<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>KluwerLawOnline.com - Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/Journals/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/742</link>
<description>"Arbitration" is a leading international journal in the ?elds of arbitration, mediation, all forms of alternative dispute resolution and dispute management.</description>
<language>en-gb</language>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
<item>
<title>Editorial</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025001</link>
<category>Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management</category>
<description>Volume 91 Online ISSN 0003-7877</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025001</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><i>Lex Contractus Arbitratus<i/>: A Critical Evaluation of Doctrine, Policy, and Law</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025002</link>
<category>Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal"><i>This paper evaluates
the strengths and weaknesses of the four mainstream choice of law approaches in
determining the governing law of the arbitration agreement (‘lex contractus
arbitratus’) in the absence of any explicit appointment by the parties. These
include: (1) lex contractus; (2) lex loci arbitri; (3) the a-national approach;
and (4) the validity approach. This paper determines that not only does the lex
loci arbitri approach produce great commercial benefits by ensuring the
enforceability of the arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention (NYC)
and by mitigating legal complexity and unpredictability, but is also the most
doctrinally compelling approach considering the doctrine of separability and
close connection. This paper concludes with the proposal that an ideal approach
ought to begin with the presumption of lex loci arbitri, with possible
countervailing factors such as the parties’ true intention as evinced through
parol evidence and the choice of law’s effect on the validity of the
arbitration agreement.<o:p></o:p></i></p>Volume 91 Online ISSN 0003-7877</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025002</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Closed Doors: Confidentiality of Arbitral Deliberations in Australia</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025003</link>
<category>Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal"><i>Although
confidentiality is widely accepted as one of the key attractions of
international commercial arbitration, the nature of the obligation varies
between jurisdictions. This article explores the extent to which arbitrators’
deliberations are confidential in Australia. It examines international
practice, and in particular the landmark Singaporean case of CZT v. CZU [2023]
SGHC(I) 11, which extended the implied obligation of confidentiality to the
deliberations of the arbitral tribunal. It then turns to consider Australia’s
various confidentiality rules: at common law, under the International
Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (IAA), and under the Uniform Evidence Acts. The
article considers the consequences of this network of rules and argues for a
balanced approach to confidentiality which allows for exceptions where
necessary in the interest of justice. Such an approach would align the
Australian position with international standards.<o:p></o:p></i></p>Volume 91 Online ISSN 0003-7877</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025003</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Alternative Dispute Settlement in the UN and the EU Internal Justice Systems: A Comparative Case Study</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025004</link>
<category>Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal"><i>This article
investigates whether informal dispute settlement may promote a faster and more
efficient resolution of employment disputes in the United Nations (UN) reformed
administration of justice. Some scholars have pointed out that it is difficult
to answer this question without a benchmark. Accordingly, this article conducts
a comparative analysis of UN and European Union (EU) alternative dispute
resolution (‘ADR’) mechanisms for staff disputes. After describing how these
organizations’ internal judicial systems emerged, the first section argues that
structural deficiencies remain in the UN system and create an imbalance between
disputants, which prevents ADR from delivering its full potential. Despite the
limited available data regarding these organizations’ ADR practice, the second
section contends that the European Ombudsman, a mechanism of good governance
widely open to staff complainants, has legitimized ADR and led to durable
positive institutional outcomes. Ultimately, this comparative study allows to
draw both quantitative and qualitative findings to improve the UN system.<o:p></o:p></i></p>Volume 91 Online ISSN 0003-7877</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025004</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Beyond Stamps: The NN Global Saga and Section 11 Proceedings</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025005</link>
<category>Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management</category>
<description><p class="MsoHeader"><i>In December, 2023, a
seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (hereinafter ‘Supreme Court’)
unanimously overruled a five-judge Bench’s judgment in NN Global-II, and held
that the Court at the stage of appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘Arbitration Act’) can
appoint an arbitrator and leave the issue of stamping to be decided by the
arbitrator. It is imperative to note that the five-judge Bench Reference was
essentially borne out of a three-judge bench decision in NN Global-I, wherein
the Supreme Court doubted the correctness of view taken by a coordinate bench
in Vidya Drolia that the non-payment of stamp duty on a contract would
invalidate even the arbitration agreement, and render it non-existent in law.
