Arbitration law is the most important arbitration in England. Some of the institutional rules exclude non-binding provisions of the law: by accepting this exclusion, the parties waive the right to require a decision of the English courts on a provisional question of law or to challenge an arbitral award on a question of law. If you use institutional rules that contain these exclusions but wish to retain those rights, your arbitration clause should clarify this point. Similarly, if the rules you have used on this point and you want to exclude them, the clause should indicate that. On 27 November 2020, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom issued a judgment in the innovative case Halliburton v Chubb [2020] UKSC 48, which was eagerly awaited by the international arbitration community. The verdict has great clarity on the… It is not an editorial issue per se, but it is an extremely important issue that needs to be addressed from the outset and is an important factor in the review of the arbitration headquarters. If the headquarters are located in a country that has signed the New York Convention, the award is recognized in all other signatory countries. The full list of signatories is available on the UNCITRAL website. Several leading international arbitration institutions have emergency arbitration rules that share more or less the same qualities: a quick appointment of a single arbitrator (usually within a few days) who makes a decision within a limited time frame (usually counted in days or weeks) and not acting as an arbitrator in the substantive dispute. The nature (an order or award) and the enforceability of a decision made by an emergency arbitrator depend on the rules of that procedure and where such a decision is to be enforced.
Questions about the scope of the arbitration clause may arise when parties refer specific disputes to different mechanisms, for example. B price adjustment disputes to an expert and all other disputes at an arbitration tribunal. The treaty must define precisely which conflicts, what mechanism and how they might interact. This issue is discussed in more detail in the expert research section below and in Chapter 3 on conflicts between expert identification and arbitration clauses. In recent years, some practitioners have expressed concerns about the appointment or appointment of arbitrators by the parties. Nevertheless, the parties often see the ability to choose their own designated arbitrator as one of the main advantages of arbitration. The same is true, of course, for AM transactions, where the parties appreciate the possibility of appointing arbitrators who understand, in addition to their experience as arbitrators, the complexity and mechanics of their transactions. With respect to the arbitration of AMs, for example, the parties may consider that if the role of arbitrators is limited to assessing the arbitrariness of an expert`s decision, there is no need to apply the standard arbitration procedure.