Center for International Investment and Commercial Arbitration (CIICA), Young Arbitration Group (YAG)的动态

In her recent blog post, Krystal Lee (LALIVE) has provided an overview of the considerations and implications of taking witness evidence by video in arbitration and litigation. ???? Krystal discusses the case of Martin v Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, where the English court denied a request for a #witness to testify via video despite the apparent convenience and available technology. The court emphasised the importance of physical presence for certain cases, especially when witness testimony is central to the proceedings. ? The post extends this discussion to #arbitration, where tribunals have broad discretion but must balance fairness with practicality. Krystal notes that while the use of videoconferencing is likely to increase with advancements in technology, there are still instances where in-person testimony is necessary for #justice. She suggests that the International Bar Association might offer guidance on when remote evidence is appropriate in international arbitration. ?? Krystal's insights remind us that while #remote hearings are becoming more common and offer numerous benefits, each case requires careful consideration to ensure fairness and the effective administration of justice. #internationalarbitration #litigation #disputeresolution

?? ICDR Conference 2024: Opening Remarks In an impactful opening address at the ICDR Conference 2024, Tejas Karia, FCIArb , Partner and Head of Arbitration Practice at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co, explored the evolving landscape of international arbitration in India. He underscored recent legislative efforts and the creation of the Arbitration Bar of India, noting that “We are on the cusp of entering the international arbitration arena.” ? Advancing Institutional Arbitration to Address Delays Tejas highlighted the critical role of institutional arbitration, calling it “the need of the day” and urging stakeholders to adopt global best practices. This shift, he argued, is vital to strengthen India’s arbitration ecosystem, attract investment, and enhance India’s standing as a trusted arbitration hub. ? Embracing Technology and AI in Arbitration Tejas emphasized the importance of technology, saying, “Artificial intelligence is not just a precursor to the future—it is the present.” He pointed to AI's role in live transcription, video conferencing, and document management as essential for making arbitration faster and more cost-effective. ? Empowering Emergency Arbitration In a significant development, Tejas introduced the new “Section 9A” provision in the Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, which grants emergency arbitrators court-like authority for interim measures. This statutory recognition aims to make emergency arbitration in India both feasible and enforceable. Closing with a call for global standards and collaboration, Tejas envisioned a future where India plays a leading role in international arbitration. His remarks set an inspiring tone for the conference and for India’s ambitions as an arbitration hub. American Arbitration Association International Centre for Dispute Resolution? (ICDR) #Arbitrate #Mediate JSA Khaitan & Co Osborne Partners Ltd Rajah & Tann Asia Sagus Legal Trilegal SCC Online TERES Indian Women in International Arbitration

I am thrilled to share that my recent paper, co-authored with Zhixing L., has been published in Arbitration International, a journal hosted by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). This publication is the culmination of months of research and collaboration. Our paper explores the Chinese courts’ position with respect to the arbitrability of dissolution-related disputes, which is a common area of difference in Sino-foreign joint venture disputes. We hope our findings contribute valuable insights to this jurisprudence and foster further discussion and research. If you’re interested in reading our paper, you can access it through the link below (subscription to the journal needed).

Here is something for you to start your Monday with a #digitalcoffeebreakinarbitration. "When Virtual Doesn’t Cut It: Lessons from the English Courts" by Krystal Lee from LALIVE Krystal explains that taking witness evidence by video is increasingly common due to its cost and time efficiencies, particularly affirmed during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the case of Martin v Herbert Smith Freehills LLP (decision now available) underscores that remote evidence-taking is not always ideal, highlighting concerns about control and fairness when the evidence is central to the case. The English court emphasized the need for in-person testimony to ensure justice, suggesting that while technology for remote hearings improves, there are instances where physical presence is necessary. This case serves as a reminder for arbitration practitioners to balance convenience with fairness in evidence-taking. Find the full article here: https://lnkd.in/dCbQ88Tw

"With power comes responsibility; with AI comes speed and accuracy, but no responsibility attributable to AI itself. The responsibility lies solely with those who wrote the code or those who hired them to write the code. AI is then beholden to the algorithm whose instructions it diligently and tirelessly follows, instructions encoded by humans." In my latest blog post, I have discussed how the fundamental feature of any dispute resolution mechanism in general and international arbitration in particular is how fair and just it is. This raises the question of whether dissatisfaction with the fairness of the AI procedures or the outcomes is more likely and whether parties to a dispute would trade off thoughtful human deliberation and judgment for AI’s time and cost-efficiency and presumably impartial analysis and decision.

