By Gustavo Minervini, LL.M., Ph.D.
On 1 March 2019 the Milan Chamber of Arbitration issued its amended Arbitration Rules (the “2019 Rules’”) with the aim of improving “the efficiency and the rapidity of arbitral proceedings [while] ensuring the necessary guarantees.” This objective follows the current international trend. Indeed, in the last decade, several arbitral institutions have revised their rules in order to guarantee that arbitrations are conducted in an expeditious and cost-effective manner, without sacrificing fairness and reliability.
Continue reading Highlights from the 2019 Rules of the Milan Chamber of Arbitration
By Rebecca Meyer
ISDS is a
fragmented field, consisting of a few thousand bilateral investment treaties (“BITs”)
and treaties with investment chapters – such as the Energy Charter Treaty
(“ECT”) or the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”). These instruments that regulate foreign
investment are often similar but are not the same. Yet, even where different bilateral
relationships are governed by technically distinct obligations, there is often a
level of consistency among ISDS decisions.
This coherence results from the precedent-like reliance on earlier ISDS
Continue reading The Role of Precedent in ISDS: Can Decisional Law Contribute to the Creation of Customary Norms?
by Prerona Banerjee and Rajvansh Singh
The legal quandary between a “seat” and “venue” of arbitration was resolved by India’s Supreme Court (“SC”) in its judgment in Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services (“BALCO”). This decision clarified that the seat of the arbitration, once chosen, attains a permanent character which decides the scope of the powers and determines the court that has the final supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration. By contrast, the venue is described to be provisional in nature and is merely for administrative convenience.
Continue reading Indian Supreme Court revisits the distinction between Seat and Venue of arbitration
By Niyati Ahuja, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
The United States, Mexico, and Canada renegotiated the 25-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 2018. As a result of these renegotiations, the parties agreed on new terms to formulate “NAFTA 2.0” or the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in the United States, the CUSMA in Canada and, the T-MEC in Mexico.
Continue reading USMCA – An Analysis of the proposed ISDS Mechanism
By Chintan Nirala, Advocate LL.M. King’s College London, and Kathleen Mpofu, Intern at ICCA
The Hague Conference on
Private International Law (HCCH) started the Judgements Project in 1992 which
focused on two facets of cross-border litigation: international jurisdiction of
courts and recognition and enforcement of their judgements abroad. The project has
produced two conventions: The 2005 Choice of Courts Convention and the 2019
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgements in Civil or
Commercial Matters (the Convention).
This post will provide an analysis of the Convention, looking at practical issues such as its goals, entry into force, key provisions and what its conclusion could possibly mean for the future of international commercial dispute resolution.
Continue reading The Judgements Convention: A game changer in the field of international commercial disputes?