Newsletter Subscribe
Home View Cart My Account
Go
A Product Priority Code is a product's three or four digit identification number that will navigate you directly to that product’s page. To receive product priority codes and associated product discount coupons, sign up for our mailing list.

International Arbitration Court Decisions - Third Edition

 
Price:
$325.00
ISBN: 978-1-933833-73-6
Author: Stephen Bond and Frédéric Bachand, Editors
Page Count: 2,134
Published: June 2011
Media Desc: 1 Hardcover Volume. Index.
Qty:
 
 
Standing order/subscription titles are automatically supplemented with critical updates, supplements, and/or new editions. Having a standing order/subscription allows these updates to be sent to you automatically on a 30-day, risk-free trial basis. Make sure you have the latest up to date information available!

If a standing order/subscription is not desired you must write 'No Standing Order' in the special instructions box upon checkout.
Eligible for Free Standard Shipping on U.S. Prepaid Orders Eligible for Free Standard Shipping on U.S. Prepaid Orders
Description

To view the Digital version, Click Here.


About the Book:
The International Arbitration Court Decisions - 3rd Edition gives the reader extracts from significant court decisions in the area of international arbitration. Covering more than twenty different jurisdictions, the decisions are commented on by distinguished arbitrators, lawyers, justices and other legal professionals.

This book is a must for any practitioner seeking insights into the major issues in international arbitration and into the attitudes of courts on arbitration matters worldwide. The practitioner is presented with several points of view in the "Observations", making this volume a welcome addition to any legal library.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD

AUSTRALIA
Sea Containers Ltd v. ICT Pty Ltd, Judgment of the New
South Wales Court of Appeal rendered in 2002 in case [2002]
NSWCA 84
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Misconduct of arbitrators.
Observations by Frank Bannon and Mathew Stulic
 

AUSTRIA
B*** Bank Ag v. Prof Dr. K and Prof Dr. F and
Manfred S v. Chamber of Commerce of Austria in Vienna and two parties
in support of the Respondent: S*** GmbH, and S*** s.r.o., Czech Republic
Decisions from the Austrian Supreme Court rendered in June 2005 in
Case No 9 Ob 126/04a and in November 2006 in Case No 6 Ob 207/06v
("The B-Bank and Manfred S cases")
SUBJECT-MATTER:
The nature of the relationship between parties of an arbitration
and the arbitrators.
Observations by Fatima-Zahra Slaoui
Observations by Gerold Zeiler
Observations by Frank Bannon and Mathew Stulic 
 

BELGIUM
SNF SAS (France) v. CYTEC INDUSTRIE (Holland)
Decision by the First Instance Court of Brussels rendered on
8 March 2007 in Case No 2005/ 7721/ A ("The Belgian SNF Case")
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Whether and arbitral award should be set-aside on the ground that
the award violated public policy consisting of EC Competition Law
(Article 81 of the EC Treaty [Article 101 Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union ("TFEU")]).
 

CANADA
SJO Catlin & Others Syndicate Nos. 1003 and 2003 Lloyd's of
London, et al. v. Jardin Lloyd Thomson Canada Inc. et al.,
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta rendered on
18 January 2006 in Case 2006 ABCA 18 ("The Jardine Case")
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Whether the assistance that an arbitral tribunal may request from a
court in taking evidence, pursuant to Article 27 of the UNCITRAL
Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, as implemented
In Alberta, can include compelling the pre-hearing oral examination
for discovery of third party witnesses.
Observations by Henri Alvarez
Observations by Janet E. Mills

Dell Computer Corporation v. Union des consommateurs and Olivier
Dumoulin, Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Québec rendered
on May 30, 2005 in Case [2005] R.J.Q. 1448 (On Appeal
Before The Supreme Court of Canada)
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Whether an arbitration clause found in a consumer contract concluded on the
Internet can affect the jurisdiction of Québec courts over a class action.
Observations by Frédéric Bachand

Stefan Kanitz, Hugh Wallis, Richard Pearce, James Carnegie and
John R. Wilson v. Rogers Cable Inc., Judgment of the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice rendered in 2002 in case [2002]
O.J. No. 665
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Electronic commerce. Whether a contract might be amended - and an
arbitration clause included - through the posting of a website notice.
(2) Whether the arbitration agreement was invalid because it was
unconscionable.
Observations by Bradley J. Freedman and Edward C. Chiasson

Yugraneft Corporation v. Rexx Management Corporation, Decision by the
Alberta Court of Appeal rendered on August 5, 2008 in Case No 0701-0230-AC
("Yugraneft Corporation vs. Rexx Management Corporation")
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
Limitation period governing application seeking the recognition and
enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.
Observations by Gerald W. Ghikas

Smart System Technologies Inc. v. Domotique Secant Inc., Decision by the Court
of Appeal of Quebec rendered on March 11, 2008 in Case No 500-09-016097-
057 ("Smart Systems Technologies Inc. vs. Domotique Secant Inc.")
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
Whether a foreign award should be denied recognition and enforcement on
the grounds that it was unreasoned, that the arbitrators exceeded their
jurisdiction and that one of the arbitrators improper communicated with one
of the parties. Whether the respondent is estopped from resisting the
application on the ground that it failed to challenge the award before the
courts of the seat of arbitration.
 