The three-judge bench expressed its disagreement with the Vidya Drolia Bench’s
decision that the Court must first impound the unstamped instrument in
pursuance of Section 33 of the Stamp Act, 1899, and thereafter appoint an
arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. The majority in the
Constitutional Bench had come to a conclusion that non-stamping or insufficient
stamp duty on the main agreement containing the arbitration clause would render
invalid the arbitration clause, thereby approving the holding in SMS Tea,
Garware, and Vidya Drolia, thus indicating that the position adopted by the
three-judge bench in NN Global is no longer valid. Against this background, the
paper attempts to critically analyse the issue whether the Court should be
barred from acting upon an unstamped instrument and appointing an arbitrator at
the Section 11 stage.<o:p></o:p></i></p>Volume 91 Online ISSN 0003-7877</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025005</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>A Spotlight on ADR in the Middle East The Enforceability of DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Clauses in the Light of Decree No. 34/2021: A View from INSIDE and OUTSIDE the UAE</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025006</link>
<category>Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management</category>
<description><p class="MsoHeader"><i>This article discusses
recent court rulings that deal with the enforceability of a Dubai International
Financial Centre (DIFC)-London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)
arbitration clause following the entry into force of Decree No. 34/2021. It
will be seen that the local UAE (United Arab Emirates) and the DIFC Courts take
a markedly different, more liberal approach when compared to the approach taken
by foreign courts, such as the courts of Louisiana and Singapore. Defaulting
DIFC-LCIA arbitration clauses to a Concerning the Dubai International
Arbitration Centre (DIAC) forum seriously undermines the concept of party
autonomy in arbitration, sufficiently so to raise concerns with an experienced,
international arbitration judiciary. Caution must be exercised by those who
wish to safeguard the enforceability of their arbitration obligation in a
non-DIAC forum.</i><i><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>Volume 91 Online ISSN 0003-7877</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025006</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Challenges and Solutions in Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Case Study of the UAE</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025007</link>
<category>Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal"><i>This paper studies the
challenges that are faced in enforcing foreign arbitral awards in the United
Arab Emirates (UAE), and develops solutions. UAE is committed to aligning its
arbitration system with international arbitration standards such as the New
York Convention, but also faces challenges due to the complexities of Sharia
principles and local legal frameworks. This study underscores such critical
legal, judicial and procedural challenges and cultural barriers as the
prohibition of interest (Riba) and Sharia principles. The paper employed a
qualitative methodology, conducting in-depth interviews with ten experts in
international arbitration. The findings revealed that legislative reforms, such
as Federal Law No. 6 of 2018, support and enhance arbitration procedures and
enforcement, but practical bottlenecks due to court backlogs and complicated
documentation may hinder the process. The paper also highlights the importance
of Sharia-compliant agreements and the engagement of local legal expertise to
facilitate the arbitral awards, as well as the use of digital tools to further
streamline enforcement. The paper recommends future comparative research into
arbitration practices in similar jurisdictions as a way to identify best
practices. The findings from this research provide actionable insights for
lawyers, arbitrators, businesses, and policymakers, and offer practical
strategies to empower the UAE’s arbitration environment.<o:p></o:p></i></p>Volume 91 Online ISSN 0003-7877</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025007</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Beyond Litigation: The Promise of Mandatory Mediation in Saudi Arabia</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025008</link>
<category>Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management</category>
<description><p class="MsoHeader"><i>This article critically
examines the implementation of mandatory mediation in Saudi Arabia, following
the enactment of the Commercial Courts Law (CCL) and its Implementing
Regulations. It situates this development within the broader global trend
toward mandatory mediation, comparing the Saudi framework to established models
in England and Wales and in Singapore. The study explores the theoretical
foundations of mandatory mediation, assessing its potential benefits, such as
the facilitation of access to justice and promotion of party autonomy and
efficiency, alongside its inherent challenges. Through a detailed analysis of
the design and outcomes of the CCL’s mediation provisions, this article
identifies areas for enhancement within Saudi Arabia’s unique legal and
cultural context. By addressing a notable gap in the literature, the findings
contribute valuable insights for legal scholars, practitioners, and
policymakers, ultimately advocating for the optimization of alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) mechanisms to foster efficient and amicable commercial dispute
resolution in the Kingdom.</i><i><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>Volume 91 Online ISSN 0003-7877</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025008</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Common and Civil Law Synergies in the UAE’s Judicial Free Zones: A Living Laboratory of Legal Traditions Beyond the Common and Civil Law Divide</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025009</link>
<category>Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management</category>
<description><p class="MsoHeader"><i>These closing remarks
discuss the unique role of the Dubai- and Abu Dhabi- based judicial free zones
as a living laboratory of civil and common law legal and more specifcially
arbitration practice beyond the civil and common law divide.<o:p></o:p></i></p>Volume 91 Online ISSN 0003-7877</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/91.1/AMDM2025009</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>