London Court Of International Arbitration Research Articles

LCIA India: Will It Change the International Arbitration Scene in India?

Recently, the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) established LCIA India. Although LCIA India bears the name of its parent body in London, one hopes it is intended to be an Indian institution, of course with the support of LCIA London. This is a welcome development for the international business community in general and India in particular, as it is hoped that LCIA India will maintain a very high international standard in its awards. This in turn will encourage the Indian courts to have confidence in the awards published under the aegis of this institution. In order to consider whether the LCIA Rules will able to achieve this noble objective it is necessary to consider the background of international arbitration in India and the role of the Indian judiciary in relation to it.

Anatomy of the Law and Practice of Interim Protective Measures in International Investment Arbitration

Article This article provides an overall analysis of the law and practice of interim protection in international investment arbitration, covering the most commonly used arbitral frameworks (International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention, and the Arbitration Rules of the ICSID Additional Facility, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)). It analyzes the legal status of interim protective measures and more specifically their legal basis, their binding force, and the procedural aspects of their adoption, highlighting significant dissimilarities between ICSID Convention and other arbitral mechanisms when it comes to the role of domestic courts in this process. The article also looks into the substantive aspects of interim protection, a field where the differences between these frameworks tend to become less pronounced. Despite wording differences in arbitration rules, we are witnessing an important convergence of the practice of tribunals and a common reliance by arbitrators on the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals.

Recent Arbitration–related Developments in the UAE

This is an important year for arbitration in the U.A.E. following the release of draft arbitration laws by the U.A.E. federal government and by the Dubai International Financial Centre, and the establishment of a new arbitration centre located in Dubai in a joint venture between the Dubai International Financial Centre and the London Court of International Arbitration. Following an overview of these three important developments,this article assesses their likely impact for arbitration in the U.A.E. and the wider region.

Agora: Thoughts on Fiona Trust: The Doctrine of Separability and Consent to Arbitrate

If confirmation was needed, the decision of the House of Lords in Premium Nafta Products Ltd v. Fili Shipping Co. Ltd 1 confirms that as a matter of English law an agreement to arbitrate is separable from the remainder of a contract in which it sits. Although in principle the doctrine of separability has been accepted in England, as it has been in most major jurisdictions, its outer limits and consequences still require some refinement. One question that requires further attention is whether the doctrine of separability extends to situations in which no main agreement was ever even purportedly concluded and one party nonetheless commences arbitral proceedings. The issue arises because in the Arbitration Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration and of the International Chamber of Commerce, in the English Arbitration Act 1996, and in French case law, the validity of the arbitration agreement is said not to be affected by a finding that the main agreement is ‘non-existent’. It is one thing to say that when a signed contract containing an arbitration agreement is later held to have always been void, that the arbitration agreement survives. It is a step further to say that if the parties never even purported to conclude the main agreement, that an arbitration clause contained in a document to which the parties never agreed nonetheless takes effect for disputes arising between those parties. This situation may arise in practice where, for example, parties pursue contractual negotiations involving a draft contract, and perhaps a signed offer, which contains an arbitration clause, but agreement was not ultimately reached. The purpose of this note is to consider what role, if any, the doctrine of separability has if one party seeks to commence arbitral proceedings in such a case. This is not the first time that …

United States and Canada Arbitrate a Softwood Lumber Dispute in the London Court of International Arbitration

United States and Canada Arbitrate a Softwood Lumber Dispute in the London Court of International Arbitration

London Court of International Arbitration: Encana Corporation v. the Republic of Ecuador

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

International Commercial Arbitration And Globalisation - 6th IBA International Arbitration Day - Conference presented by the Arbitration and ADR Committee of the International Bar Association (IBA) Section on Business Law - Sydney (Australia), 12-13 February 2003 // Lcia - London Court Of International Arbitration - Symposium organised in conjunction with the Asia-Pacific Users' Council - Sydney (Australia), 14 February 2003.