CHINA
B company (People's Republic of China) v. JV company (People's Republic
of China) and HK company (People's Republic of China), Judgments on
Jurisdiction by Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court rendered on
13 September 2001 and Beijing High People's
Court rendered on 12 December 2001
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Jurisdiction--Whether a contract between a joint venture and one party to the
joint venture, which has no arbitration clause, shall be subject to the
arbitration clause of the joint venture contract.
Observations by Ping Liu
 

Contestarshipping Company Limited of Cyprus (Cyprus) v. Sinotrans
Guangdong Zhangjiang Company (P.R. China), Decision by the Guangzhou
Maritime Court, P.R. China, rendered in 1998
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Law applicable to decide properness of notice of the arbitration
proceedings under Article V.1 b) of the New York Convention
(2) Authority to conclude the contract containing the arbitration clause
(public policy)
(3) Party to the arbitral award to be recognized and enforced, English
name of Chinese party
Observations by Ping Liu
 

DENMARK
KVM Industrimaskiner A/S (Denmark) v. Construction Action
Vale Ltd (Canada), Maître J. (Chairman of the arbitral
tribunal), Professor L (arbitrator), and Judge H (arbitrator)
Decision by the Danish Western Court of Appeal rendered on
27 January 2004 in case B-21717-00
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Challenge of the amount of arbitrators' fee fixed by the
arbitrators in an international ad hoc arbitration.
(2) VAT on arbitrators' fees.
Observations by Ole Spiermann
 

Republic of Latvia v. SwemBalt Aktiebolag, Decision of the Maritime and
Commercial Court, Copenhagen rendered in 2003 in case S-22-01
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Challenge of an arbitral award rendered under the Agreement between
Sweden and Latvia on the Promotion and Reciprocal of Investments,
SÖ 1992:93 (the "BIT"); question whether there was an investment in the
meaning of the BIT.
(2) Ne bis in idem where two requests for arbitration made.
(3) Whether a Swedish court judgment declaring the award valid is also valid in
Denmark pursuant to Article 26 of the European Court Convention.
Observations by Christoph Liebscher
 

EGYPT
El Motahidah Company for Trade and Contracting (Egypt) v.
The President of The Republic (Egypt), The Prime Minister (Egypt),
The President of The Legislative Committee of The People's
Assembly (Egypt) and Shell Company for Marketing, Judgment
of The Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt rendered on
9 May, 2004 in Case No. 15 of the Judicial Year 24
(The "El Motahidah v. Shell Case")
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Whether the Egyptian Arbitration Law violates the constitutional
principle that a party is entitled to litigate on two levels by giving
the court of appeal exclusive jurisdiction over actions for setting
aside arbitral awards.
(2) Whether the Egyptian Arbitration Law violates the constitutional
principle of equality by providing for disparate treatment of parties
resorting to arbitration and those resorting to litigation.
Observations by Dr. M.I.M. Aboul-Enein 
 

Khatib Petroleum Services International Co. v. Care Construction Co. (CC);
and Care Service Co. (CS), Judgment by Egypt's Court of Cassation rendered
in June 2004 in Case No. 4729 of the Judicial Year 72 ("The Group of
companies doctrine in Egyptian Law")
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
Extension of the arbitration agreement to a non-signatory company, in domestic
proceedings, based on criteria of economic unity and identity of economic
management; the extent to which theories of extension in groups of companies
are in conformity with Egyptian Law.
Observations by Dr. Karim Youssef 
 

ENGLAND
(HOUSE OF LORDS)

Lafarge Redlands Aggregates Ltd v. Shepard Hill Civil Engineering Ltd,
Judgment of the House of Lords rendered in 2000 in case [2002]
1 W.L.R. 1621
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
Multi-party arbitration. Whether a contractor can rely on tri-partite
arbitration arrangements to avoid or delay arbitration with a
sub-contractor.
I.C.E. 5th Edition (June 1973) Standard form of Contract for Civil
Engineering Works and the F.C.E.C. Standard Form of Sub-Contract
(September 1984 Edition) (the "Blue Form").
Observations by Stewart Shackleton
 

(COURT OF APPEAL)
Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (Canada) and American Phoenix Life
and Reassurance Co. (USA) and Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance
Co. (USA) v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Co (USA), Judgment by
the Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal (Civil Division),
England rendered in 2004 in Case [2004] EWCA Civ. 1660
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Issue estoppel (estoppel by res judicata) created by an arbitral award in
another arbitration between different parties in a related dispute.
Observations by Salim A. H. Moollan
 

Approved Judgments by The High Court of Justice (1) Case No. [2003]
EWHC 2602 (Comm) (2) Case No. [2002] Ewhc 121 (Comm),
Introduction
(1) Approved Judgment By The High Court of Justice Queens
Bench Division Commercial Court, on 4 February 2004,
In Case No. [2003] EWHC 2602 (Comm), Nisshin Shipping Co
Ltd. v. Cleaves & Company Ltd. and Others
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Permit of a third party to access the arbitration agreement.
(2) Approved Judgment By The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division
Commercial Court, on 4 February 2004, in Case No. [2002] EWHC 121
(Comm), Peterson Farms Inc. v. C & M Farming Limited
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Group of companies' doctrine.
Observations by Michael E. Davis
 

Hussmann (Europe) Limited v. Ahmed Pharaon (formerly trading
as Al Ameen Development and Trade Establishment, Judgment by
The Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
rendered on 4 March 2003 in Case [2003] Ewca Civ 266
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Functus officio of an arbitral tribunal.
Observations by Sarosh R. Zaiwalla
 

Capital Trust Investments Ltd v. Radio Design TJ AB and others,
Judgment of the Court of Appeal rendered in 2002 in case [2002]
Civ 135
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Arbitration clause in an applicant form for the subscription of shares.
(2) Scope of the arbitration agreement.
(3) Waiver under section 9(3) of the English Arbitration Act 1996.
(4) Stay of court action under section 9(4) of the English Arbitration Act
1996.
Observations by David St. John Sutton
 

Union Discount Company Ltd. v. 1. Robert Zoller & others, 2. Union
Cal Ltd., Judgment of the Court of Appeal rendered in 2001 in case [2001]
EWCA Civ 1755
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Costs incurred in foreign jurisdiction. A party was unable to recover costs
in foreign proceedings. Whether party was entitled to recover foreign costs
as damages for breach of exclusive jurisdiction clause in subsequent
proceedings.
Observations by Otto Sandrock
Observations by Jean-Louis Delvolvé
Observations by Claes Zettermarck
 

Veba Oil Supply & Trading GmbH v. Petrotrade Inc., Judgment of
the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) rendered in 2001 in case 1832
SUBJECT-MATTER:
When is an expert's departure from instructions deemed to be material?
Observations by R. Doak Bishop and Richard Deutsch
 

