Abstract
In this paper, the national Indian and Chinese statutes on arbitration are compared with the UNCITRAL Model Law. After a presentation of the GILD-MMC project, focus is especially on textual aspects indicating attitudes towards the relation between the administrative powers and the parties in commercial arbitration. Thus, looking at the features all-inclusiveness, information load, information spread, legislative style and transparency signifi cant differences are found and related to the different com municative purposes (overall model vs. specifi c national rules), the different legal traditions (common law vs. civil law) and the different political systems (westernised market economy vs. socialist market economy).
Highlights
Recent years have seen an unprecedented dismantling of socio-cultural, disciplinary, and national barriers especially in the context of cooperation and collaboration in international trade and business
In the context of the return of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China, and the creation of Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, (HKSAR), under the ‘One Country Two Systems’ principle, the importance of interpreting one set of laws in the context of the other system has raised a number of interesting issues
In the case of PRCAL, there is a single open-ended case description which can bring into legal action a series of mandatory legal powers whereas, in the case of ACOI, there are a series of precise case descriptions which may give the parties a right to request the Chief Justice or other person or institution designated by him to take the necessary further action, all of which is further constrained by an exception clause, which may prohibit such an action
Summary
Recent years have seen an unprecedented dismantling of socio-cultural, disciplinary, and national barriers especially in the context of cooperation and collaboration in international trade and business. The texts come from The Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China 1994 (PRCAL) and The Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance (1996) of India (ACOI) We focus on these two rather diverse contexts, i.e., the Republic of India (India) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) because these two countries represent two very different socio-political traditions, legal systems, and constitutional mechanisms. It is clear that PRCAL differs considerably from UNML in not specifying details It sets its principles against particular economic conditions (socialist market economy) and offers only broad brush statements of principle or scope which invite further definition – see phrases like economic matters, or administrative disputes, administrative organs. 3. Specific focus some of the general observations and conclusions here are based on the three versions of the international arbitration laws (the UNML, the PRCAL, and the ACOI), for the purpose of illustration of detailed analysis, the paper will focus on the following three sections. We examine here some of the surface level features of these chosen sections
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
