When is an Arbitral Panel an International Tribunal?
When is an arbitral panel an international tribunal for purposes of Section 1782? Section 1782, of course, is the U.S. statute that authorizes federal courts to order discovery in aid of proceedings before foreign courts and international tribunals. As discussed in a forthcoming article in the Virginia Journal of International Law entitled, Ancillary Discovery to Prove Denial of Justice, what constitutes an international tribunal is not a simple question. It is also a critically important question, because the power to invoke federal court discovery in aid of foreign or international proceedings is one of the most effective evidentiary tools that any international lawyer can wield.
Ever [...]
The Concept of Good Faith in International Investment Disputes – The Arbitrator’s Dilemma
The concept of good faith has been a subject of perennial controversy since it was derived from the Roman legal equivalent ‘bonas fides’. Juristic views on and the legal conceptualization of the idea of good faith may often vary across the cultural divides and legal traditions. At a higher level of abstraction there may be a semblance of understanding that it is a moral principle and is reflective of all good senses such as honesty, good conscience, fairness, equity, reasonableness, equitable dealing or fair dealing, etc., but its application may cause the divergence of opinions. This has caused some uncertainty about the nature of the concept itself and the consequent unpredictability o [...]
Bae, Kim & Lee publishes Arbitration Law of Korea: Practice and Procedure (Juris 2012)
In recent years, Korea has become an object of some attention in the international arbitration field. But less than 15 years ago, there was no “arbitration field” in Korea to speak of. I, myself, was a maritime lawyer and it was only a twist of fate – the request of a client – that put me in my first international commercial arbitration. With only my background in Korean litigation to draw on, I stumbled through the unfamiliar and unfixed procedural world of international arbitration.
We obtained a good result for the client in that case, but for me, the real impact of the case came in the form of an epiphany. I became convinced that Korea had a big future in international arbitratio [...]
2012 Queen Mary / White & Case International Arbitration Survey Launched
- By Paul Friedland, White & Case LLP,
for White & Case
The views of lawyers involved in international commercial and investment arbitration are being sought for a new international arbitration survey from Queen Mary, University of London (QMUL).
Conducted by QMUL’s School of International Arbitration and sponsored by White & Case LLP, the 2012 survey aims to examine whether a “harmonised international arbitration procedure is emerging, by canvassing the views of experienced arbitration practitioners from all over the world,” comments Professor Loukas Mistelis, Director of the School of International Arbitration at QMUL.
Entitled “Current and Best Practices in the Arbitral Process,” the survey is the fourth carried out by QMUL since 2006, [...]
Anti-Arbitration: Get a job, kid!
This is the time of year when law students and young lawyers begin to apply for their summer internships or jobs in international dispute resolution. Many – probably most – will carefully draft their curriculum vitae to show their serious commitment to relevant academic studies, experience in international disputes or with law firms, and participation in recently completed international competitions (mock mediation and arbitrations, and moot courts).
This is, of course, very important in order for their CV’s to be given serious attention. It is the document that will open the door to interviews, and employers will not consider applicants who do not have the right professional backgro [...]
A primer on pathological arbitration clauses in Swiss law
By Matthias Scherer and Sam Moss
In a recent decision issued on 7 November 2011 on a request for annulment of a partial award on jurisdiction rendered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“TAS”), the Swiss Supreme Court recalled and applied its previous jurisprudence on the interpretation of pathological arbitration clauses (Case 4A_246/2011).
The case arose out of a contract between a football club and an agent relating to the transfer of a player. The contract contained a dispute resolution clause which provided that “[t]he competent instance in case of a dispute concerning this Agreement is the FIFA Commission, or the UEFA Commission, which will have to decide the dispute that cou [...]
