International Commercial Litigation Research Articles

Navigating the New Era: the emergence of China’s international commercial courts

ABSTRACT Alongside China’s increasing efforts to update its legal regime facilitating the ‘One Belt and One Road Initiative’ and strengthening foreign-related rule of law, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and some lower courts are playing a vital role in modernizing international commercial litigation. The SPC, leading lower Chinese courts, has been zealous in reforming international commercial litigation, and piece-meal measures were adopted over the years. The most salient step is the establishment of international commercial courts (CICCs), accompanied by the use of such mechanisms as anti-suit injunctions, forum non conveniens, and de jure reciprocity favouring foreign judgments recognition in China. These judicial efforts and the expected moves alike will definitely contribute a lot to internationalization of China’s international civil procedure towards the global mainstream. However, the systemic deep judicial and legislative reforms are both needed for China’s international commercial litigation to go global and moreover, the process shall be conducted with an eye towards keeping it current and enhancing its relevance to the realities of today’s dispute resolution world.

International Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Research Essay

International Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Research Essay

International Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Research Essay

Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution method (ADR) and has now become one of the preferred mechanisms chosen by parties to settle disputes of a commercial nature. There is no proper definition of arbitration and unlike court proceedings; it is a voluntary agreement agreed to by the disputing parties and the decision also known as the arbitral award is binding upon them. Arbitration is quasi-judicial in nature and an arbitrator often referred to as a private judge is a person who adjudicates on disputes submitted to him or her by the parties.1According to Sir John Donaldson, ‘arbitrators and judges are partners in business of dispensing justice, the judges in the public sector and the arbitrators in the private sector.’2 Nowadays, arbitration is an emerging trend and the popularity of such a system can be attributed to many advantages it offers compared to litigation. The main fundamental features of arbitration among many others are flexibility, confidentiality, impartiality, neutrality and party autonomy.

Recent Efforts in China's Ambition to Become a Centre for International Commercial Litigation

Recent Efforts in China's Ambition to Become a Centre for International Commercial Litigation

The China International Commercial Court: towards an integrated dispute resolution system

ABSTRACT The recent proliferation of international commercial courts has become a distinct phenomenon in the landscape of international dispute resolution. While the newer international commercial courts have followed the earlier ones and exhibited features of ‘specialisation’ and ‘internationalisation’, some have gone further to develop a new feature of ‘integration’ by incorporating elements of other methods of dispute resolution—notably, arbitration—into their design and operations. In this regard, the newly established China International Commercial Court (CICC) breaks new ground by creating a ‘one-stop’ and diversified dispute resolution mechanism, which institutionally integrates litigation, arbitration, and mediation into one unified platform. This mechanism is guided by the idea of ‘diversified dispute resolution mechanism’ reform promoted and practiced by the Chinese judicial system; underpinned by institutional arrangements such as the International Commercial Expert Committee (ICEC) and the Coordination and Guidance Office of the CICC; and implemented by procedural designs that deeply integrate international commercial litigation with arbitration and mediation. By conceptualizing the mechanism as an ‘integrated dispute resolution’ (IDR) system, enhancing institutional cooperation and setting up demonstrative IDR centres, the CICC and the ‘one-stop mechanism’ can be further improved to provide an innovative ‘Chinese approach’ to international commercial dispute resolution, for the Belt and Road region and beyond.

Proceeding on Cases with the Participation of Foreign Persons in International Procedure Law of Russia and Belarus

This article is dedicated to one of the most interesting aspects of International Procedural Law – litigation with the participation of foreign persons. Authors focused on a comparative analysis of Russian and Belarus legislation concerning the regulation of international procedural relations. Article includes two parts: the first one considers international jurisdiction of Russian arbitrazh courts and Belarus economic courts on commercial matters; the second one examines the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in commercial matters on the territory of Russia and Belarus. Authors deeply scrutinized a wide range of legal documents including domestic legislation, bilateral and multilateral international treaties of regional character in order to show the convergences and divergences in Russian and Belarus procedural law concerning participation of foreign persons in international commercial litigation.

