Three Crowns LLP’s Post

Party Autonomy in International Arbitration: Balancing Sovereignty and Legal Boundaries: the article focuses on how International arbitration upholds party autonomy in choosing applicable laws, diverging from constraints imposed by national courts.... Read Full Article at: https://lnkd.in/gaJ6K_gC White Code VIA Mediation & Arbitration Centre #Party #autonomy #International #arbitration #Choice #of #law #Lex #fori #Boilerplate #provisions #Judicial #oversight

🌎 International law guide! In today's post, we take a practical look at some of the key challenges that arise in the enforcement of international arbitration awards in Latin America. From the divergence of legal frameworks to the resistance posed by judgment debtors, we explore some of the common hurdles that parties must overcome to ensure the successful execution of arbitral decisions. Discover practical strategies for overcoming obstacles and achieving enforcement success for your arbitration award in Latin America. Do you have a cross-border dispute? Our experienced team combines specialist knowledge with practical solutions. Get in touch today to discuss your options. Post by Luke Musto https://lnkd.in/gzQgvqKi

Recognition, Enforcement and Execution in International Arbitration: Recognition, enforcement and execution in international arbitration are important legal concepts to master as they determine the post-arbitral consequences of an arbitration award once it has been rendered. However, their distinction is often difficult and depends on the legal system in which they are sought. We will review their differences in the following sub-sections. Recognition […] Aceris Law - International Arbitration Law Firm #arbitration

Dear Connections, I'm thrilled to announce that my new article has been published whose name is "What Is the Role of Terms of Reference in the Transactions of International Arbitration Law. A Comparative Analysis Between ICC Arbitration Rules and the Code of International Arbitration in Turkey, Law No:4686" on Turkish Law Blog today. I am always open to recommendations and suggestions. I hope it is beneficial for all readers. For access to my essay, please click the link: "https://lnkd.in/dyDCf_mA"

Important legal concepts to master in international arbitration.

When courts grant interim measures in the context of an international arbitration, do they apply the test that generally applies to this type of relief, or a modified test adapted to the international arbitration context? An Ontario court recently applied a modified test. And granted an interim measure in circumstances where the generally applicable test was not met. In other words, the party who sought a court-ordered interim measure in the context of an arbitration was successful. The same party seeking the same relief in the same circumstances but in the context of a court proceeding would have been unsuccessful. Let’s back up. The merits of the dispute will be decided in an ICC arbitration that has not yet been brought. The Claimant requested from the Ontario court an order that the Respondent deliver satellite data. Under generally applicable Ontario law, this is called a mandatory order (an order forcing someone to do something, rather than refrain from doing something). A party seeking a mandatory order must show that it has a strong prima facie case, that it would suffer irreparable harm if the order is not granted, and that the balance of convenience favours granting the order. Ontario enacted the 2006 version of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration in 2017. That version adds to the 1985 Model Law extensive provisions on interim measures. Article 17J provides that courts have the same power to issue interim measures in relation to arbitrations as they have in relation to court proceedings. Article 17A applies to interim measures obtained from arbitral tribunals. One of the conditions is that there be a “reasonable possibility that the requesting party will succeed on the merits of the claim.” The court held that the Claimant was not required to show a strong prima facie case. Rather, it had to show a reasonable possibility that it would succeed on the merits — the test that an arbitral tribunal would apply under Article 17A of the Model Law. According to the court, this is a less stringent requirement than the “strong prima facie case” requirement otherwise applicable to mandatory orders. The court analyzed certain contractual interpretation arguments at the core of the merits of the claim. It found that the claim was not strong enough to meet the strong prima facie case standard, but that there was a reasonable possibility that the claim would succeed on its merits. The irreparable harm and balance of convenience elements were also met, and so the court granted the interim measure. There is a lot to unpack here. We don’t yet have much case law in Canada on Articles 17 to 17J, so I expect the approach to the applicable test will become more nuanced over time. For now, all I can do is repeat the punchline: the Claimant in a not-yet-brought ICC arbitration got a mandatory order from an Ontario court they wouldn’t have got if they were the plaintiff in an Ontario court action. Fascinating.

