Understanding international arbitration

What is international arbitration?

This Practice Note provides an introduction to ‘international arbitration’, setting out what that phrase is commonly taken to mean. The Practice Note includes a discussion of the meaning of the word ‘arbitration’ and the term ‘commercial arbitration’. The Practice Note discusses key concepts in arbitration, including arbitral institutions, the tribunal, the arbitration agreement and the importance of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law).

See Practice Note: International arbitration—an introduction to the key features of international arbitration.

Key differences between international arbitration and domestic arbitration

This Practice Note sets out the main differences between international arbitration and domestic arbitration proceedings. The Practice Notes uses arbitration proceedings under the English Arbitration Act 1996 as the principal example of domestic arbitration proceedings in order to draw out the key differences between these two types of proceedings. The Practice Note covers what makes arbitration domestic or international and why it is important to distinguish so. It also covers the importance of local laws and the New

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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

Drawing the line—court review of arbitral institutions’ administrative decisions in Brazil (Vale v B3 & others)

Arbitration analysis: Reversing a first-instance judgment that had dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and legal standing, the São Paulo Court of Appeals held that Brazilian courts may review administrative decisions rendered by arbitral institutions prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The dispute concerned a decision by the President of the Market Arbitration Chamber (CAM) applying Article 3.6 of its Rules to appoint all three arbitrators and to disregard respondent Vale S.A.’s prior appointment of a co-arbitrator. The court held that the provision presupposes both a plurality of parties and an actual ‘absence of consensus’, which was not present in the case at hand, as the multiparty claimants acted jointly and with convergent interests up to that stage of the proceedings. It further held that the statutory right of each party to appoint a co-arbitrator under the Brazilian Arbitration Act cannot be displaced by institutional discretion in such circumstances. The decision reinforces the judicial control over institutional acts that affect fundamental procedural rights in arbitration and clarifies the São Paulo Court of Appeal’s stance on the distinction between jurisdictional and administrative acts in arbitration. Written by Renato Stephan Grion, partner at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, and Thiago Del Pozzo Zanelato, senior associate at Pinheiro Neto Advogados.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents