Suchergebnisse

Supply Cases --Work and Material Cases --Construction Cases --Consulting Engineering --Distributing Cases --Tourism Cases --Freightage Cases --Investment Cases --Works Contracts --Commrercial Business Sale Cases --Lease Contract --Sale and Lease Cases --Commercial Agency Software Contract --Management Contract Cases --Insurance Cases --Maritime Cases.

Examines the approach of Ghana's Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2010 to the question of arbitrability. Reflects on the concept of arbitrability under international law, the relevant trends emerging from case law, and the approach adopted by the Ghanaian High Court in Attorney General v Balkan Energy LLC. Reviews the Act's arbitrability exemptions, their implications for international arbitration in Ghana, the potential jurisdictional challenges under the legislation and how its provisions could be amended to increase its conformity with international trends on arbitrability.

As a requirement for LLM (International Business & Commercial Law), School of Law, University of Bedfordshire ; Concept of arbitration has been prevalent, historically, in the Middle East since the early days of Islam. The arbitral process has been problematic in the UAE however, it has not been until recently that the UAE has recognized the importance of arbitration as a powerful dispute resolution alternative and revised its legislation to accommodate the proceedings of domestic and international arbitration. In the past, foreign investors have been reluctant to select the UAE seat for their arbitration proceedings. There has been a perception that, as a general rule, the practice of international commercial arbitration in the Middle East is still in its infancy. The UAE is now demonstrating to the international community that it has the necessary infrastructure and laws in place to successfully count itself as one of the key arbitration players, alongside London, Paris and Hong Kong. This has been the result of the UAE updating their laws, reforming dispute resolution practice and procedures and through the establishment of key regional arbitration centres. The UAE's accession to the New York Convention was also seen as a significant step in demonstrating the UAE's commitment to foreign investors and the international community. Under Federal Decree No. 43 of 2006, the UAE managed to accede to the New York Convention. The UAE's accession is considered as a mile stone towards provision for a more straightforward arbitral process and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in other Convention states. As a recent development, the UAE has evidenced the joint venture between the Dubai International Financial Centre ('the DIFC') and the London Court of International Arbitration ('the LCIA'), in February 2009, to create the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre ('the DIFC~LCIA'). The DIFC-LCIA operates alongside the longer-established Dubai International Arbitration Centre ('the DlAC'). Both offer their own procedural rules and regulations for the amicable settlement of disputes through arbitration. The Courts role is vital in an arbitral proceeding in any jurisdiction. Although arbitration is believed as a court-free, independent forum for dispute resolution; the court plays fundamental role to ensure that the arbitral proceeding is taking place in a moderate and independent decorum. The UAE Court's role towards the International commercial arbitration has been very problematic and the courts historically used to intervene in the arbitral proceeding over tiny issues. The new UAE arbitration laws has changed the situation and curtailed the courts powers to interfere the arbitral proceeding. At present, the arbitration in the UAE is more independent and straightforward. The proposed UAE arbitration law has much more similarities with the Model Law UNCITRAL and meets the International standards. A lot of work still has to be done in order to make the arbitration more independent, straightforward and friendly in the UAB. The Court's role is vital and is required to be more supportive then it is at present in the arbitral process.

This article seeks to trace the historical origin of arbitration as it is currently practised in South Africa. The resort to alternative dispute resolution methods has existed since time immemorial. The practice of arbitration was identified in the Bible when it was practised by King Solomon. South African traditional communities practised arbitration before the arrival of Western nations in South Africa, who brought with them their norms and practices. The community entrusted the responsibility of resolving disputes amicably to the headman, the Chief or the King. The practice of traditional alternative disputes resolution was disrupted by colonialism, which introduced Roman-Dutch law and subsequently English law influences. The aim of the parties under both Roman-Dutch law and English law was to steer their disputes away from courtrooms with their rigid rules and procedures. Hence the resort to arbitration. Through the passage of time, the parties lost respect for arbitration. Judicial intervention became a necessary tool to enforce the agreement to arbitrate or the subsequent award. A concern was raised in some quarters regarding the South African arbitration legislation that stagnated in 1965 when it was enacted. The sophisticated legal system and the impartial and independent judiciary, provided a strong support to arbitration and its autonomy. The firm judicial support did not detract from the necessity for a complete overhaul of the arbitration prescript, which might position South Africa as the hub of commercial arbitration in Africa and globally. The enactment of the International Arbitration Act, 2017 marked a great milestone towards achieving that goal. Arbitration is embedded in the fabric of South African commercial dispute resolution.

AbstractThis article examines the recent development of mainland Chinese law and judicial practice regarding the law applicable to arbitration agreements. It identifies potential changes to mainland Chinese law and practice that may help to further develop the People's Republic of China (PRC) into a truly international-arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. It argues that in the absence of explicit statutory provisions and a consistent approach in the People's Courts to the determination of the place of arbitration and the law applicable to arbitration agreements, it is important for parties negotiating arbitration clauses with a seat in China and/or for contracts involving mainland Chinese elements to explicitly designate the place of arbitration as well as the law governing their arbitration agreements.