By Fakhruddin Ali Valika, LL.M. student at Columbia University
This blog post provides a summary of a YICCA
workshop held on 26 September 2019 in New York.
The event was jointly organized with the Blacks of the American Society
of International Law (BASIL) – a task force formed in 2014 at the invitation of
ASIL’s former Honorary President Gabrielle
The NY event was the second
collaboration between the two organizations and arose out of a call
to action by Donald Donovan (Partner
at Debevoise & Plimpton in NY, and former ICCA President), whose firm
generously hosted the workshop. The event
was also supported by the ArbitralWomen; the American Bar Association’s Section
of International Law; the Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge; and the
New York International Arbitration Center.
Recently, focus has been brought upon the use of international arbitration to solve human rights abuses caused by businesses (“BHR Arbitration“). Disputes involving human rights violations often occur between parties of unequal financial means and commercial sophistication, and in countries which cannot offer an efficient and free from corruption judicial system. Arbitration has the potential to represent a valid remedy when judicial proceedings are not available or efficient, offering a neutral forum free from political pressures, impartial judges with expertise in human rights selected by the parties, procedural flexibility, greater efficiency and near-universal recognition as a result of the New York Convention.
by Carolina Apolo Roque, Trainee Lawyer at CMS Portugal
With as many as nine identified approaches to the potential applicable law to the arbitration agreement, Marc Blessing, as an experienced author, arbitrator and lawyer, could not help but ask: “Are we thus faced with a magnificent confusion?” (“The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause” 1999, in Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards: 40 Years of Application of the New York Convention, ICCA Congress Series 9). This post focuses on the approach that would most likely be followed in an international arbitration seated in Portugal, shedding light on where it stands in this magnificent confusion.
Amanda is an independent arbitrator and a Consultant at Seymours, based in London. Her practice focuses on international commercial arbitration, domestic and international commercial litigation and Privy Council appellate procedure.
Her experience includes disputes arising in relation to a variety of sectors, including the recycling, construction, automotive and finance sectors. She has acted and participated in international and domestic arbitrations conducted on an ad hoc basis and under institutional rules.
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.