1. AT&T Corporation, 2. Lucent Technologies Inc v. Saudi Cable
Company, Decision of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) rendered
in 2000 in case [2000] EWCA Civ 154 - the "Saudi Cable" case
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) What constitutes bias on the part of an arbitrator?
(2) What constitutes misconduct on the part of an arbitrator?
(3) Whether an arbitral institution's decision on a challenge of an arbitrator
is final.
(4) Whether the arbitrator should be removed and awards set aside on
ground of bias.
Observations by William K. Slate II
Observations by David P. Roney, Viviane Frossard and
Angelina M. Petti
Observations by Stefano Azzali and Benedetta Coppo
 

Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB, Sweden v. Government of the
Republic of Lithuania and AB Geonafta, Lithuania, Decision by the
English Court of Appeal (Civil Division) rendered in 2006 in Case No.
B6/2005/2737
SUBJECT-MATTER:
(1) Where a foreign state, which had agreed in writing to submit a dispute
to arbitration within s.9(1) of the English State Immunity Act 1978,
could claim immunity in respect of English proceedings under s.101(2)
of the Arbitration Act 1996 to enforce a foreign arbitration award.
(2) Contract interpretation under Lithuanian law.
(3) Whether a party that does not challenge an arbitral award at the place of
arbitration within a reasonable time will be precluded from attacking
the award later at the place of enforcement of the award.
Observations by Per Runeland and Julia Zagonek
Observations by William McKechnie
 

John Foster Emmott v. Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd., Decision of the
England and Wales Court of Appeal Rendered 12 March 2008 in case
No. 2007 Folio 1521, ("Emmott v. Michael Wilson & Partners Limited")
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Confidentiality of documents produced for the purposes of an arbitration
in London--Distinction between privacy and confidentiality--Limits
to duty of confidentiality.
Observations by Stewart Boyd
 

(COURT OF APPEAL & HOUSE OF LORDS)
Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation & ors v. Yuri Privalov and others,
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal
(Civil Division), London rendered in January 2007 in Case No. [2007]
EWCA CIV 20
Premium NAFTA Products, Ltd. v. Fili Shipping Co., Ltd., Judgment of
the House of Lords of Appeal, London rendered in October 2007 in
Case No. [2007] UKHL 40
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Interpretation of arbitration agreements
(2) Scope of separability principle
Observations by Gilles Cuniberti
 

(COMMERCIAL COURT)
AIG Capital Partners, Inc. and CJSC Tema Real Estate Company, Ltd. v.
The Republic of Kazakhstan, Decision by the High Court of Justice,
Queen's Bench Division, rendered in 2005 in Case No. 2004/536
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
Whether an arbitral award against a state, rendered in ICSID arbitration
pursuant to a Bilateral Investment Treaty, may be enforced by obtaining from
an English court so-called Third Party Debt and Charging Orders against
certain cash and securities held in London by third parties pursuant to an
agreement between these third parties and the central bank of the state in
question.
Questions of state immunity from enforcement pursuant to the State Immunity
Act of 1978.
Observations by Judith Gill
 

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
Elisa Maria Mostaza Claro v. Centro Movil Milenium SL, Judgment of the
European Court of Justice (First Chamber) rendered in 2006 in Case C-168/05
("The Mostaza Claro Case")
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Whether a failure to raise the unfair nature of a term during arbitration
proceedings precludes the possibility to raise that objection in the context of
an action brought against the arbitration award.
Observations by Roman Jordans
 

FINLAND
Parties not disclosed, Decision of the Finnish Supreme Court rendered in
2005 in Case KKO 2005:14
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Liability in damages of an arbitrator
Observations by Matti S. Kurkela
Observations by Justus Könkkölä
 

Werfen Austria GmbH v. Polar Electro Europe B.V., Zug Branch, Decision of
the Supreme Court of Finland rendered on 2 July 2008 in Case No. S2006/716
("Werfen Austria GmbH v. Polar Electro Europe B.V., Zug Branch")
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Whether--by awarding damages on the basis of a legal doctrine that neither
party invoked nor had an opportunity to comment on—the arbitral tribunal
exceeded its authority or failed to provide the parties a sufficient opportunity
to present their cases.
Observations by Petra Kiurunen
Observations by Sophie Nappert
 

FRANCE
(COUR DE CASSATION)

Louis Juliet, Benoît Juliet v. Paul Castagnet (arbitrator), Pierre Couilleaux
(arbitrator) and Adolphe Biotteau (arbitrator), Decision by the
French Cour de Cassation, First Civil Chamber rendered
on 6 December 2005 in case 1660 FS-P+B
SUBJECT MATTER:
Liability of arbitrators who have failed to render an award before the
deadline for the arbitral proceedings.
Observations by Louis Degos
 

State of Israel v. National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Judgment of
the French Cour de Cassation First Civil Chamber rendered on
1 February 2005 in case No. 01-13.742/02-15.237
SUBJECT MATTER:
Whether a French court can appoint an arbitrator on behalf of an
obstructing party at the request of the other party in an arbitration
that is not taking place in France or subject to French procedural law.
Observations by Guillaume Tattevin
Observations by François-Xavier Train
 

(SUPREME COURT)
ABC International Bank PLC (France), The Inter-Arab Investment
Guarantee Corporation (IAIGC) (Kuwait) v. BAII Recouvrement
(France), Decision by the French Supreme Court, First Civil Chamber
rendered in 2004 in case 1231 FS-P
SUBJECT MATTER:
Whether French courts can order a company to pay interest as from
the date of an international arbitral award, "post-award interest."
Observations by Christopher R. Seppälä
 

UOPNV v. BP France SA & others, Judgment by the Supreme Court in France
rendered in February 2007 in Case No. JCP, 2007 I 168 ("UOP v. BP")
SUBJECT MATTER:
Validity or applicability of an arbitration agreement simultaneously
designating two arbitration institutions and/or rules.
Observations by Emmanuelle Cabrol
 

(COURT OF APPEAL)
La Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile de l'Emirat de Dubaï v.
International Bechtel Company (Panama), Decision by the Paris Court
of Appeal rendered on 29 September 2005 in Direction Générale de l'Aviation
Civile de l'Emirat de Dubaï v. International Bechtel Co., LLP
(The "DAC Dubai v. Bechtel" case)
SUBJECT-MATTER(S):
(1) Enforcement of an arbitral award set aside in the country of origin.
(2) Law applicable to the effectiveness of an arbitral award.
Observations by Philippe Pinsolle
Observations by Alexis Mourre
 

