matters. Given the unique nature of the Model Law, and the need to promote uniformity in the interpretation of this "legislative template", Zimbabwe boasts of being the only country on the African continent to which a father and a son have published a leading commentary on the subject i.e., Davison Kanokanga & Prince Kanokanga, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: A Commentary on the Zimbabwean Arbitration Act [Chapter 5:17] (Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd, 2022). Whilst the law and practice of arbitration has been in existence for more than a century in the country, today marks (28) years of the success of the Model Law in Zimbabwe. This undoubtedly is an important feat! Notwithstanding the minor modifications effected by the legislature in giving effect to the Model Law in Zimbabwe on the 13th September 1996, I submit that there is now an urgent need for the legislature to revise and / or amend the current Arbitration Act (considering the 2006 amendments) so as to bring it to conformity with modern international commercial standards. The Model Law has been a great success in many Model Law jurisdictions and notably in Zimbabwe. The country owes this to the legislature and to the pro-arbitration position adopted by the courts. Congratulations Zimbabwe 🇿🇼 Congratulations Arbitration Community Makorokoto Amhlope Zimbabwe! #ADR #ADSC #AIMA #Arbitration #ArbitrationinAfrica #ArbitrationinZimbabwe #CAC #CommercialArbitration #Disputeresolution #LSZ #JSC #ModelLaw #Trade #UNCITRAL #ZIFA #Zimbabwe

This Kluwer Arbitration Blog piece does a good job of summarising both the issues around privilege in international arbitration and the work of the IBA Task Force on Privilege in International Arbitration. For myself, I've always had a leaning towards what the blog calls the “closest connection” test, but the underlying problem really is that there is no solid justification for prioritising one leading approach over another. There are good arguments for each of the main approaches. I am, though, extremely sceptical about the wisdom of attempting to craft any sort of "uniform" rule, and the Task Force has taken a good approach in attempting to identify specific areas of common practice, and working towards crafting something uniform in those areas. Ultimately, privilege rules work because they connect with a particular professional context, where lawyers and sometimes their clients have an understanding of what will and won't be privileged, so can adjust their behavior to those rules. That unavoidably creates problems in international arbitration, because until a dispute actually arises very few parties and lawyers are consciously guiding their behaviour with a view to a possible future arbitration. Rather, they are following the practices and expectations they have learned from their domestic practices. So any uniform rule imposed at the international arbitration level, however intelligently-designed, will unavoidably not map onto the reasonable behaviour the parties and lawyers exhibited before the dispute arose. Which means that the likely outcome of any attempt to craft a universal rule would be either substantial and regular injustice, or that the proposed rule is just ignored (since it wouldn't be formally binding) by arbitrators attempting to ensure a fairer process than the rule would impose. Neither is a good outcome, to say the least, and the Task Force's approach of looking for harmonised areas and formalising them, rather than trying to impose a fake harmonisation, seems the best way to go. https://lnkd.in/eM4SszUT

Youssef Ben Khamsa has written his first article for the KAB. Check it out below!

The ‘doctrine of separability’ is one of the foremost pillars of arbitration — as held. The doctrine of separability, also known as the separability doctrine, is a fundamental concept in arbitration. It refers to the idea that an arbitration agreement in a contract is considered to be a separate, distinct and independent agreement from the main underlying contract in which it is embedded. Practically, this means that even if one party challenges the validity or performance of the main contract, the arbitration agreement itself remains valid and enforceable. Any invalidity of the main contract will not oust the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, derived from the arbitration clause. The doctrine of separability in arbitration refers to the principle that an arbitration clause is considered independent of the main contract in which it is embedded. Although it evolves in the The New York Convention Countries, like India, Nigeria, US e.t.c This doctrine was enforced in the landmark case of Heyman v. Darwins, the House of Lords established the doctrine of separability, which was supported by Lord Macmillan. He emphasized that the nature as well as functions of an arbitration clause in a contract are distinct from other clauses of the contract. While other clauses outline the obligations between the parties, the arbitration clause does not create an obligation in favour of one party over the other. Instead, it represents the mutual agreement of both parties that any disputes arising from the contract's obligations will be resolved by an independent tribunal. It was also enforced in the Nigerian case of Royal Exchange Assurance v. Bent worth Finance (Nig.) Ltd (1976) 11 SC 10 and the English case of Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation and ors. v. Privalov and ors. This position is statutorily recognized under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (A&C Act), and it's recognized in various Arbitral institutions like the UNCITRAL Model Law, a key reference point for many arbitration systems, which expressly incorporates the principle of separability in Article 16(1). Also, the UNCITRAL Rules, particularly Article 23(1), the Asia Pacific Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (APCAM) and the Indian Institute of Arbitration and Mediation (IIAM) , ICC Rules, AAA Rules, London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules, Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules, Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) Rules and Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) Rules The effects of this doctrine is simply the autonomy and independency of an Arbitration clause. Nevertheless, the validity or invalidity of the arbitration agreement is determined by factors arising from or relating to the arbitration agreement/clause itself and not from the contract. Moreover, one of the exceptions to this doctrine of separability is;When a party is alleging that there is no contract at all and the instance of corrupt contract. Thank you❤

