Work Of UNCITRAL Research Articles

Chronicle 2023 on European Investment Law and Arbitration Developments

In 2023, major developments took place in the field of investment treaty arbitration. In this Chronicle I have selected a few major developments, which highlight the impact of EU law on international investment law and arbitration practice. The conclusion is that further significant developments can be expected during 2024, which will be covered by this Review. ECT, UNCITRAL Working, Group III, enforcement of awards, CJEU, domestic courts of EU Member States

Discussion Papers - Ciarb at Uncitral Working Group III: Efficiency, Decisions, and Decision-Makers

These Discussion Papers are published to coincide with the commencement of UNCITRAL Working Group III's Phase III examination of potential reforms to the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system. In Phase I, the states identified numerous areas of concern in the ISDS system. In Phase II a consensus was reached that reforms to the ISDS system are desirable. WG III's mandate in Phase III is to develop relevant solutions to the areas of concern identified in Phase I. The issues identified fall under three main themes: efficiency, decisions, and decision makers. Efficiency encompasses concerns surrounding the cost and duration of disputes in ISDS. Decisions refers to the consistency, accuracy, predictability, and validity of the awards rendered in ISDS. Decision makers refers to the arbitrators themselves; who they are and how they are appointed. The purpose of these discussion papers is to present a basic overview of the issues under discussion in each thematic area and to show the varying and often opposing views that delegates must consider. These papers are designed to inform rather than persuade and to provide a starting point for meaningful conversations on ISDS reform among CIArb stakeholders.

Electronic Contracts and E-Mediation in EU Law: Time for the EU to Extend E-Mediation for the Benefit of SMEs in B2B Transactions?

The article focuses on mediation and e-mediation in electronic contracts with the aim to explore the possibilities of SMEs to use e-mediation for low value electronic contracts in B2B cross-border transactions. It first analyzes soft law instruments at the international level pointing out at the work of UNCITRAL, and the work of International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) ADR Center. It then presents the successful EU legislation on mediation in civil and commercial disputes (Directive 2008/52/EC) and e-mediation in consumer disputes (Directive 2013/11/EU on ADR for Consumer Disputes and Regulation (EU) 524/2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes). The position taken in the article is that the ODR platform should be extended to SMEs in electronic contracts in B2B relations. Indeed, the recent Commission proposal of April 26, 2018 on an EU Regulation on providers of electronic intermediary services (platform operators), which will establish fair and transparent general contract terms, demonstrates the need for mediation in B2B contracts. This need is also reflected in the recent initiatives of UNCITRAL for mediation in e-commerce that will be discussed in October 2018. The article ends with arguments that since the EU has adopted the general legislative framework as early as 2008 and has established the ODR platform, the EU has to extend e-mediation as a cost-effective and expeditious method for dispute settlement of electronic contracts for the benefit of SMEs in order to achieve the Digital Single Market.

Investor to State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Mechanisms: A Comparison of Evolving Legal Approaches in Brazilian and Latin American with the European Union

Investor to State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Mechanisms: A Comparison of Evolving Legal Approaches in Brazilian and Latin American with the European Union

UNCITRAL's Model Law on International and Commercial Arbitration: Present Situation and Future

UNCITRAL's MODEL Law on Arbitration (ML) was a great success.1 In the 20 years that have elapsed since its recommendation by the General Assembly of the UN in its Resolution of 15 December 1985, some 50 states from all parts of the world have adopted the ML for their national arbitration legislation. The ML was conceived for international commercial arbitration, but a large number of states adopted the ML also for domestic arbitration.2 In 2000, UNCITRAL embarked on a revision of the ML and established a Working Group to prepare this revision. This was preceded by a Note of its Secretariat of 6 April 1999 on Possible Future Work of UNCITRAL in the Field of International Commercial Arbitration.3 This Note mentions 13 topics for consideration. Three topics were given priority: conciliation, interim measures of protection and the written form of the arbitration agreement. For conciliation a remarkably quick result has been reached. In three sessions a new Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation was achieved. It was recommended by the General Assembly of the UN on 19 November 2002.4 On the two other topics, art. 17 on interim measures of protection and art. 7 which requires ‘in writing’ for the arbitration agreement, no final solution has as yet been reached. The revision of the ML will not be ended when, as may be expected in 2006, agreement has been reached on the two other topics which were given priority. Thereafter, the 10 topics mentioned in the Secretariat's Note of 6 April 1999 remain. They will be discussed in section II(A)–(J) infra . However, first of all a survey of all articles of the ML will be given in section I. A revision of the ML would, in my opinion, not be complete if no attention were …

Has the Moment Come to Revise the Arbitration Rules of UNCITRAL?

When writing my new edition of “The Work of UNCITRAL on Arbitration and Conciliation”1 it struck me that, as far as I know, no publications have appeared suggesting modification of UNCITRAL's Arbitration Rules of 1976. Arbitration Rules, whether those of the ICC, LCIA or AAA, etc., are from time to time modified. I do not know of any set of well known Arbitration Rules which were left unchanged for a period of almost 30 years as is the case with the Arbitration Rules of UNCITRAL. In this article I will deal with the question whether the time has come for a modification of these Rules. At this moment it is not the Rules but UNCITRAL's Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (MAL) that is under revision. Many of the provisions of the MAL (1985) are based on the Rules of 1976. However, there are differences in formulation. In my opinion these differences should be eliminated. The Rules should be in harmony with the MAL. This may already be a reason for a revision of the Rules. There is, however, more. The revision of the MAL may also in some cases be a reason for the review of the Rules. This applies already to the three topics which have been given priority in the revision process of the MAL. These are Conciliation which already resulted in the appearance, in 2002, of UNCITRAL's Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation, but may also apply to the other two which still are under discussion at UNCITRAL: the “in writing” requirement in art. 7 MAL and the issue of “enforcement of interim measures of protection” of art. 17 MAL. The current revision of the MAL may thus lead to a revision of the Rules as well. A further reason for revision of the Rules …

Bibliography of Recent Writings Related to the Work of UNCITRAL

Bibliography of Recent Writings Related to the Work of UNCITRAL