• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.53-74
• /
• 2019

Due to the increasingly popular dissatisfaction regarding the inefficiency of arbitral proceedings, the Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration, also known as the Prague Rules, was launched in December 2018, with the purpose of increasing the efficiency of arbitral proceedings by encouraging arbitral tribunals to take a more proactive role in conducting their procedures. In this article, the provisions of the Prague Rules are examined, in light of those of the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, in order to determine the efficacy of the Prague Rules on enhancing the efficiency in arbitral proceedings. The author concludes that more specific and detailed provisions, with respect to what the Rules means by such a "proactive arbitral tribunal," should have been explicitly included in light of the Rules' repeated emphasis on such. Also, the prospective outlook on the Prague Rules is not entirely clear as the text does not appear to fill in the gaps in other widely utilized arbitration rules or to supplement them in a satisfying way. However, given that only a short amount of time has passed since the launch late last year, only time will reveal how effective the Prague Rules will be in increasing the efficiency of arbitral proceedings, in accordance with its intended effect.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.137-163
• /
• 2018

Efficiency in the arbitration proceedings and finality of arbitral awards have been key attractive features of arbitration. While finality of awards is due to the fact that there is no appeals mechanism in arbitration, other recourses that are available against arbitral awards threaten the integrity of finality of arbitral awards. This article examines some of these recourses, such as, setting aside of arbitral awards pursuant to the UNCITRAL Model Law, scrutiny of draft awards by arbitration institutions, and annulment proceedings of ICSID Convention awards and discusses the implications of these measures in relation to assuring finality of arbitral awards in international commercial and investment arbitration cases. In order to more effectively respect the disputing parties' autonomy in choosing arbitration, and also to give as much deference to arbitral tribunals' decisions and their discretion in reaching their decisions, it is proposed that an official appellate mechanism would be preferred over the undermining of finality of arbitral awards that have been taking place through the currently available exclusive recourses against arbitral awards.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.26
• /
• pp.225-253
• /
• 2005

Nowadays we does not hesitate to definite answer that the arbitration is the most developed dispute settlement out of court in the international commercial transaction. Online arbitration is desirable for the reasons of speed and cost effectiveness to settle the dispute about the international commercial transaction. Online arbitration is fast because it uses the communication technologies that allow information to be sent fast and efficiently. But in online arbitration too much speed and efficiency may lead to a violation of due process rights and consequently the online arbitration awards run a risk to be set aside or refused its enforcement under the international commercial arbitration mechanism. Speed and efficiency may conflict with the procedural guarantee characterizing each adversary dispute resolution process. As arbitration is exclusive of recourse to courts, a state must guarantee that arbitral proceeding should be satisfied with the claim rights requirement. The main question regarding the sources of regulation is particularly for the due process whether or not this is provided by the availability of grounds to set arbitral award aside. In other words, does it respect due process in the arbitration proceeding including information communication and technology under the online arbitration. In this paper it is discussed about how the main issue in arbitration should be implemented in online arbitration proceedings to cope with the due process requirements in national and international.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.125-169
• /
• 2014

In France, arbitration, both domestic and international, has recently been subjected to a major reform. This article discusses the content of the 2011 reform and its aftermath, while putting into perspective the current arbitration act in South Korea, an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction that contemplates reforming its own law. The two legal systems are characterized by their concern for efficiency and rationalization of the arbitration proceedings, through the codification of essential principles previously established by case law and through the promotion of the independence of this ADR vis-$\grave{a}$-vis state courts. The efficiency consideration is strengthened at every stage of the proceedings: from the arbitration agreement often considered valid and rarely challenged, through the proceedings for annulment, recognition and enforcement of the award, up to the judicial assistance of the French supporting judge towards the actual arbitral proceedings. Finally, new concerns are emerging: the increase of transparency and the arbitrability of disputes in some uncertain fields of law.