🌟 Exciting Highlights from the Johannesburg Arbitration Week 2024J with AFSA International! 🌟 We are thrilled to share the incredible contributions from AFSA SA International at Johannesburg Arbitration Week 2024, where our experts illuminated various facets of arbitration through insightful panel discussions. Here's a recap of their impactful participation: 🌟Africanisation of Arbitration: Perspectives from Practitioners, Counsel, and Arbitrators - Natasha Peter shared invaluable insights on the growing African influence in arbitration. 🌟Challenges, Strategies, and Practical Considerations: Enforcement in the African Context - Daniel Tivadar discussed strategies to navigate enforcement challenges in Africa. 🌟The Case of the Heavenly Twins: The Moot, the Man, and the Machine - the human panel include Patrick Lane SC - Chairman and Tribunal Members Justice Malcolm Wallis, Dr Fuyong Chen, James Banda, Susan Muchaneta Mutangadura, and Leyou Tameru. The Moot explored the dynamic interplay between human expertise and AI in arbitration. 🌟The Future of Investment Protection in the SADC Region: Domestic Courts, Regional Forums, or International Arbitration? - Prof. Lise Bosman and Svetlana Vasileva-Stratenwerth were part of the discussion on future pathways for investment protection in the SADC Region. 🌟Integrity in International Arbitration - Edwin Glasgow CBE KC, Justice Nageswara Rao, Peter Ashford, Patrick Lane SC, and Svetlana Vasileva-Stratenwerth tackled the crucial topic of maintaining integrity in arbitration. 🌟How Helpful Are Experts in Arbitration? - Azhar Bham SC and Prof. David Butler were part of the discussion of the role and impact of expert testimonies. 🌟The Silk Road and the BRICS Road: Where Does It Lead? - Michael Kuper SC, Prof. David Butler, and Lindi Nkosi-Thomas SC discussed the implications of these significant trade routes. 🌟Unpacking BRICS December 2023 Resolution: From an Investment and Trade Perspective - Jackwell Feris and Leyou Tameru provided an in-depth analysis of the latest BRICS resolution. 🌟Overcoming Obstacles in Arbitration: Appointment Challenges, CMC Procedures, and the Future Role of AI in Global Justice - Svetlana Vasileva-Stratenwerth, Bruce Collins KC, and Dr. Jur. (Habil./LLD) Niels Schiersing shared strategies to tackle common arbitration challenges. 🌟Unpacking the Investment Protocol of AfCTA - Leyou Tameru elaborated on the nuances of the AfCTA Investment Protocol. 🌟Mediation: Finding Real Solutions that Bind - John Maurice Bishop emphasised the importance of practical and binding mediation solutions. 🌟But Is It Constitutional?: The Legality Defence and Arbitration - Adv Gautschi SC explored the intersection of constitutional law and arbitration. #AFSA #Arbitration #JAWConference #InvestmentProtection #BRICS #Mediation #AfricanArbitration

