<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>KluwerLawOnline.com - Journal of International Arbitration</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/Journals/Journal+of+International+Arbitration/4</link>
<description>A forum for original thinking, penetrating analysis, and lively discussion of the most important current issues in international arbitration.</description>
<language>en-gb</language>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
<item>
<title>Courting Global Commerce: The Shifting Dynamics Between International Arbitration and International Commercial Courts</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Journal+of+International+Arbitration/42.2/JOIA2025019</link>
<category>Journal of International Arbitration</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal"><i>Globalization
continues to flourish through international trade and interconnected economies,
despite the rise of economic nationalism. Even as trends like onshoring gain
traction, the importance of global trade and effective dispute resolution
remains unchanged. Businesses still demand swift, cost-effective, and
enforceable outcomes, which is where International Commercial Courts (ICCs)
play a role. These courts fall into three categories: Global (e.g., Singapore’s
SICC), National (e.g., China’s CICC), and Hybrid (e.g., those in Gulf financial
zones), each focused on supporting cross-border commerce in distinct ways.
Though arbitration is largely insulated from judicial intervention, it still
depends on court cooperation for enforcement. Arbitration enjoys strong support
in commercial hubs, where judicial interference is typically limited to extreme
cases. However, systemic challenges persist, including the lack of uniform
ethical standards and effective enforceability mechanisms for professional
lapses. While ICCs prioritize transparency and discharge public functions,
arbitration remains a private process that benefits only the involved parties,
with no authoritative public case law generated. Both systems share a common
goal of providing effective justice, aligned with commercial norms, but they
offer complementary advantages that support global trade. This dual approach
allows businesses to choose between public judicial mechanisms and the
confidentiality and flexibility of private arbitration. Arbitration’s unique
strengths – confidentiality, procedural adaptability, expert arbitrators, and
broad enforceability under the New York Convention, which is recognized by 172
countries – make it unlikely to be replaced by commercial courts. Arbitration
awards are often easier to enforce than court judgments, which can face
significant hurdles. Additionally, the neutrality of arbitration addresses
concerns about bias in national courts, reinforcing its status as the preferred
method for resolving international commercial disputes. While ICCs strive for
similar neutrality, they have yet to match arbitration’s global enforceability,
unless conventions like the Hague Judgments Convention gain broader adoption.
Arbitration processes and ICCs complement each other but do not directly engage
each other on the prevailing creases. To iron this out, the establishment of a
forum where arbitrators and judges collaborate could drive innovation in
cross-border disputes, enhance the synergy between arbitration and judicial
systems, and strengthen global commerce<o:p></o:p></i></p>Volume 42 Online ISSN 0255-8106</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Journal+of+International+Arbitration/42.2/JOIA2025019</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>CAVEAT ARBITRATOR!: Examining the Responsibility of Arbitrators to Probe Corruption: Lessons to Be Learned from the <i>P&ID</i> Sag</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Journal+of+International+Arbitration/42.2/JOIA2025020</link>
<category>Journal of International Arbitration</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal"><i>As international
arbitration’s popularity rises, arbitral tribunals are increasingly confronted
with issues traditionally handled by courts – specifically, issues relating to
corruption and other forms of wrongdoing. However, there is consensus that the
tools available to arbitral tribunals have limited efficacy (or none at all) in
examining evidence relating to corruption, particularly when there are third
parties. The recent decision of the English High Court in Nigeria v. Process
&amp; Industrial Developments Ltd (P&amp;ID), however, introduces a new
obligation on arbitrators to investigate allegations of corruption more
seriously. Considering the importance of English law in international
arbitration, this decision has truly wide-reaching implications for how
arbitrators should address such allegations.<o:p></o:p></i></p>Volume 42 Online ISSN 0255-8106</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Journal+of+International+Arbitration/42.2/JOIA2025020</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><i>Le Bien, Le Mal</i>: A Tale of Contactless Anti-suit Injunctions and Foreign Arbitral Seats</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Journal+of+International+Arbitration/42.2/JOIA2025021</link>
<category>Journal of International Arbitration</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal"><i>Under English law, the
arbitration agreement gives rise to an actionable right to restrain breach
through an anti-suit injunction (ASI). While an ASI is readily available in
cases where the seat of arbitration is in England, until recently the question
as to whether the same relief could be obtained in support of foreign-seated
arbitrations had remained uncertain. This issue was raised for the first time
in a series of recent cases in which the English High Court issued divergent
decisions. Nevertheless, before the Court of Appeal the prevailing position was
that, provided personal jurisdiction over the defendant is established under
Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), an ASI will generally be granted
irrespective of the foreign seat and despite the absence of a stronger geographical
nexus with England and Wales. The UK Supreme Court (UKSC) upheld the ASI but
found it unnecessary to express a view on the proposition as to whether
personal jurisdiction was a sufficient condition for relief. This article
asserts that the proposition is both consistent with previous authority, and in
conformity with comity and international law in general. More broadly, the
decisions shed light on the basis and contours of ASI as a form of equitable
relief, which is meant to correct the injustice arising from the breach of
legally binding promises not to submit disputes arising under an arbitration
agreement to other fora.<o:p></o:p></i></p>Volume 42 Online ISSN 0255-8106</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Journal+of+International+Arbitration/42.2/JOIA2025021</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Party Autonomy, Comity and the <i>RusChemAlliance</i> Saga</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Journal+of+International+Arbitration/42.2/JOIA2025022</link>
<category>Journal of International Arbitration</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal"><i>In September 2024, the
English Supreme Court made a landmark ruling on anti-suit injunctions in
UniCredit Bank GmbH v. RusChemAlliance (RCA) LLC [2024] EWCA Civ 64. This
decision followed two earlier prominent judgments: Deutsche Bank v. RCA [2023]
EWCA Civ 114 and Commerzbank v. RCA [2023] EWHC 2510 (Comm). This article
explores this recent case law trilogy on anti-suit injunctions through two
competing lenses: first, party autonomy; and second, comity and the need to
respect state sovereignty. The purpose of this article is to shed light on the
remaining uncertainty pertaining to how these two interests materialize in
practice – particularly because of the repeated references to ‘caution’ in the
commentary on anti-suit injunctions. It will be argued that, although the
English case law reveals a pro-contractual enforcement and pro-arbitration
approach, uncertainty and inconsistency persist in two ways: (1) the
problematic application of Enka v. Chubb in determining the law governing the
arbitration agreement (AA); (2) the jurisprudence on comity.<o:p></o:p></i></p>Volume 42 Online ISSN 0255-8106</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2025 00:01:07 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Journal+of+International+Arbitration/42.2/JOIA2025022</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>