Arbitration is private and confidential. On the other hand, arbitral seats and institutions are vocal, public and often highly competitive. Arbitral institutions and seats depend on the oxygen of publicity to market their?track records, highlight their responsiveness, and showcase their quality of service. This means they constantly need something distinct to talk about. This is partly why the arbitration world is obsessed with webinars, seminars, panels, conferences, arbitration weeks, etc. This also drives a cycle of innovation and differentiation, where institutions and seats try to gain an edge by adopting new rules, practices, procedures, and laws. Because everything is public and talked about constantly, clever innovations tend to spread around the world. They are copied/adapted by other arbitration seats and rules. As a result, seats and institutions have to find a new advantage. Newer seats and institutions tend to innovate and adapt faster because they are always looking for new advantages. At the same time, new seats/institutions are springing up worldwide. In Asia, many now claim to be credible seats/institutions to resolve disputes. These new seats/institutions increase the market's competitiveness and accelerate the pace of transformation. The more established seats/institutions trading on their reputation, history and strong arbitral roots need to look in the rearview mirror and see if they need to adapt. So, this is the paradox of modern-day arbitration: it is highly confidential by nature for the parties, yet the survival of its seats/institutions depends on being seen as staying ahead in a highly competitive and transparent market. ____ If you want more of these insights sign up for my newsletter: https://lnkd.in/g_mQDNGB ____

In Season 4, Episode 2 of ARBinBRIEF, moderated by Emily Hay, Angela (Yao) Lin and Hanna Roos explored the transformative impact of AI on international arbitration. Join us for Episode 3, ‘Front-Loaded Arbitration,’ featuring Alexandra Johnson (Partner, Pestalozzi Attorneys at Law) and Naomi Briercliffe (Partner, Squire Patton Boggs), who will dive into the nuances of front-loaded procedures in arbitration. Moderated by Deniz ?zy?ld?z Gedik (AKINCI LAW OFFICE), the panel will discuss: ?? When arbitrators might apply front-loaded procedures? ?? Incorporating these procedures into Procedural Orders? ?? Balancing front-loaded procedures with a party’s right to be heard? ?? Exceptions where arbitrators might deviate from standard protocols Don’t miss the chance to gain insights from industry leaders and deepen your understanding of front-loaded arbitration strategies! ?? Date: 6 November 2024? ?? Time: 11:00 AM CET? ?? Register here: https://lnkd.in/dGxck6Dc Looking forward to seeing you there! ?? American Arbitration Association International Centre for Dispute Resolution? (ICDR) #Arbitrate #Mediate?

Hello hello! Continuing our insightful discussion on arbitration, I'd like to shed light on the importance of confidentiality in arbitration proceedings. According to Section 41A of the Malaysian Arbitration Act 2005, parties are expressly prohibited from publishing, disclosing, or communicating any information regarding arbitration proceedings or awards without mutual agreement. Further emphasizing this confidentiality, Section 41B specifies that court proceedings under the Act are not to be conducted in open court unless specifically requested by a party or deemed necessary by the Court. Based on the above, it can be seen that the nature of arbitration is in contrast to the public nature of court proceedings, where judgments are widely published, and documents are readily accessible online, arbitration operates under a veil of privacy. Unlike open court hearings, where anyone can observe the proceedings, arbitration is a private process solely involving the disputing parties. That wraps up this brief insight for now, see ya!! ????

Annotation to Kammergericht Berlin’s decision dated 1 June 2023 I’m happy to share that my annotation regarding the Higher Regional Court of Berlin's (Kammergericht Berlin (KG)) decision dated 1 June 2023 has been published in the German Arbitration Journal (SchiedsVZ). The decisions is dealing with an application of Sec. 1032(2) German Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) by German applicants to an (anticipated) arbitration proceeding seated in Vienna under the VIAC rules. The applicants have sought to establish the admissibility of the arbitration, which had not yet been filed then, in order to address a Russian court proceeding that was lodged by the respondents, despite the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. The KG affirmed the validity of the arbitration agreement as well as the admissibility of future arbitration proceedings despite provisions in the Russian Arbitrazh Code that undermine international arbitration agreements (Art. 248.1 and 248.2). In my annotation, I discuss i.a. the KG’s finding regarding the necessity for a (minimal) connection to Germany for applications under § 1032(2) CCP, which highlights the court’s effort to balance the provision’s aim for procedural efficiency vis-a-vis a perception of a wide-reaching ?global authority“ that may have been interpreted in the provision. You can find the decision here: SchiedsVZ, 2024, 218 (220) https://lnkd.in/evJCx53K

Join my colleagues, Owen Durnin & Rostislav Kats in Amsterdam at the Dutch Arbitration Day and learn about Kluwer Arbitration, https://lnkd.in/e7q4zaei, the unrivalled and indispensable solution for International Commercial & Investment Arbitration. #internationalarbitration #adr #arbitration #arbitrationconference #disputeresolution #arbitrationlaw