Proceeding on Cases with the Participation of Foreign Persons in International Procedure Law of Russia and Belarus (The end)

This article is dedicated to one of the most interesting aspects of International Procedural Law – litigation with the participation of foreign persons. Authors focused on a comparative analysis of Russian and Belarus legislation concerning the regulation of international procedural relations. Article includes two parts: the first one considers international jurisdiction of Russian arbitrazh courts and Belarus economic courts on commercial matters; the second one examines the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in commercial matters on the territory of Russia and Belarus. Authors deeply scrutinized a wide range of legal documents including domestic legislation, bilateral and multilateral international treaties of regional character in order to show the convergences and divergences in Russian and Belarus procedural law concerning participation of foreign persons in international commercial litigation

International Dispute Resolution Survey: 2020 Final Report

The International Dispute Resolution Survey: 2020 Final Report presents the findings of the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy’s inaugural examination into the preferences, experiences, practices and perspectives of international dispute resolution users around the globe. The survey examined three major international dispute resolution mechanisms: international commercial arbitration, international commercial mediation, international commercial litigation, as well as hybrid dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation-arbitration and arbitration-mediation. The survey also inquired into the use of technology in international dispute resolution, such as predictive analytical tools and negotiation support systems, and asked the users to express whether they were satisfied with the use of technology. The report summarizes findings from each mechanism in turn and explores the key trends drawn from the data, identifying currents of change that impact international dispute resolution.

Proceeding on Cases with Participation of Foreign Persons in International Procedure Law of Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan

This article is dedicated to one of the most interesting aspects of International Procedure Law – litigation with the participation of foreign persons. Authors focused on a comparative analysis of Russian, Kazakh and Uzbek legislation concerning the regulation of international procedural relations. Article includes two paragraphs: the first one considers international jurisdiction of Russian arbitrazh courts, Kazakh economic courts and Uzbek economic courts on commercial matters; the second one examines the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions in commercial matters on the territory of Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Authors deeply scrutinized a wide range of legal documents including domestic legislation and multilateral international treaties of regional character in order to show the convergences and divergences in Russian, Kazakh and Uzbek procedural law concerning participation of foreign persons in international commercial litigation.

Proceeding on Cases with Participation of Foreign Persons in International Procedure Law of Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan (The end)

This article is dedicated to one of the most interesting aspects of International Procedure Law – litigation with the participation of foreign persons. Authors focused on a comparative analysis of Russian, Kazakh and Uzbek legislation concerning the regulation of international procedural relations. Article includes two paragraphs: the first one considers international jurisdiction of Russian arbitrazh courts, Kazakh economic courts and Uzbek economic courts on commercial matters; the second one examines the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions in commercial matters on the territory of Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Authors deeply scrutinized a wide range of legal documents including domestic legislation and multilateral international treaties of regional character in order to show the convergences and divergences in Russian, Kazakh and Uzbek procedural law concerning participation of foreign persons in international commercial litigation.

The Singapore International Commercial Court: The Future of Litigation?

The Singapore International Commercial Court (‘SICC’) was launched on 5 January 2015, at the Opening of Legal Year held at the Singapore Supreme Court. What prompted the creation of SICC? How is the SICC model of litigation different from litigation in the Singapore High Court? What is the SICC’s track record and what does it tell us about its future? This article seeks to answer these questions at greater depth than existing literature. Importantly, it examines these questions from the angle of reimagining access of justice for litigants embroiled in international commercial disputes. It argues that the SICC’s enduring contribution to improving access to justice is that it helps to change our frame of reference for international commercial litigation. Hybridisation, internationalisation, and party autonomy, the underpinning values of the SICC, are likely to be the values of the future of dispute resolution. International commercial dispute resolution frameworks – typically litigation frameworks – that unduly emphasise national boundaries and formalities need not and should not be the norm. Crucially, the SICC co-opts a refreshing public-private perspective to the resolution of international commercial disputes. It illuminates on the public interest element of the resolution of such disputes which have for some time fallen into the domain of international commercial arbitration; at the same time, it introduces greater scope for self-determination in international commercial litigation.