S.A. Thalès Air Defence v. G.I.E. Euromissile et al., Decision by
the Paris Court of Appeal rendered on 18 November 2004
in case No. 2002/60932
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Whether an arbitral award should be set aside on the ground that the award
violated public policy consisting of EC Competition Law (Article 81 of the
EC Treaty ("EC"); currently Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union ("TFEU")) which should have been applied by the
arbitral tribunal ex officio.
Observations by Diederik de Groot
 

ABC International v. Diverseylever, Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal
rendered in 2002 in cases 2001/10769 and 2001/15479
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Characterisation of an arbitrator's decision to dismiss a party's application
for interim payment - award or procedural order?
Observations by Charles Kaplan and Gilles Cuniberti
 

(1) The Murmansk State Technical University 2. Association Brest
2000 v. 1. Compagnie NOGA d'Importation et d'Exportation
(2) The Government of the Russian Federation 3. Fauveder SA,
Decisions of the Brest County Court and the Paris Court of Appeals
rendered in 2000 - the "Noga" case and the Seizure of the Sedov
The Seizure of Sedov
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Whether the seizure pursuant to an SCC Institute Award of the Sedov, a
Russian tall ship, by NOGA, a creditor of the Russian Federation, was
contrary to international public law, French national law or international
private law.
The Noga case
SUBJECT MATTER:
Whether the seizure, pursuant to an SCC Institute Award, of intangible
property and property placed in a strongbox in the hands of the Banque
Commerciale pour l'Europe du Nord-Eurobank to the detriment of the
Embassy of the Russian Federation in France, the Permanent Delegation of
the Russian Federation to UNESCO and the Commercial Representation of
the Russian Federation in France, was valid.
Observations by Emmanuel Gaillard
 

SNF SAS (France) v. CYTEC INDUSTRIES BV (Holland), Decision by the
Paris Court of Appeal rendered on 23 March 2006 in Case No. 04/19673
("The French SNF Case")
SUBJECT-MATTER(S):
Whether an arbitral award should be set-aside on the ground that the award
violated public policy consisting of EC Competition Law (Article 81 of the
EC Treaty [Article 101 TFEU]).
 

GERMANY
Parties not disclosed, Judgment by the Federal Supreme Court
of Germany rendered in 2004 in case II ZR 65/03
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Whether a dispute regarding the payment of the initial contribution
to a limited liability corporation is arbitrable.
Observations by Roman Jordans
 

X v. Y, Decision of the Berlin Higher Regional Court
(Kammergericht) rendered in 1999 in case 28 Sch 17/99
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Construction of an arbitration agreement; Reference to a non-existing
German arbitration institution
Observations by Jens Bredow
 

Parties not disclosed, Decision by the Federal Court of Justice of Germany
rendered on April 17, 2008 in Case No III ZB 97/06
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
Circumstances under which a party may be estopped from invoking one of the
defenses set out in Article V of the New York Convention--Whether the
respondent is estopped from resisting an application seeking the recognition
and enforcement of a foreign award on the ground that it failed to challenge
the award before the courts of the seat of arbitration.
Observations by Dr. Stefan Kröll and Dmitry Marenkov
 

KAZAKHASTAN
ZAO International Airport Astana (Kazakhstan) v. Mabetex Project
Engineering S.A. (Switzerland), Judgment of the Judicial Collegium
for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan rendered
in 2004, Resolution No. 3A-121/2-04
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Requirements for a valid arbitration clause under the laws
of Kazakhstan.
Observations by M. K. Suleimenov
 

LATVIA
Swedish company "Forscan Timber Export" AB v. Latvian
company "Interwood," Judgment by the Riga Regional Court,
Civil Cases Board rendered on 19 August 2004 in case:
CA-4208/20.2004 (Forscan Timber Export AB v. Interwood)
SUBJECT-MATTER(S):
(1) Determination of the jurisdiction in case of similar names of arbitral
institutions.
(2) Arbitrator's knowledge of the language agreed in the arbitration agreement
(3) Competence - competence
(4) Issuance of the writ of execution
Observations by Ziedonis Ūdris and Inga Kačevska
 

THE NETHERLANDS
Marketing Displays International Inc. (USA) v. VR Van Raalte Reclame B.V.
(The Netherlands), Judgments by the District Court of The Hague rendered on 27
May 2004 in (1) case KG/RK 2002-979 and 2003-1617 and by the Court of
Appeal of the Hague on 24 March 2005 in (2) case 04/694 and 04/695
(Marketing Displays International Inc. v. VR Van Raalte Reclame B.V.)
SUBJECT-MATTER(S):
(1) Leave for enforcement under the New York Convention
(2) Article 81 EC (currently Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union ("TFEU")
(3) (International) public policy
Observations by Diederik de Groot
 

Staat Der Nederlanden v. B.V. Nederlands Elekriciteit Administratiekantoor,
Decision of the District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands rendered on 1
August 2007 in Case No. LJN: BB1424, 255948 / HA ZA 05-3983
SUBJECT-MATTER(S):
Conformity with public policy of an arbitral award made in The Netherlands
and involving a dispute between Nederlands Elektriciteit
Administratiekantoor and the State regarding the amount of the payable
non-market-compatible costs of the unprofitable Demkolec plant.
Observations by Diederik de Groot
 

Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v. OAO Rosneft, Decision of the Amsterdam Court of
Appeal Rendered on April 28, 2009 in Case No. 200.005.269/01 ("Yukos
Capital S.A.R.L. vs. OAO Rosneft")
SUBJECT-MATTER(S):
Application seeking the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards
made in Moscow under the rules of the International Court of Commercial
Arbitration at the Chamber of Trade and Industry the Russian Federation--
Awards subsequently annulled by Russian Courts--Whether awards can
nevertheless be recognized and enforced in The Netherlands
Observations by Eric A. Schwartz
 