An excerpt from my book “Applicability of Res Judicata in International Arbitration: The Case of Prior National Court Judgments” about the source of legitimacy and validity of international arbitration: “Three competing views about international arbitration constitute how an academic or practitioner thinks about international arbitration. These views show what their proponents consider to be the source of legitimacy of international arbitration, namely the source of the arbitrator’s power to adjudicate. The first view is “mono-localization.” It is a territorialist view that deems the law of the seat of the arbitration to be the sole source of legitimacy and validity of the arbitral process. According to this view, the arbitral seat is more than a location chosen for convenience or neutrality; it provides the exclusive basis for the power of the arbitrators to adjudicate and make an arbitral award, which will bear the “nationality” of the seat State. The courts of the arbitral seat are given wide authority to determine the extent of their involvement in the arbitral process. Proponents of that territorialist view consider the decisions rendered by those courts to be binding internationally. In this view, national legal orders are not transcended to international arbitration. Still, the source of validity and legitimacy of the arbitral process is concentrated in one national system, that of the seat of the arbitration. The second view is the “Westphalian” view or “multi-localization.” According to this view, each State decides the conditions under which it will consider an arbitral process legitimate and the resulting award capable of recognition. Because this vision legitimizes the arbitral process a posteriori, namely, if an award meets the enforcing State’s criteria, the arbitral seat is not of significant importance. This vision looks at the whole arbitral process through the result, namely that the award will be recognized in several States if it meets the prescribed conditions in those States. Thus, the seat does not matter so much; the place or places of enforcement of the award do. The third view, which truly constitutes the “transnational” view, depends on the “delocalization” of international arbitration and accepts that international arbitration transcends national legal orders. It constitutes a transnational justice system, sometimes called the “arbitral legal order.” Importantly, national legal systems are not excluded from this arbitral legal order. Still, the arbitral process no longer depends on the specifics of a particular national law at the arbitral seat or elsewhere. Instead, this view recognizes that the validity and legitimacy of international arbitration find their origins in the collectivity of national legal orders, as opposed to one or even several individual national legal systems. In other words, the arbitral legal order incorporates and reflects the trends stemming from national legal systems.”

International arbitration is a dispute resolution process where parties from different jurisdictions agree to resolve their disputes outside the courts through arbitrators. It is a widely used method for resolving cross-border disputes, especially in commercial contexts, because of its flexibility, neutrality, confidentiality, and the enforceability of awards across jurisdictions. A. United States: The US has a strong framework for ADR, with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governing domestic and international arbitration. The US is a major hub for international arbitration, with New York being a popular venue due to its established legal infrastructure, experienced arbitrators, and adherence to international norms. US courts generally favor arbitration, reinforcing arbitration agreements and awards. The American Arbitration Association (AAA) is one of the most prominent ADR bodies in the US, offering services in mediation, arbitration, and other forms of ADR. The Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS) also provides private ADR services. B. United Kingdom: The Arbitration Act 1996 governs arbitration in the UK, providing a clear legal framework for domestic and international disputes. London is one of the top global destinations for international arbitration due to its developed legal infrastructure, expert arbitrators, and the choice of English law, which is often used in international contracts. The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) is one of the leading institutions globally, offering arbitration services to resolve international disputes. CEDR (Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution) promotes mediation and other ADR methods. C. United Arab Emirates: The UAE has become a significant hub for international arbitration in the Middle East due to its strategic location, growing economy, and international business presence. Arbitration is increasingly popular in the UAE, particularly for disputes involving construction, real estate, and trade. The UAE’s legal framework for arbitration is modernized by Federal Law No. 6 of 2018, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. The UAE is home to several prominent arbitration institutions, with Dubai being a major arbitration hub. The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), with its independent judicial system, is particularly attractive to international businesses. The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) is one of the largest arbitration institutions in the Middle East. The Abu Dhabi Global Market Arbitration Centre (ADGMAC) and DIFC-LCIA (a collaboration between the DIFC and LCIA) provide additional venues for international arbitration, offering a blend of local and international expertise. The commitment to neutrality, enforceability, and the development of ADR institutions reflects the global trend toward preferring alternative methods over traditional litigation in cross-border commercial matters.