Home > All journals > ASA Bulletin > 30(4) >
$15.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$29.00 - Article (PDF) *
Werner Wenger
ASA Bulletin
Volume 30, Issue 4 (2012) pp. 735 – 745
https://doi.org/10.54648/asab2012066
Abstract
The German-Swiss Chamber of Commerce, head-quartered in Zurich, has issued revised Arbitration Rules, effective as from 1 July 2012. The revision follows in many aspects the trends shown in other recently revised rules in institutional arbitration by further enhancing procedural efficiency and by introducing a fast track procedure. However, as compared with other institutional arbitration rules, the German-Swiss Chamber of Commerce sets a counterpoint by explicitly providing for arbitral proceedings structured in accordance with the procedural tradition familiar to the users in the geographic area of its clientele: The proceedings will follow the inquisitorial, not the adversarial system. The arbitrator shall attempt to reconcile the parties in various stages of the proceedings; he may even use caucus sessions to achieve such goal. The common law system of presenting evidence (e. g. written witness statements) is not admitted in principle; it is the arbitrator who puts the questions to the witnesses.
Extract
In an attempt to overcome the current WTO Appellate Body crisis, a number of WTO Members agreed to participate in the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement pursuant to Article 25 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (MPIA). The majority of the WTO Members have not yet agreed to participate in the MPIA have been attempting to assess the effectiveness of the MPIA in meeting their interests. This leads to the question as to whether the MPIA can serve as the temporary solution for the Appellate Body crisis. Is it a practically effective mechanism for dispute resolution, or is it simply a political declaration by MPIA participants that they stick to the two-tier dispute settlement system? To respond to these questions, this article analyses the legal basis of the MPIA and its negotiating history. This article also addresses the differences between the appeal mechanisms provided for in the MPIA and the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and provides a conceptual discussion with regard to the legal nature of the MPIA. Finally, the article identifies the main advantages and drawbacks of MPIA. It should be taken into account that the effectiveness of the MPIA will only be assessed when any of the disputes submitted for consideration under the MPIA rules is resolved.