Bursa Büyüksehir Belediyesi v. Gűris Insaat Műhendislik A.S., Siemens A.G.,
Siemens Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. and Tüvasas Türkiye Vagon Sanayi A.S.,
Decision of the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), The Netherlands Rendered on 5
December 2008 in Case No. C07/166HR (LJN: BF3799; NJ 2009, 6)
SUBJECT-MATTER(S):
Annulment of an arbitral award made in The Netherlands due to defective
signature. The award was signed only by two of the three arbitrators, while
the declaration that the third arbitrator had refused to sign the award, was not
signed by these two arbitrators.
Observations by Diederik de Groot
 

NORWAY
X v. Y, Decision of the Hågoland Court of Appeal, 16 August 1999
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Enforcement of an arbitration agreement entered into through exchange
of e-mails.
Observations by Gunnar Nerdrum

RUSSIA
(COMMERCIAL COURT)
The Consortium Kodest Engineering (Italy) v. Limited Liability Company
“Most Group” (Russia), Judgment of the Presidium of the Higher
Commercial Court of the Russian Federation rendered on
22 February 2005 in case 14548/04 "The Kodest Case"
SUBJECT-MATTER(S):
(1) Whether the burden of proof with respect to the New York Convention
Article V(1)(b) is on the defendant or the claimant.
(2) Whether the defendant was given proper notice of the arbitration
proceedings.
Observations by Dominic Pellew
 

Pressindustria S.p.A. v. Tobolsk Petrochemical Combine, Judgment of the
Federal Commercial Court of the Western Siberian Okrug rendered in 1999
in case F04/1402-291/A70-99 and judgment of the Presidium of the
Higher Commercial Court rendered in 2003 in case 2853/00
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Dissolution of a joint venture - the relevance of mandatory rules according
to Russian law.
(2) Whether the arbitral tribunal went beyond the scope of the arbitration
clause.
Observations by Dominic Pellew
 

SINGAPORE
Luzon Hydro Corp. (Philippines) v. Transfield Philippines Inc. (Philippines),
Judgment of the Singapore High Court rendered in 2004 in case
[2004] 4 SLR 705; [2004] SGHC 204
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Whether the expert had gone beyond his mandate and the agreement
of the parties and whether not providing the parties with the information
supplied by the expert to the arbitral tribunal was a breach of natural
justice in making the award.
Observations by Devashish Krishan
 

SWEDEN
Bankruptcy Estate of Svenska Kreditförsäkringsaktiebolaget (Sweden)
v. Unione Italiana di Riassicurazione S.p.A, et al,Decision by the
Stockholm District Court rendered in 2001 in Case K3-4897-92
and decision by The Svea Court of Appeal rendered in 2001 in
Case Ö 5337-01 and Decision by the Swedish Supreme Court
rendered in 2003 in Case Ö 3504-01
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Applicability of an arbitration clause in bankruptcy proceedings.
Observations by Christer Söderlund
 

JSC Novokuznetsk Aluminium Plant (Russia) v. Base Metal Trading
S.A. (Switzerland), Decision by the Stockholm District Court rendered
in 2004 in case Ä 860-04 and Decision by the Svea Court of
Appeal rendered in 2004 in case ÖÄ 4247-04
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Finality of a determination by an arbitration institution regarding a
challenge of an arbitrator's impartiality.
Observations by Robin Oldenstam
 

(SUPREME COURT)
The Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce v. Office
of the Prosecutor-General of Sweden, Decision by the Supreme Court
of Sweden rendered on 16 June 2004 in case Ö 853-03
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Whether, by virtue of criminal investigations in Russia, documents contained
in a case file at the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of
Commerce should be handed over to Russian authorities pursuant to the
European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959.
Observations by Annette Magnusson
 

A.I. Trade Finance Inc. and Bulgarian Foreign Trade Bank v. GiroCredit Bank
Aktiengesellschaft der Sparkassen, Judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in
2000 in case N T 1881-99 (the "Bulbank" case)
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Confidentiality in international arbitration in Sweden.
Observations by M.I.M. Aboul-Enein
Observations by Gerald Aksen
Observations by Gregory Reid and Lucy Greenwood
 

MS Emja Braack Schiffahrts KG v. Wärtsilä Diesel AB, Decision
of the Supreme Court rendered on 15 October 1997 (the "Emja" case)
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Assignment of an arbitration agreement.
 

Esselte AB v. Swedish State Pension Fund, including the First, the Second
and the Third Board of Directors (the AP-Fund), Decision
of the Supreme Court rendered on 3 April 1998
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Whether claims which partly were claimed in an earlier arbitration roceedings
by way of set-off should be regarded res judicata in a second arbitration
proceedings. The claims were dismissed in the first arbitration proceedings.
Observations by Stewart Boyd
Observations by Joachim Kuckenburg
 

Skandinaviska Färginstitutet v. Birgitte Hartmann and her company
Institut für Farbe, Decision of the Supreme Court rendered in 2000
in case T 12-99 (the "IFA" case)
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
The right to introduce set-off claims in an arbitration.
Observations by Gustaf Möller
 

3S Swedish Special Supplier AB v. Sky Park AB, Judgment of
the Supreme Court rendered in 2000 in case T 5119-99
(the "3S" case)
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
Recourse against a party which has not complied with a request for advance
payment of the arbitration tribunal's costs.
Observations by Jingzhou Tao, Anne-Laure Vincent and Michael
Polkinghorne
 

Anders Jilken ("A J") v. Ericsson AB, Judgment by the Swedish Supreme Court
rendered in November 2007 in Case No. T 2448-06 ("The Lind case")
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Disqualification of arbitrator for appearance of lack of impartiality/
independence.
Observations by John Fellas
Observations by Patrik Schöldström
 

(COURT OF APPEAL)
The Titan Corporation (USA) v. Alcatel CIT SA (France), Decision
by the Svea Court of Appeal in Sweden rendered in 2005 in case
No. T 1038-05
SUBJECT-MATTER:
When is an award deemed to have been rendered in Sweden?
Observations by Patricia Shaughnessy
Observations by Christer Söderlund
 

