Analyzing International Arbitration

2(a). Are there any differences between the arguments of the English Court of Appeal and the Singapore High Court in determining the proper law to the arbitration agreement?

Since November 2015, after Justice Marks vacated the RSDCs previous decision, the Nationals have attempted to compel MASN to return to arbitration before the RSDC. The Nationals claimed that a footnote in the Justice’ decision meant that MASN needed to submit to arbitration if the Nationals just changed their lawyers. On the other hand, MASN felt that the sides should agree to submit this case before a different arbitral body and thereby avoid the appeals process. Failing this, MASN wanted its appeal to be heard before a second arbitration case would be heard before the RSDC.

Cooley, J. W., & Lubet, S. (2003). Arbitration Advocacy (2nd ed.). Notre Dame, IN: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.

Finally, based on common law, the principle of comity and equity may oblige the courts to recognize foreign arbitral award, regardless where the arbitration was seated. The US Courts

international courts and tribunals may achieve limited success in some areas of the world, it

- International law organization participation: [Accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with reservations; accepts the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court]. (1)

The traditional establishment of the ad hoc tribunals formed as a permanent “Court of Arbitration”, this organ so formed was under the League of Nations which was later replaced by The International Court of Justice after the World War II [1].

In evaluating the legality of an arbitration clause, the court examines the nature of the provision as it relates to both irrevocable statutory rights and private agreements between the employer and employee. To invalidate an arbitration provision on the basis of

One of the foundations of arbitration is that awards rendered are final and not subject to appeal before the courts. In this respect, Article 5 of the UNCITRAL Model Law provides for minimal intervention, and says, “In matters governed by this Law, no court shall intervene except where so provided in this Law“. As a result, the grounds upon which a court may set aside an award or refuse to recognize and enforce the same are limited. Article 34 of the Model Law and Article V of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provide the restrictive grounds for such relief.

Most countries have adopted or have put in place court structures that hear out different matters or rather a court structure that have different jurisdictions over different matters. At a time where a lot of stuff is happening in the world and more especially matters regarding and requiring legal determination, it only reasonable to have in place court structures that will determine the issues that might be at hand. In recent times, most countries and even states that do not have the different court structures in place have seen the need of having them in place which is why moves and steps are being made to see to

Arbitration is legal technique used to resolve any disputes outside of the courts. Arbitration allows for speedy and cheap resolution of any disputes, the parties involved in a dispute agree to appoint a third person (arbitrator) who will hear their testimonies, and look into the evidence they provide. The arbitrator's decision cannot be challenged in a law court as it is considered final and the parties involved have to accept the decision (Brams & Merrill, 1986). There are only very limited circumstances where the decision of an arbitrator can be challenged, and this is mostly if there can be proof from one of the parties showing that the arbitrator was biased in their decision or ruling. The chosen arbitrator will be an experienced person in the area of the dispute.

Considering the countries limited resources and financial strength, the trends in the ICSID arbitration is concerning for Sierra Leone not only because of the quantum of the awards but the arbitration costs. On

An important reason for this popularity is that States have consented in advance to compulsory dispute settlement by the WTO and also, but to a lesser extent, by ICSID arbitration. In the case of the WTO it is the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding that confers compulsory jurisdiction on the WTO Dispute Settlement System; while in the case of ICSID a large number of States have consented in advance to ICSID jurisdiction over their disputes with investors by means of express provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties. Moreover, an important additional reason for the widespread use of ICSID as a forum for international dispute settlement is that investors – who are in effect the substantive rights holders under Bilateral Investment Treaties – are often given the right to institute ICSID arbitration directly against the host State.

According to Article 31 of the Vienna Convention,“a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose”. Moreover, the Claimant cannot use the procedural mechanism while not fulfilling the economic purpose of the treaty. A Similar logic was applied in the Saluka v. The Czech Republic. Therefore, the access method to international arbitration is fall outside the scope of the usual meaning of this term.

Firstly, the choice of law applicable to the substance of the dispute which the parties have made can be either express or implied and if such choice took place the arbitrators have to apply it. Without any indications concerning choice of applicable law, an arbitral tribunal has to determine such law through the searching of proper