Ethics and regulation

Ethics in international arbitration

This Practice Note considers the various ethical standards that may apply in an arbitration and the impact of those differing standards on various stages of the arbitration such as witness preparation, disclosure and communications between the parties and the arbitrators. The note also covers the arbitrator’s role in ethical decisions and the impact of the IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration. See Practice Note: Ethical standards in international arbitration—an introduction.

Core procedural standards in arbitration

This Practice Note covers core procedural standards that govern international arbitration. It includes a discussion of the law of the seat, applicable institutional rules and other relevant standards such as professional obligations. See Practice Note: Core procedural standards in arbitration.

Conflicts of interest in arbitration—applicable principles

This Practice Note discusses general principles and guidance applicable to arbitrators and parties when assessing and dealing with conflicts of interest in arbitration. It considers: what the general principle of fairness and impartiality is, how an arbitrator’s independence is assessed, the guidance available for assessing and dealing with potential conflicts of interest. This Practice

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

Arbitration weekly highlights—12 December 2024

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: a decision from the English Commercial Court concerning whether a clause constituted an arbitration agreement or not, coverage of arbitration-related decisions from Malaysia, Singapore and India and updates from UNCITRAL, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, JCAA, ICC, ITA, IEL. and BCLP publishing its 2024 International Arbitration Survey. All this, and more in our weekly highlights.

State immunity case highlights UK’s creditor-friendly stance

Law360, London: In recent years, there has been a surge of enforcement cases against states, especially outside the EU, following a series of judgments from the Court of Justice of the EU, commencing with the 2018 decision in Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, which held that intra-EU bilateral investment treaties were incompatible with EU law.(Case C-284/16 ECLI:EU:C:2018:158. With ISDS provisions in intra-EU BITs being treated by the CJEU as incompatible with EU law and therefore invalid, it follows that national courts of EU Member States may feel bound to refuse to recognise and enforce such awards).

BCLP publishes 2024 international arbitration survey

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP) has published its 2024 International Arbitration Survey, focusing on the challenges posed by corruption in arbitration proceedings. The survey reveals that while 82% of respondents are confident in the arbitration process's ability to handle corruption issues, 64% express concern about potential abuse of the arbitral process in such cases. Notably, 67% of respondents favour introducing transparency rules for commercial arbitrations involving states or state-owned entities. The survey also indicates strong support for requiring 'clear and cogent' evidence for corruption allegations, and a majority advocate for additional best practice guidelines in arbitrations involving corruption allegations. These findings underscore the complex interplay between confidentiality, transparency, and procedural integrity in arbitrations dealing with corruption issues.

What’s in a name—court clarifies emergency arbitration decision is an ‘Order’ and not an ‘Award’ (Ashok Kumar Goel and Vyoman India v EbixCash and others)

Arbitration analysis: The Bombay High Court allowed the petitioner’s interim relief application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Arbitration Act), directing the respondents to furnish an irrevocable bank guarantee for the sum of INR 145 crore. After an arbitral award, interim reliefs granted by the Delhi High Court, an emergency arbitration decision (EA Decision), and the arbitral tribunal’s order, the respondents’ failure to abide by the decisions led the petitioners to file the present application. The court recognized the distinction between an ‘award’ and an ‘order’ by rejecting the respondents’ contention that the EA Decision was an award that had to be enforced under Part II of the Arbitration Act. The court held that the objective of section 9 is to not defeat the purpose of arbitration but recognize party autonomy as the bedrock of arbitration. This decision sheds light on the binding nature of an emergency arbitration decision by classifying it as ‘order’ and the recourse available for interim relief even in international commercial arbitrations. Written by Neeti Sachdeva, registrar and secretary general, and Charvi Krishna, case manager at Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA).