By Vishakha Choudhary Research Assistant at the Chair of Prof. Dr. Marc Bungenberg, Europa-Insitut
juxtaposition of laws that seemingly operate in different domains has posed a
continual challenge to arbitration – conventionally, in the form of concerns
over arbitrability of disputes. Here, arbitrability connotes the notion that a
dispute, by its nature, is capable of being adjudicated beyond public fora,
through a private tribunal chosen by parties. This ‘objective’ arbitrability differs
from ‘subjective’ arbitrability, which is the scope of arbitrable disputes
as defined in an arbitration agreement. This post deals with objective arbitrability.
In the context of intellectual property rights (‘IPR’) disputes, concerns of objective
arbitrability stem from the impact arbitral awards may have on non-consenting
parties. Owing to insufficient legislative engagement with this issue, judicial
position on arbitrability of IPR disputes in India remains unsettled.
By Dr Sven Lange (Counsel at Busse Disputes) and Irina Samodelkina (Foreign Associate at Busse Disputes)
The modern business world
strives to increase efficiency – and the use of modern IT systems is a key tool
in that regard. One would thus expect that arbitration, which aims to resolve
disputes efficiently, would jump at the many opportunities offered by modern IT
technology to truly digitalise dispute resolution. But progress has been slow.
While arbitration practitioners widely recognise the benefits of using modern
technologies, the approach in practice is still largely based on conventional
By Daniil Vlasenko, foreign attorney at Baker & McKenzie LLP (New York)
At the end
of 2018, the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Court published its “Review of Cases Related to the
Functions of Assistance and Control in Relation to Arbitration and
International Commercial Arbitration” (“Review”). The 51-page Review was dedicated to issues
that the Russian courts have faced while hearing cases arising from domestic
and international arbitration and which require consideration by the Supreme
Court. Numerous issues were covered, including those connected to the
arbitrability of certain types of disputes, the enforceability of arbitral
awards and the validity of arbitration agreements.
By Erin Gleason, Independent Arbitrator and Mediator
Mediation and arbitration are often
categorized as separate and distinct fields for good reason. Arbitration is an adjudicative process;
mediation, on the other hand, is more accommodating, dependent on negotiation
among parties. There is a formality
attached to arbitration that one usually does not find in mediation. While the arbitration process is prescribed
by rules, the mediation experience is created by the parties and the mediator
to fit the needs of a particular dispute.
Jadranka Jakovcic is an associate at
New York office of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, International
Arbitration group. She advises in both investment treaty and commercial
arbitrations, with particular experience in cases conducted under the auspices
of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
Prior to joining Curtis, Ms. Jakovcic served as a judicial trainee to Justice Charles E. Ramos of the New York Supreme Court, Commercial Division. She also interned at the Legal Service of the European Commission, assisting on the preliminary ruling procedure concerning Croatia before the European Court of Justice.
A Croatian national, Ms. Jakovcic trained in both civil law and common law, with a Master of Laws degree from the University of Zagreb and an LL.M. from Fordham University School of Law.