Republic of Kazakhstan v. MTR Metals Ltd. (Cyprus), I. Partial Award on
Jurisdiction & Final Award rendered in 2001 in SCC case 85/2000 & MTR
Metals Ltd. (Cyprus) v. Republic of Kazakhstan, II. Decision by the
Svea Court of Appeal rendered on 25 May 2004 in case T 1361-01
I. SUBJECT-MATTER(S):
(1) Jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal; whether the agreement to
arbitrate can be concluded from parties conduct before a
state court.
(2) State immunity as a bar to arbitration?
(3) Issue of succession of parties.
II. SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.
(2) Possible bias of the arbitral tribunal.
(3) One arbitrator excluded from the deliberations?
Observations by Kendall Moholitny
Observations by Ola Åhman
 

Dirland Télécom S.A. (France) v. Viking Telecom AB (Sweden), Decision
by the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden rendered on 29 December
2003 in case T 4366-02
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Non-compliance with mandatory European telecommunications
Law - does it constitute a violation of Swedish ordre public ?
Observations by Diederik de Groot
 

The Czech Republic v. CME Czech Republic B.V., Judgment by the
Svea Court of Appeal, Stockholm, rendered in 2003 in case
T 8735-01 (the "CME v. Czech Republic" case)
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Whether an arbitrator was excluded from the deliberations.
(2) Whether the tribunal failed to take into consideration applicable law.
(3) Whether the tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to lis pendens and res
judicata.
(4) Whether the tribunal exceeded its mandate - the concept of joint
tortfeasors.
(5) Whether the tribunal exceeded its mandate - decision concerning
determination of the damage.
(6) Whether the tribunal exceeded its mandate - previous investors and
prior breaches.
(7) Whether the judgment of the Court of Appeal may be appealed.
Observations by Noah Rubins
Observations by Stanisław Sołtysiński and Marcin Olechowski
Observations by Hans Bagner
Observations by Tore Wiwen-Nilsson
 

SwemBalt Aktiebolag v. Republic of Latvia, Decision of the Svea
Court of Appeal, Stockholm, rendered in 2002 in case Ö 7192-01
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Enforcement of an award rendered under the Agreement between
Sweden and Latvia on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of
Investments (SÖ 1992:93) ("the BIT");
question whether the re was an investment in the meaning of the BIT.
(2) Should enforcement be refused on the ground that the arbitral tribunal
lacked jurisdiction for reasons of lis pendens?
Observations by Christoph Liebscher
 

1. The A Company, 2. The B Company v. The Former Soviet Republic,
Jurisdictional Award rendered in 1998 in SCC cases 38/1997 and 39/1997 &
Judgment of the Stockholm District Court rendered in 2001 in cases T 1510-99
& Judgment of the Svea Court of Appeal, Stockholm, rendered in 2002 in
case T 4496-01 - The "Government Guarantee" case
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Application, under Swedish law, of an arbitration clause laid down in a
business contract, to a third party guarantor.
(2) Applicable law. Whether a choice of "governing law" in a supply
contract is applicable when determining whether a guarantor is bound
by an arbitration clause in the supply contract.
(3) Is state sovereign immunity a bar to arbitration?
Observations by Hans Smit
 

American Pacific Corporation v. Sydsvensk Produktutveckling AB in bankruptcy,
and Mr. Jan Andersson, Decision of the Svea Court of Appeal, Stockholm,
rendered in 2001 in case Ö 4859-00
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.
(2) Allocation of costs as between the parties in the enforcement
proceedings.
Observations by Lars Edlund
 

Planavergne S.A. v. Kalle Bergander i Stockholm AB, Decision
by the Svea Court of Appeal, Stockholm, rendered in 2001 in
case Ö 4645-99
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award; law
applicable to the legal form of the arbitration agreement.
(2) Enforcement of a declaratory judgment regarding the costs of the
arbitration.
Observations by Lars Edlund
 

Rolf Gustafsson v. Länsförsäkringar Bergslagen-Wasa ömsesidigt,
Judgment by the Svea Court of Appeal, Stockholm, rendered in 2000
in case 8090-99
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Whether an award was based on matters not submitted by the parties to the
arbitrators.
Observations by Martin Wallin
 

Transnational Company Kazchrom v. 1. AIOC Resources AG, in
liquidation 2. Mr Edward Moran, Judgment of the Svea Court of
Appeal, Stockholm, rendered in 2000 in case T 6902-99
(the "Kazchrom" case)
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Universal succession under Kazakh law.
(2) Validity of an arbitration agreement following a universal succession.
(3) Service of a request for arbitration and procedural documents, with a
Kazakh company.
Observations by Aigoul Kenjebayeva
 

The Government of the Russian Federation v. Compagnie NOGA
d'Importation et d'Exportation S.A, Judgment of the Svea Court
of Appeal, Stockholm, rendered in 1998 in case 925-98-80
(the "Noga" case)
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Whether a second arbitral award covered a question already decided with res
judicata effect in a first award; application of Article 31(2) of the Rules of the
Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (1988).
Observations by Patrik Schöldström
 

Fagep v. V/O Stankoimport, Decision of the Svea Court of Appeal,
Stockholm, rendered on 23 December 1997
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) An arbitral award is not void pursuant to section 20, 1st subs. of the
Swedish Arbitration Act 1929 (no valid arbitration agreement).
(2) An arbitral award is not void pursuant to section 20, 2nd subs. of the
Act, (absence of arbitrator's signature on the award).
(3) The award should not be set aside pursuant to section 21, 1st subs.,
point 1 of the Act (award given after the expiration of the period laid
down).
(4) A party was considered as having waived an irregularity of the
proceedings according to section 21, 2nd subs. of the Act.
Observations by Gustaf Möller
 

Rapla Invest AB in liquidation (Sweden) v. TNK Trade Limited (Cyprus),
Judgment by the Svea Court of Appeal, Stockholm, Rendered on 7 December
2006 in Case No. T 5044-04 ("The Rapla Invest v. TNK Trade Case")
SUBJECT-MATTER:
(1) Failure by the arbitral tribunal to apply legal rules or principles -jura
novit curia in Swedish arbitration.
(2) Failure by the arbitral tribunal to examine an invoked ground.
(3) Disqualification of an arbitrator due to previous connection with a party.
Observations by Martin Wallin and Katarina Mild
 