International Commercial Courts in the Litigation Market

The expression ‘international commercial courts’ refers to national judicial bodies set up in the last fifteen years in several jurisdictions throughout the world to suit the specific demands of international commercial litigation. The courts and the proceedings before them share unique features often imported from the common law tradition and the arbitration world, with a view to providing for a dispute resolution mechanism tailored to the subject-matter. This notwithstanding, there is no single model of international commercial court: rather, each of them presents its own distinctive characteristics. This paper summarizes the main traits of several international commercial courts in Asia, Middle East and Europe. At a second stages, it explores their relationship with international arbitration, on the one hand, and among them, on the other, at a time when dispute resolution mechanisms in competition is seen as an incentive for the improvement within justice systems at a global level, and the term ‘litigation market’ has become common place. In this context, elements such as the language of the process, the possibility of being represented by foreign lawyers, or the existence of a network of instruments for the enforcement of decisions abroad, may prove decisive in the choice of the users to file claim with a court (and which one), or going to arbitration.

Singapore as a centre for international commercial litigation: party autonomy to the fore

This article considers two recent developments in Singapore private international law: the establishment of the Singapore International Commercial Court and the enactment of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 into Singapore law. These two developments are part of Singapore’s strategy to promote itself as an international dispute resolution hub and are underscored by giving an enhanced role to party autonomy. This article examines the impact of these two developments on the traditional rules of private international law and whether they achieve the stated aim of positioning Singapore as a major player in the international litigation arena.

International Commercial Courts in France: Innovation without Revolution?

In 2018, in the wake of Brexit, the French legal profession took several important measures to strengthen the competitiveness of France and the French legal system, and to make Paris an attractive go-to point when businesses have to deal with international commercial litigation. On close examination, Brexit is only the tip of the iceberg and has mostly served as a catalyst. The reasons for the development of international commercial courts in France are manifold. They are the consequences of long-standing efforts aimed at boosting the French judicial marketplace to adapt it to the requirements of globalisation and to the expectations of multinational corporations. The setting up of the French international business courts has made several procedural adjustments necessary. Although these adjustments undoubtedly represent clear innovations, they do not constitute a full-blown revolution. France has indeed decided to maximise the existing procedural rules, together with developing a new organisational format inspired by the common law tradition. Although it is too early to clearly assess the impact of these new developments, it is essential to keep our ears to the ground and to be forward-looking. We should carefully consider the possible side effects on the French justice system as a whole and, in particular, reflect on whether these international commercial courts might, in the future, open the door to a broader, far-reaching evolution within the judicial system. Finally, the current multiplication of international business courts across Europe triggers some questions concerning the role and potential added value of a European Union initiative in this domain.

Proceedings with the participation of foreign persons in International Procedural Law of Russia and Armenia (The end)

This article is dedicated to one of the most interesting aspects of International Procedural Law – litigation with the participation of foreign persons. Authors focused on a comparative analysis of Russian and Armenian legislation concerning the regulation of international procedural relations. Article includes two paragraphs: the first one considers International jurisdiction of Russian arbitrazh courts and Armenian courts of general jurisdiction on commercial matters; the second one examines the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in commercial matters on the territory of Russia and Armenia. Authors deeply scrutinized a wide range of legal documents including domestic legislation and multilateral international treaties of regional character in order to show the convergences and divergences in Russian and Armenian procedural law concerning participation of foreign persons in International commercial litigation.

International Dispute Resolution Survey: Currents of Change 2019 Preliminary Report (2019)

The 2019 International Dispute Resolution Survey: Currents of Change Preliminary Report presents the first-look findings of the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy's groundbreaking examination into the preferences, practices, and perspectives of international dispute resolution users around the globe. These findings examine three international dispute resolution mechanisms: International Commercial Arbitration, International Commercial Mediation, and International Commercial Litigation. The report summarises findings from each mechanism in turn and provides an overview of the results, then explores key trends drawn from the data identifying currents of change drawing international dispute resolution into the third decade of the 21st century.