International Commercial Arbitration And Globalisation - 6th IBA International Arbitration Day - Conference presented by the Arbitration and ADR Committee of the International Bar Association (IBA) Section on Business Law - Sydney (Australia), 12–13 February 2003 // Lcia - London Court Of International Arbitration - Symposium organised in conjunction with the Asia-Pacific Users’ Council - Sydney (Australia), 14 February 2003. Get access Uniform Law Review, Volume 7, Issue 3, August 2002, Pages 811–812, https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/7.3.811 Published: 01 August 2002

Towards the Harmonization of International Arbitration Rules: Comparative Analysis of the Rules of the ICC, AAA, LCIA and CIETAC

OVER THE past 20 years, the well-established arbitral institutions worldwide have all experienced significant growth in their activity. This growth has brought with it new challenges which each institution has had to address in its own way. In many instances, this experience has brought to light improvements which could be made in each institution's arbitration rules in order to achieve better and more effective administration of justice. The major arbitral institutions have responded well to this challenge, adapting their rules to suit the ever-evolving needs of international commerce. For example, the International Chamber of Commerce (the ICC), the American Arbitration Association (the AAA), the London Court of International Arbitration (the LCIA) and the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) have each amended their arbitration rules within the last three years.1 Given that the requirements of businesses – and thus potential litigants – are the same the world over, it is perhaps unsurprising that, with each successive modification, the arbitration rules of each of these institutions have become increasingly harmonized. Paradoxically, the steady harmonization of these institutional rules has not done away wim the need to consider which of them to adopt in a particular contract. Although the rules of the above institutions are now broadly similar, important differences remain. Parties must still consider whether, in light of their particular needs, one institution offers more suitable services than another. The recent amendments to the rules of the ICC, the AAA, the LCIA and CIETAC could be broadly characterized as having the following objectives: (i) promoting the effective institutional oversight of the arbitration; (ii) accelerating arbitral proceedings; (iii) emphasizing the autonomy of the parties; and (iv) recognizing the transnational character of international arbitration. The major developments with respect to each of these objectives are discussed in turn infra. Where …

Private Justice in a Global Economy: From Litigation to Arbitration

Drawing on the analytical framework developed by Barbara Koremenos, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal in the Rational Design project, I seek to shed light on the striking institutional differences among the various methods of international commercial dispute resolution for private parties. These methods include recourse to public courts and more frequently to private international courts, such as the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce or the London Court of International Arbitration, as well as recourse to so-called ad hoc arbitration and alternative dispute-resolution techniques, such as conciliation and mediation. The key institutional dimensions along which these methods of international dispute resolution vary are (1) procedural and adaptive flexibility, and (2) centralization of procedural safeguards and information collection. I explain why different methods of international commercial dispute resolution are selected. I argue that these methods respond to the varying institutional needs of different types of disputes and disputants. Such needs can be explained in terms of the severity of the enforcement problem, uncertainty about the preferences or behavior of contractual partners, and uncertainty about the state of the world.

Wipo International Conference on Dispute Resolution in Electronic Commerce - Geneva (Switzerland), 6-7 November 2000. Conference organised by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center in co-operation with the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the Dispute Resolution Section of the American Bar Association (ABA), the Singapore Subordinate Courts and the Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA).

Wipo International Conference on Dispute Resolution in Electronic Commerce - Geneva (Switzerland), 6-7 November 2000. Conference organised by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center in co-operation with the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the Dispute Resolution Section of the American Bar Association (ABA), the Singapore Subordinate Courts and the Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA).

World Business Law Conference (International Conference organised by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry F(ICCI), supported by the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA), the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)) - New Delhi, 31 October 1997

Journal Article World Business Law Conference (International Conference organised by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry F(ICCI), supported by the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA), the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)) – New Delhi, 31 October 1997 Get access Uniform Law Review, Volume 2, Issue 4, December 1997, Pages 763–764, https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/2.4.763 Published: 01 December 1997

The Resolution of International Trade and Investment Disputes in Africa (Joint conference of The Association of Arbitrators (Southern Africa), Johannesburg; The International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration (ICC), Paris; The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA); The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), Washington DC) - 6-8 March 1997 - Johannesburg

The Resolution of International Trade and Investment Disputes in Africa (Joint conference of The Association of Arbitrators (Southern Africa), Johannesburg; The International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration (ICC), Paris; The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA); The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), Washington DC) – 6–8 March 1997 – Johannesburg Get access Uniform Law Review, Volume 2, Issue 1, January 1997, Page 92, https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/2.1.92 Published: 01 January 1997

Arbitration: A Commercial way to Justice - An International Arbitration Conference (The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, supported by The American Arbitration Association and the London Court of International Arbitration. Boston, Massachusetts (U.S.A.)) - 26-28 September 1996

Arbitration: A Commercial way to Justice - An International Arbitration Conference (The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, supported by The American Arbitration Association and the London Court of International Arbitration. Boston, Massachusetts (U.S.A.)) - 26-28 September 1996

State Immunity and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards: Do We Need an UNCITRAL Model Law Mark II for Execution Against State Property?