Soyak International Construction & Investment Inc., Turkey v. the arbitrators
(i.e., Mr. Werner Melis, Austria; Mr. Kaj Hobér, Sweden; and Mr. Steffen Kraus,
Germany), Decision of the Svea Court of Appeal rendered on 25 September 2006
in Case No. Ö 1952-05 ("The Soyak Case")
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Can a decision on fees to the arbitrators made by an arbitral institution be
appealed?
Observations by Patrik Schöldström
Observations by Marie Öhrström
 

(DISTRICT COURT)
Judgments by The Stockholm District Court rendered in 2003 in
(1) Case T 7898-00 And (2) Case T 3697-01, Introduction
(1) Open Joint Stock Company "Yukos Oil Company" (Moscow, Russian
Federation) v. Petro Alliance Services Company Ltd (Houston, Texas,
USA), Judgment by the Stockholm District Court rendered
on 25 April 2003, In Case T 7898-00
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Whether parties can dispose of the validity of the arbitral award.
(2) MÍR Müteahhitlik ve Ticaret A.S. (Ankara, Turkey) v. The Commercial
Bank MOST-Bank (Moscow, Russia), Default Judgment by the
Stockholm District Court rendered on 12 October 2003, in
Case T 3697-01
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Setting aside of an arbitral award for alleged procedural irregularity and
excess of arbitral authority according to the 1929 Swedish Arbitration Act
through default judgment.
Observations by Carita Wallgren-Lindhom and Gisela Knuts
 

Mr. A and others v. Mr. B, Decision of the Stockholm District
Court rendered in 2001 in case Ä 7197-01
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Appointment of arbitrator. Application of Section 14 of the Swedish
Arbitration Act (1999). Doctrine of joinder of necessary parties.
Observations by Georgios Petrochilos
 

SWITZERLAND
(SUPREME COURT)

Undisclosed Parties, Decision by the Swiss Supreme Court rendered on 6
October 2004 in case 4P117-2004
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Admissibility of appeals filed against partial awards stricto sensu.
Observations by Pierre-Yves Gunter
 

KK Ltd. (Turks and Caicos Islands v. FF (Paris, France), Judgment of the
Swiss Supreme Court rendered in 2003 in case 4p.137/2002.
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Swiss courts' powers to review foreign law.
(2) French law on representation of companies.
(3) Security for costs before Swiss courts.
Observations by Laurent Hirsch
 

X v. Y, Judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in 2002
in case 4P.226/2001
SUBJECT-MATTERS:
(1) Request to set aside an arbitral award on the ground that one co-arbitrator
failed to attend the deliberation (Swiss PILS -LDIP, Article 190, para 2,
lit.a).
(2) Request to set aside an arbitral award on the ground that the parties were
not treated equally and a party was refused the opportunity to be heard
(PILS, Article 190, para 2, lit.d).
(3) Alleged violation of public order on the ground that the arbitrators had
failed to examine a violation of Greek and European competition law
(PILS, Article 190, para 2, lit.e).
Observations by Konstantin Razumov
 

The Republic of Lebanon v. France Telecom Mobile International (FTMI),
France; Telecom Mobile Lebanon (FTML), Lebanon, Judgments by the
Swiss Supreme Court rendered on 10 November 2005 in (1) Case 4P.98/2005
svc and (2) Case 4P.154/2005/svc (The "Republic of Lebanon v. FTMI
& FTML" Cases
SUBJECT-MATTER:
(1) Validity of an exclusion agreement (excluding applications to courts
to set aside an award). Effects of a partial exclusion agreement,
namely the waiver to challenge an award due to lack of competence.
(2) Effects of an exclusion agreement on correction awards.
Observations by Laurent Lévy
 

X. (English Company) v. National Property Fund (Czech Republic), Judgment by
the Swiss Supreme Court rendered on 4 February 2005 in (1) Case
4P.236/2004
SUBJECT-MATTER:
(1) Exclusion of annulment action in arbitration clause
 

Czech Republic through the Ministry of France v. X. (Dutch Company),
Judgment by the Swiss Supreme Court Rendered on 7 September 2006 in Case
4P.114/2006
SUBJECT-MATTER:
(1) Exclusion of annulment action in Bilateral Investment Treaty
(2) Scope of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal
 

(COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)
Air (PTY) Ltd. v. International Air Transport Association (IATA) and
C. SA, Decision by the Geneva Court of First Instance rendered on
2 May 2005 in Case C/1043/2005-15SP
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Anti-arbitration injunction
Observations by Matthias Scherer and Teresa Giovannini
 

UKRAINE
Court Recommendations in December 2007 by the Presidium of the Highest
Commercial Court of Ukraine ("Ukrainian Court Edict")
SUBJECT-MATTER:
(1) Activities of and corporate relations concerning a Ukrainian joint
stock company shall be governed exclusively by the laws of Ukraine.
(2) Agreements providing for the application of foreign law to Ukrainian
corporate relationships including the relationships between shareholders
are null and void and violate Ukrainian public policy.
(3) Agreements limiting the scope or effect of Ukrainian mandatory legal
provisions (such as competition law and rules regarding the invalidity
of agreements) are null and void.
(4) Shareholders' agreements, even under foreign law and entered into by,
for instance, non-Ukrainian holding companies cannot govern questions of
corporate governance in a Ukrainian company and, hence, cannot be
enforced to the extent they are at variance with Ukrainian company law.
(5) The Recommendations seek to exclude Ukrainian corporate disputes
from determination by international arbitration (paragraph 2 of
Section 6.2).
Observations by Serhii Sviriba and Olga Glukhovska
Observations by Tatiana Slipachuk and Per Runeland
Observations by Alexander Vaneev
 

USA
Professional Realty and Development Corporation (USA) v. Sloan Electric
(USA), Judgment of the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, rendered
in 2004 in case no. 3-03-0563
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Gross error of law and manifest disregard of law as grounds to set aside
arbitral awards in the United States.
Observations by Grant Hanessian
Observations by Ihsan Dogramaci
 

1. Stephen B. Sawtelle, 2. Hackett Associates, Inc. v. 1. Waddell &
Reed, Inc., 2. Torchmark Corporation, Judgment of the Supreme
Court New York County Appellate Division rendered in 2003 in
case 754 N.Y.S. 2D 264
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Punitive damages in arbitral award.
Observations by Steven C. Bennett
 

Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna et al., Decision by the Supreme Court
of the United States rendered on 21 February 2006 in Case No. 04-1264
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Gross error of law and manifest disregard of law as grounds to set aside
arbitral awards in the United States.
 