THE NEW INTERNATIONAL CHAMBERS OF THE PARIS COURTS – INNOVATIVE WAY FOR RESOLUTION OF COMMERCIAL DISPUTES

The process of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom form the European Union has been discussed predominantly from a political and economic point of view. However, the consequences are more far reaching. With UK on the doorstep of leaving the EU, the decisions issued by its courts would no longer benefit from the recognition system provided in the Brussels Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001). As a result of this, it is expected that London would no longer be seen as a primary destination for international litigants.In the awaiting of the aftermath from the Brexit, other cities and member state countries of the EU have started the race to position themselves as the next “legal hub”. While other member states have been vocal about offering alternative courts, so far France has been at the forefront of this initiative. On 7 February 2018 two Protocols were signed by the French Minister of Justice, the President of the Paris Bar, and the presidents of the Paris Court of Appeal and the Paris Commercial Court. With the first protocol amendments were made to the already existing International Chamber within the Paris Commercial Court, whereas with the second Protocol a new International Chamber has been created within the Paris Court of Appeal. The aim of the creation of these international divisions within the Paris Court is to create an attractive jurisdictional system which would meet the expectations of the economic actors. Paris has already been one of the most important world centers for dispute resolution as a result of the work of the International Chamber of Commerce and its work in the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). However, with this initiative Paris has an opportunity to further strengthen its attractiveness.The adoption of the two Protocols is a groundbreaking move which sets forth innovative rules of procedure, incorporating unique approaches in the field of international commercial litigation. The rules of procedure contain an increased level of flexibility offering the parties a chance for litigations with great similarity to arbitration. Most notably, the new Protocols provide for the usage of English as language in the course of the proceedings, adapted procedure which should better suit the need of the parties, focus on oral testimonies instead of written witness and expert submissions, possibility for cross – examination, broader scope of tools for securing evidence, such as requests for document production, as well as the possibility of non- French lawyers to appear in front of the Courts. The aim of this article is to provide an insight in the new structure of the International Chambers by reviewing the novelties in the two new Protocols. The article reflects on similar initiatives which have been undertaken in other EU members and countries worldwide, and whether this can be the starting point for more drastic and revolutionary reforms in the traditional litigation system.

The Party Autonomy Paradigm: European and Global Developments on Choice of Forum

One of the pillars of international commercial litigation is party autonomy as it has developed over the past fifty years. In Europe, the Brussels regime established considerable freedom for parties to select the court that would have jurisdiction. The enforceability of choice of court agreements has gained ground in many countries worldwide, and the freedom to select the competent forum is exercised widely in commercial practice. Early in 2015, the new Brussels Ibis Regulation became applicable, altering the rules on choice of court. These amendments, particularly the exception to the lis pendens rule, aim at increasing the efficiency of choice of court agreements and at preventing torpedo litigation tactics. This year also marks the entry into force of the Hague Choice of Court Convention that had been adopted ten years earlier. The present paper explores the concept and development of the party autonomy paradigm from the perspective of different disciplines, and discusses the empirical evidence available on the use of party autonomy in commercial practice. It also examines the main changes brought about by the Brussels I recast and the entry into force of the Hague Choice of Court Convention, and analyses these against the background of the party autonomy paradigm, as well as their contribution to effective litigation.

THE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES BEFORE THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL COURT

AbstractThe jurisdictional framework of the Singapore courts has become more nuanced with the establishment of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) on 5 January 2015 and the signing of the Hague Convention on the Choice of Court Agreements 2005 (Hague Convention) on 25 March 2015. Although the Hague Convention has yet to be incorporated in domestic law, it is expected this will happen in the near future. The SICC project, on the other hand, is part of Singapore's strategy to promote the jurisdiction as an international dispute resolution hub. In essence, the SICC is a domestic specialist court established to deal with international commercial litigation. Adapted from the arbitral model but underpinned by judicial control, central to the SICC framework are party autonomy and flexible procedural rules. The Hague Convention complements the SICC project by increasing the number of jurisdictions in which Singapore judgments will be recognized and enforced. These 2015 developments—key to establishing Singapore as the regional hub for dispute resolution—requires careful working out and an evaluation is needed of the jurisdictional regime that applies to the SICC and the internal allocation of jurisdiction as between the SICC and the Singapore High Court sans the SICC, as well as the impact of the Hague Convention. This article focuses on explaining the in personam jurisdictional rules of the Singapore High Court that now includes the SICC division. Its chief objective is to offer the international community an overview of the working framework of Singapore's version of an ‘international’ commercial court.

El órgano de solución de diferencias de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) como mecanismo alternativo para la solución de litigios comerciales

The present article analyzes the juridical nature of the Solution Differences Organ (DSO) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in the international commercial litigation. The paper also examines the importance of this instance of the WTO, as a mechanism for the resolution of the conflicts that can arise between States in its international relationships in the commercial context. Accordingly, the article emphasizes the benefits that this body can provide to the developing countries, by granting an effective mechanism for the solution of their differences with nations economically more powerful.