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL arbitration has come a long way since World War II. Prior to 1939 a private enterprise which had carried out works of construction or commercial services for a sovereign state and remained unpaid had few remedies. It might persuade its national state to espouse the claim, which then became dependent on the political whim of the espousing state and the consent to international adjudication of the defendant state, and lost its private law character. The adoption of the New York Convention 1958 (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards) was the first important post-war step forward. Whilst this Convention applied, as did the Geneva Convention 1927, to foreign, not international, awards, thus acknowledging that validity of the award was determinable by the law of the country where it was made, it substituted for national diversity a uniform restricted list, in Article V, of grounds for challenge of the award in the courts of the country where enforcement was sought, and placed the burden of proof on the party resisting enforcement. The Washington Convention of 1965 followed, providing a self-sufficient system, administered by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) for the arbitration of investment disputes between a contracting state and a national of another state; by virtue of Article 53 the award is binding and not subject to any appeal or other remedy other than as provided in the Convention. Institutional arbitration was offered under the rules and auspices of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The perceived defect of western industrialized bias in these rules was addressed in new rules drafted by UNCITRAL taking into account the concerns of developing states. These 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules have encouraged formerly …

Privacy and Confidentiality in Arbitration Proceedings

THIS ARTICLE will address two separate but related questions which follow from the proposition that an arbitration is to be conducted in private. This proposition, which is itself uncontroversial, is widely – if not universally accepted to mean that strangers are to be excluded from the hearing of the arbitration. But how much further does it go than that? In particular, does the concept of privacy prohibit: 1. the consolidation of arbitration proceedings, or the holding of two or more arbitration hearings concurrently, in the absence of agreement by the parties? 2. the use, for any purpose other than the arbitration itself, of material prepared for the arbitration or disclosed by one party to the other in the course of the arbitration? Both of these questions are occasionally addressed by the parties themselves and express provision is made in relation to them. In addition, the rules of certain institutional arbitration organisations such as the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) or the American Arbitration Association (AAA) also address these questions to some extent. The answer to these queries will differ depending on what system of law governs the arbitration in question. This Article will address the questions as a matter of English law, making occasional reference to certain US and Australian authorities.1 In England, the answer to both questions is likely to be ‘yes’2 (subject, in the second case, to an overriding discretion of the court to order disclosure of documents despite the existence of a duty of confidence)3; whereas in other jurisdictions, including the United States and Australia, the answer may well be ‘no’4. Before answering the two questions presented, it is first necessary to examine the right to privacy as it applies to arbitration. It is commonly provided …

The UNCITRAL Framework for Arbitration in Contemporary Perspective

Part 1 The UNCITRAL rules: a textual comparison of the UNCITRAL rules with the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce and the London Court of International Arbitration the UNCITRAL rules as applied by the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. Part 2 The model law: the model law on international commercial arbitration - an overview international reaction to the model law. Appendix: rules of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.

Japan Commercial Arbitration Rules Revisited

ON 1 October 1992 the Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (‘JCAA’) made effective a complete revision in Japanese and English of its Commercial Arbitration Rules (the ‘New Rules’). These New Rules are virtually a complete rewrite and replacement of the Rules which had been effective before that date (the ‘Former Rules’). In its New Rules the JCAA has taken account of some of the international criticisms (sometimes scathing) of its Former Rules1 and has attempted in some of the new provisions to formulate procedures that will make JCAA arbitration as acceptable in international commercial disputes as arbitration conducted under the auspices of the London Court of International Arbitration, the International Chamber of Commerce, and other respected international arbitration bodies. The most important changes are as follows: (1) Representation: Rule 6 of the Old Rules states that a party to an arbitration may be represented by ‘a lawyer or such other person as shall be recognized to be justified in taking procedure under these Rules’. The Old Rules in Japanese used the word ‘ bengoshi ’ for lawyer, and the strong implication was that, at least as to JCAA arbitrations conducted in Japan, the only acceptable lawyer representative would be a Japanese lawyer (a bengoshi ). This provision had been criticized by non-Japanese arbitration practitioners as being inappropriate to international arbitrations where, it can be argued, a party should be able to elect to be represented by any lawyer of its choice, wherever qualified, or by any other competent person.2 Japanese bengoshi , on the other hand, have argued that they are most intimately familiar with, and most competent to, represent parties in Japanese arbitration proceedings, and many assert that representation by a non- bengoshi of a party in an arbitration conducted in Japan would be a violation of the unauthorized …

