• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.161-184
• /
• 2020

In the process of the annulment of arbitral awards, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court contributes to keeping Switzerland as a venue for international arbitration. Challenges to an award rendered in Switzerland are handled by the Swiss Supreme Court only. Furthermore, the Swiss law provides extremely limited grounds (PILA 190) for the potential challenge of the award and those are different from what model law countries have. For example, violations of the parties' agreed procedural arrangements will not be grounds for the annulment of an award in Swiss. In arbitration, the intervention of a national court is necessary to protect justice but at the same time, it can impede the process of arbitration, even making it useless. Limited intervention of the Swiss Supreme Court protects the efficiency, autonomy, and justice of international arbitration. International Arbitration has to be simple and fast to solve complex international commercial problems and to promote trade. Therefore, the process and technique to be applied on an Arbitration-friendly Swiss court should be considered.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.187-210
• /
• 2019

This article examines the necessity for the introduction of an ICSID Appellate System. In comparison with the WTO appellate system, the ICSID ad hoc Committee has a very limited mandate. An annulment inquiry under the ICSID arbitration system barely focuses on whether the arbitral decision resulted from a justifiable process. As long as there is procedural legitimacy, the resulting awards remain unaffected under the annulment procedure, irrespective of mistakes of fact or law. In contrast, in the WTO DSS the AB substantively reviews panel rulings and suggestions that are founded on any deficiency of objectivity or error in the interpretation of a particular WTO provision. This defect intrinsic in the annulment procedure could cause injustice to a party earnestly interested in correcting recognized misapplication of law by ICSID tribunals. Accordingly, the establishment of an appellate system would result in a more substantive and procedural review of awards. The creation of such an ICSID appellate system would ensure thorough scrutiny of the decisions of the tribunal of first instance, leading to better reasoned outcomes. This could lead to a crystallization of predictability in investment relations. The end result would be that fairness, clarity, reliability, and legality in the ICSID adjudicative process would be unassailable, to the advantage of all the contracting parties.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.43-68
• /
• 2020

The "arbitration" system resolves disputes through judgments on rights relations or claims between disputed parties by judging by private trial, but it does not have organizational and material bases to execute the contents of these judgments. Therefore, unless the parties succeed in voluntarily surrendering to the results of the arbitration award, the implementation of the award will be accomplished by the enforcement of the assistance of the National Court. However, unlike the court's ruling, the arbitration tribunal does not generate enforcement power from the judgment itself, and it must be filed with the court for execution. In this regard, Germany provides for arbitration proceedings in the Civil Procedure Act Volume 10. In particular, Article 1060 governs the approval and enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. Accordingly, the procedure for declaring the feasibility of domestic arbitration proceedings and the execution of forced execution are commenced. Regarding the enforceable declaration of a domestic arbitral award, it differs from the simpler process requirements compared to the procedure in a foreign arbitral award, and usually has the same effect as a final judgment between the parties without a separate approval procedure. However, the arbitration award does not constitute an enforceable power that can be implemented, but is enforced through the national court's declaration procedure. However, if there is a ground for cancellation as provided for in Article 1059 (2) of the German Civil Procedure Act, the arbitral award is canceled and the application for enforcement is dismissed.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.78
• /
• pp.31-51
• /
• 2018

As International arbitration has increased in popularity, there has been an expansion in the pool of arbitrators, and a commensurate diversification of not only the legal backgrounds but cultural backgrounds among themand among parties. As a result, there has been increased attention on the standards used to evaluate arbitrators' conduct and ethics, especially among them, 'Impartiality and Independence of Arbitrator' which is a precondition for an acceptable awards. There is no international treaty or code governing these issues. But the International Bar Association(IBA) seems to be leading the way such as establishing practical guidelines regarding to impartiality and independence of arbitrator. This article will review some theories, cases about impartiality and independence of arbitrator, and practical standards through the IBA guidelines. It is intended to provide specific guidance and criteria to the arbitrators, parties and counsels. And also it is expected to prevent unnecessary delays in arbitration proceedings in advance and filing for the annulment of arbitral awards because of lack of impartiality and independence of arbitrator as well.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.217-248
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews the Supreme Court of Japan in Decision of December 12, 2017, 2016 (Kyo) 43 (2011) concerning arbitrator's duty of disclosure and reasonable investigation under the Japan Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act). The Supreme Court of Japan recently issued a precedential decision interpreting, for the first time, the arbitrator disclosure requirements of the Arbitration Act. Under Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators have an ongoing obligation to disclose circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. The Supreme Court held that Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act - requiring arbitrators to disclose all "facts likely to give rise to doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence" - (1) is not satisfied by blanket disclosures or advance waivers of potential future conflicts, and (2) requires disclosure of facts both known to an arbitrator or "that can be normally ascertained by an investigation that is reasonably possible${\cdots}$" This new standard presents opportunities and challenges for enforcing arbitration awards in Japan, and suggests measures that both arbitrators and parties can use to protect their awards. Also, the Supreme Court's new standards for evaluating arbitrator conflict disclosures suggest some measures that both arbitrators and parties to arbitration in Japan can take to protect the enforceability of their awards. The key factual question posed by the Supreme Court's ruling was whether an arbitrator's conflicts check was reasonable. Maintaining records regarding a review of potential conflicts or any investigation provides a ready source of proof in case of a future challenge. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly that so-called advance waivers of potential conflicts are not effective under Japanese law. Instead, to the extent that potential conflicts arise during the course of arbitration, they should be specifically disclosed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.51-70
• /
• 2020

The Mediation-Arbitration hybrid is becoming more popular since it makes an amicable relationship and thorough statement possible. The Mediation-Arbitration hybrid has been used to take advantage of both dispute resolution methods. In a Med-Arb process, negotiating a resolution to disputes is attempted with a mediator's help. If the mediation ends in an impasse or issues remain unresolved, parties can move on to arbitration. Med-Arb can also be cost-effective when disputants hire one person to serve as mediator and arbitrator (Med-Arb-Pure). However, it can disturb the fairness and neutrality of arbitrators, and awards can be annulled. Indeed, "Award by Consent" is different from the "Med-Arb-Pure" process. Arbitrators easily confuse them. Only the parties settle on the arbitral proceedings' course, and the arbitrator can help them (award by consent). The role and skill of a mediator are different from an arbitrator's. Disputants have the right to use a mediator who specializes in mediation. Moreover, mediation communication confidentiality is the essential value of mediation, and this should be protected. Therefore, in the process of "Med-Arb," separation between mediating and arbitrating is a better choice to specialize in each expertise. In this process, "Med-Arb" can be an affordable, expeditious, proper, and effective method of resolving international commercial disputes and continuing ADR prime time.