The UNCITRAL Model Law

Taking this into consideration, dealing with external activities of a state, international law has extensive latitude. In Article 38 (1) of the Statue of the International Court of Justice, the following sources of international law are acknowledged: (a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting States; (b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; (c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; (d) ... judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law (36). Sources having a technical meaning related to the law making process and must not be confused with information sources, research sources or bibliographies on international law (35). Rules expressed and recognized by consenting states are referred to as treaties and/or conventions. Treaties are codified agreements established by consenting states as means of resolving a dispute or to recognize mutual interests. Since treaties are codified, they are favored over customary law; therefore, becoming a vital part of building a more stable foundation for international law. States are required to meet their international obligations as well as formulate efforts to

This article also examines the meaning and implementation of universal jurisdiction. For no sanction mechanisms have been created to induce them, without their consent, to abide by their obligations, until now only the goodwill of states could be relied on to guarantee their implementation in good faith. Before ending with some possible remedies to minimize potential

Kolkey, D. M., Chernick, R., & Neal, B. R. (2012). Practitioners handbook on international arbitration and mediation (3rd ed.). Huntington: JurisNet.

In the instant action, there is no colorable argument that fewer than all Plaintiffs cannot be compelled to arbitrate. Indeed, Plaintiffs—by their own account—all function interchangeably; thus critically undermining their claim that the arbitration provision cannot be enforced against all of them. (Dk. 1, pp. 1 n.1, at 7-9 (“Plaintiffs will be referred to collectively as “XALT” . . . “XALT and HK conduct Critical Negotiations”). Moreover, all the Plaintiffs participated in intricate trans-pacific negotiations, and all the Plaintiffs were intended to benefit from the agreement. While the quantum of evidence necessary to establish the consent required to enforce an arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 202 is exceedingly minimal. The degree of involvement—as

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

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.

Despite the fact, that the idea behind the procedural public policy concerns only arbitration proceedings itself, still the concept has to be scrutinized. Reference to the arbitral proceeding makes is understandable that procedural public policy deducts from the principle of due process . Though, there exist affirmation whether procedural public policy overlaps with the Article 1 of the New York Convention or whether this constitutes more than any breach of due process should not be a breach of public policy. According to the authors point of view, it has not sense to restrict the due process only to cases, such as lack of proper notification or lack of arbitrators’ qualification. Failure to present facts of the should not automatically form a breach of due process and also breach of procedural public policy.

Jurisdiction refers to the authority that courts have in order to have the ability to try cases and make verdicts. The importance of jurisdiction in international courts cannot be stressed enough. It is essential to have proper jurisdiction so that every international case is reviewed carefully and fairly. Many issues are present in this area such as the failure of cooperation between nations along with the failure of nations to create a proper process for the jurisdiction in international courts. Another pressing issue would be exercising of jurisdiction by two countries with failure to recognize which country has jurisdiction.

As our society becomes more and more globalized, international relations have become a necessity. However, cooperation on an international level, between different cultures and countries, can be difficult. As a result, nowadays we have such organizations as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the United Nations (UN), and other that unite many countries by common goals such as preventing conflicts and solving existing disputes. Naturally, to fulfill this task there is a need for regulations and laws on an international level that all states are required to abide by. These regulations serve as a sort of “international

Nevertheless, certain categories of ADR have been named and understood to involve the use of particular means and methods to produce the desired end result. These procedures include: negotiation, mediation, arbitration, med-arb, early neutral evaluation, settlement conference and conciliation to name a few. However this essay will concentrate on mediation as a form of alternative dispute resolution.

From this brief history of ADR provisions, it is easy to see the widespread acceptance of ADR in more recent times compared to the hostility that courts expressed toward it early on. The trend of acceptance spread, and in May of 1986, forty-five states had enacted statutes similar to the second Uniform Arbitration Act, enforcing agreements to arbitrate future disputes.

The World Trade Organization (“WTO”) Dispute Settlement System and the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) are two of the most widely used methods of international dispute settlement.

International commercial arbitration is one of the most important legal institutions in international private law. This conclusion follows from the fact that the nature of arbitration depends largely on autonomy of the parties, who choose arbitration procedure as the procedure in which the dispute will be settled; place where the arbitration is to be held; arbitral tribunal etc. Probably the most important and considerable expression of the autonomy is the right to choose the law, which is to be applied to merits of the dispute. The chosen applicable law guarantees in large measure predictability of the outcome of the case and allows parties to control the scope of interpretation and application of the international commercial

ADR is useful in resolving virtually all genres of disputes by providing speedier, enforceable decisions through Arbitration, Mediation, Early Neutral Evaluation and other hybrid mechanisms. The presence of cost-effective and predictable ADR mechanisms capable of resolving complex disputes help to bolster the confidence of litigants within the country and therefore stimulates trade and investment both internationally and locally.