Oxus Gold Plc. V. Jack A. Barbanel, Decision by the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey rendered in 2007 in Case No. MISC 06-82-GEB
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24061 (The "Oxus Gold" Case)
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Whether a U.S. court may compel testimony and production of documents
from third parties residing in the U.S. for use in an arbitration undertaken
pursuant to an investment treaty.
Observations by Grant Hanessian
 

Termorio S.A. E.S.P. and LeaseCo Group, LLC v. Electranta S.P., et al.,
Decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District Court of
Columbia Circuit in 2007 in Case No. 06-7058 ("The Termorio Case")
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Enforcement in the United States of an international arbitration award set
aside in the country of origin.
Observations by Daniel Schimmel and Christopher Ryan
 

Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc.., Decision by the Supreme
Court of the United States Rendered on 25 March 2008 in Case No. 06-989
("Hall Street vs. Mattel")
SUBJECT-MATTER:
Judicial review of arbitral awards--Enforceability of clauses providing for
expanded judicial review under the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act.
Observations by Jonathan Gass
Observations by Davor Babić
 

INDEX

Author Detail

About the Editors:

Stephen Bond concentrates in the field of international commercial arbitration. He is Senior of Counsel in the London office of Covington & Burling and European Head of the firm’s international arbitration practice group. He has served as counsel, co-counsel, chairman or coarbitrator in numerous international arbitrations. During his career, he has held a number of high profile positions that include Secretary General of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) from 1985-1991 and the U.S. Member of the ICC International Court of Arbitration for the period 1994-1999. He was Vice Chairman of the ICC Working Group charged with drafting the 1998 ICC Rules of Arbitration. In addition to his ICC experience, Mr. Bond served as Assistant Legal Adviser in the Office of the Legal Adviser of the Department of State and as Counselor for Legal Affairs in the United States Mission to the United Nations in Geneva, where he was accorded the State Department’s Distinguished Honors Award.

Frédéric Bachand has been a professor of law at McGill University since 2003 and is particularly interested in the judicial and extrajudicial resolution of civil and commercial disputes, whether they occur in a domestic or international context. He currently teaches transsystemic courses on evidence in civil matters, civil procedure, extrajudicial means of dispute resolution and NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration. Professor Bachand holds doctoral degrees from Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II) and Université de Montréal, as well as an LL.M. from the University of Cambridge. He is the co-director—with Professor Thomas E. Carbonneau of Penn State University—of the McGill Summer Program in Arbitration, a member of the NAFTA Advisory Committee on Private Commercial Disputes and an editor of the Stockholm International Arbitration Review.

Contributors Include:

Alexander Vaneev
Devashish Krishan
Emmanuelle Cabrol
Ola Åhman
Aigoul Kenjebayeva
Alexis Mourre
Angelina M. Petti
Anne-Laure Vincent
Annette Magnusson
Benedetta Coppo
Bradley J. Freedman
Carita Wallgren-Lindhom
Gisela Knuts
Charles Kaplan
Christer Söderlund
Christoph Liebscher
Christopher R. Seppälä
Christopher Ryan
Claes Zettermarck
Daniel Schimmel
David P. Roney
David St. John Sutton
Davor Babić
Diederik de Groot
Dmitry Marenkov
Dominic Pellew
Dr. Karim Youssef
Dr. M.I.M. Aboul-Enein
Dr. Stefan Kröll
Edward C. Chiasson
Emmanuel Gaillard
Eric A. Schwartz
Fatima-Zahra Slaoui
François-Xavier Train
Frank Bannon
Frédéric Bachand
Georgios Petrochilos
Gerald Aksen
Gerald W. Ghikas
Gerold Zeiler
Gilles Cuniberti
Grant Hanessian
Gregory Reid
Guillaume Tattevin
Gunnar Nerdrum
Gustaf Möller
Hans Bagner
Hans Smit
Henri Alvarez
Ihsan Dogramaci
Inga Kačevska
Janet E. Mills
Jean-Louis Delvolvé
Jens Bredow
Jingzhou Tao
Joachim Kuckenburg
John Fellas
Jonathan Gass
Judith Gill
Julia Zagonek
Justus Könkkölä
Katarina Mild
Kendall Moholitny
Konstantin Razumov
Lars Edlund
Laurent Hirsch
Laurent Lévy
Louis Degos
Lucy Greenwood
M. K. Suleimenov
Marcin Olechowski
Marie Öhrström
Martin Wallin
Mathew Stulic
Matthias Scherer
Matti S. Kurkela
Michael E. Davis
Michael Polkinghorne
Noah Rubins
Ole Spiermann
Olga Glukhovska
Otto Sandrock
Patricia Shaughnessy
Patrik Schöldström
Per Runeland
Per Runeland
Petra Kiurunen
Philippe Pinsolle
Pierre-Yves Gunter
Ping Liu
R. Doak Bishop
Richard Deutsch
Robin Oldenstam
Roman Jordans
Salim A. H. Moollan
Sarosh R. Zaiwalla
Serhii Sviriba
Sophie Nappert
Stanisław Sołtysiński
Stefano Azzali
Steven C. Bennett
Stewart Boyd
Stewart Shackleton
Tatiana Slipachuk
Teresa Giovannini
Tore Wiwen-Nilsson
Viviane Frossard
William K. Slate II
William McKechnie
Ziedonis Ūdris

Deals & Promotions
New From Juris

Juris Journals

Arbitration Law

250,000+ pages of current, reliable and effective arbitration information.

Start and finish your
research here

Juris Conferences

Promoting a discourse between figures in International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution.

Catalog Downloads