Lord Bramwell's Arbitration Code 1884-1889

THE LCIA celebrates its centenary as one of the oldest arbitration institutions still extant.1 On 23 November 1892 it was founded as the London Chamber of Arbitration at the Guildhall in the City of London in the presence of a large and distinguished gathering including the President of the Board of Trade. The institution was renamed in 1903 as the London Court of Arbitration; and it moved from the Guildhall to the premises of the London Chamber of Commerce in 1905. It acquired in 1981 its present name, the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA);2 the LCIA published its new Arbitration Rules ‘for world-wide use’ in 1985; it was reorganised in 1986 and moved to new premises in the City of London. For an elderly historical institution rooted in English arbitration practice, the LCIA has enjoyed a significant revival as an international arbitral institution – a formidable achievement secured over the last decade by the work and dedication of the LCIA's President, Sir Michael Kerr, and its Registrar, Bertie Vigrass OBE, under the auspices of the Corporation of the City of London, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. In this contribution to the LCIA's centenary, we look at the past; and we identify the origins of an old text closely associated with the LCIA's foundation and still relevant for the future of English commercial arbitration: Lord Bramwell's Arbitration Code of 1884–1889. This text never became English law; but as a draft legislative code, it was well known to those attending the LCIA's foundation in 1892; and the LCIA's birth was no sudden or isolated historical event in the development of English commercial arbitration. The LCIA originated from a resolution of the City of London's Court of Common Council on 5 April …

A Tribute to Bertie Vigrass OBE

THE Editors are pleased to offer this Centenary Issue celebrating the London Court of International Arbitration. The occasion surely had to be remarked, but it gives no joy to commemorate an institution in the abstract. Who today really knows what the LCIA – or the ‘London Chamber of Arbitration’, as it then was known – was doing at the turn of the century? The LCIA has survived because it was made to adapt, to make itself useful in a changing world. So the fact that we remember the LCIA's centennial is not due to what its founders may have done five generations ago, but to the vision, initiative and perseverance of those who make the institution relevant today. Bertie Vigrass's contribution has been unique. The LCIA's Registrar and Chief Executive, he has been responsible for the Court's administration over the last two decades. We take this occasion to give special...

Arbitration: Law, Practice and Precedents by John F. Phillips QC

Arbitration: Law, Practice and Precedents by John F. Phillips QC. Published by ICSA Publishing Ltd., UK (1988, xi and 157 pp, including Contents, Preface, Statutes, Rules and Precedents, and Index ). Hardback. £25 (UK) . The author, Dr John F Phillips, is a practising Queen's Counsel who has specialised in arbitration in the commercial field for many years. He has been a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators since 1959 and has held positions of responsibility in the Institute, including the Presidency in 1977. He is also a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators of which he was President in 1976 and is currently the Convenor of the Panel of Arbitrators dealing with commercial disputes arising from telecommunications. For some ten years up to 1987 he was a member of the Management Committee and Chairman (1985/87) of the London Court of International Arbitration. He has held other distinguished appointments in commerce and industry and is a respected arbitration practitioner. In his introduction the author says that the book is intended to be a practical guide to arbitration. The book is mainly directed towards businessmen who want a speedy, efficient, inexpensive means for the settlement of disputes arising from national and international commercial contracts, including maritime contracts, commodity transactions and financial services, such as banking, broking and insurance. Furthermore, the scholarly research recorded in the handbook about the origin and development of arbitration makes it of interest to students and academics worldwide. The author discusses the origin and development of arbitration from the early Egyptian civilisation but states that evidence is not really reliable until one comes to the Greek Ptolomies in the three centuries before Christ. Arbitration was practised by the Romans as the fons et …