🌟 CDM - NEWS INSIGHT 🌟 Israel's New International Commercial Arbitration Law - The Israeli Parliament has formally enacted the International Commercial Arbitration Law (the “New Law”), adopting almost entirely the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law. The New Law will revolutionise the legal framework international commercial arbitration is regulated and scrutinized by in Israel and will bring Israel’s arbitration law up to speed with international standards. Gornitzky & Co have produced a report to provide an overview of the changes. More here: https://lnkd.in/d9qTxiNV Eli Cohen | Shai Sharvit | Nir Keidar | Nuna Lerner +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Share your news and updates with us at cdm@financierworldwide.com

The Draft International Commercial Arbitration Law-2023 is making progress on its way to becoming a transformative piece of legislation in Israel's legal landscape. Today's session in the Knesset marked a significant milestone as the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee prepared to pass the Draft Law in its second and third readings. During the session, Knesset members reviewed the Draft Law while several experts in the field of international arbitration weighed in with informative comments on its provisions. Although certain suggestions were made to alter provisions of the Draft Law in order to ensure clarity and avoid lacunae, it was evident that there was a general consensus among the session’s participants that the Draft Law ought to closely adhere to the UNCITRAL Model Law. Needless to say, anticipation is high as the Committee advances towards the crucial final votes on the Draft Law. In Israel, the field of international arbitration is regulated by the Arbitration Law-1968. However, the current legal framework, which applies to both domestic and international arbitration proceedings in Israel, was not designed with the specific characteristics of international arbitration in mind. The proposed Draft Law intends to bridge this gap by adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law [with slight modifications] into Israel's domestic legislation. The Draft Law is designed to regulate the different stages of international commercial arbitration proceedings within Israel, from the initial agreement to arbitrate to the enforcement of the arbitration award. Its implementation is expected to elevate Israel's standing as an attractive and efficient venue for resolving international commercial disputes through arbitration. #internationalarbitration #internationaldisputeresolution #uncitral

Our Head of International Arbitration Koh Swee Yen, S.C., Commercial & Corporate Disputes Partner Joel Quek and Associate Victoria Liu acted for the successful respondent before the Court of Appeal in the ground-breaking decision of The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG [2023] SGCA(I) 10.   In this decision, a five-member coram of the Singapore Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel applies in the context of international commercial arbitration. This prevents parties to a prior decision of a seat court from re-litigating before the enforcement court points that were previously raised and determined by the seat court.   Significantly, the majority of the apex court also provisionally indicated that as a rule of Singapore arbitration law, where the enforcement court is not precluded by transnational issue estoppel from considering an issue going to the validity of an arbitral award, it may nonetheless be appropriate for the enforcement court to grant primacy to a prior decision of the seat court. This was termed the “Primacy Principle”. Under the Primacy Principle, an enforcement court will act upon a presumption that it should regard a prior decision of the seat court on matters about the validity of an arbitral award as determinative of those matters, which presumption may be displaced by certain considerations (for example, public policy considerations applicable in the jurisdiction of an enforcement court). Click on the link below for the full update. #WPUpdates #arbitration

The Thirteen Annual Smit-Lowenfeld Prize: Rekha Rangachari, Kabir A.N. Duggal, and Adam Masurovsky  https://lnkd.in/eBEBvu5y Rekha Rangachari, Kabir Duggal, Ph.D., and Adam Masurovsky are the recipients of the 2024 Smit-Lowenfeld Prize for best article in the field of international arbitration published in 2022. They are being recognized for their article entitled, "One Size Fits All? Comparing Civil Law and Common Law Approaches to Evidence and Its Application in International Arbitration," which published in the Dispute Resolution Journal (Vol. 76, Issue 1, pp. 53-74). The article provides a broad comparative view of the historical differences between the common law and civil law traditions. It further addresses how these two traditions influence evidentiary procedure in international arbitration, focusing in particular on: (i) witness testimony, (ii) document production, and (iii) the role of the tribunal. In each instance, the article explores the key differences and overlap between the two major attempts to harmonize evidentiary procedure-the IBA Rules and the Prague Rules.