Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na
Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników

Znaleziono wyników: 2

Liczba wyników na stronie
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
Wyniki wyszukiwania
w słowach kluczowych:  COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION
help Sortuj według:

help Ogranicz wyniki do:
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
The International Arbitration Court in Paris (“the ICC Court“) is nowadays the leading arbitration institution in Europe. Its new arbitration rules have entered into effect on the 1st of January 2012 („the ICC Rules“), being an undisputed improvement of its predecessor from 1998. Up to now, there have not been noted any critical voices in international arbitration writings, which would concern the application of the new ICC Rules. Indeed, it appears flawless, except for one complication, caused by ignorance of the strengthened position of the ICC Court in relation to the ICC arbitration’s organization. The trouble is, that authors of the new ICC Rules really enacted an absolute exclusivity of the ICC Court for all ICC arbitrations. The latest dispute in HKL v. Rizq International has then set alive again the European – Asian polemic about the rightness of hybrid arbitrations. In the aforementioned case, the Singaporean judges decided in 2013 in favour of hybrids, supporting the international arbitration practice in Singapore. The soundness of their decisions is questionable. Be that as it may, the reasons of their issuing may be deduced by the gradual analysis of the most resonating hybrid ICC arbitrations under the SIAC insatiable roof – and this is exactly a well-hidden topic of the following study.
Nowadays, the International Arbitration Court in Paris (“the ICC Court“) is the leading arbitration institution, deciding international commercial disputes worldwide. The new ICC Arbitration Rules have entered into effect on the 1st of January 2012 („the ICC Rules“) and they are deemed to be an undisputed improvement of its older version from 1998. The new ICC Rules guarantee a quicker deciding of complex international disputes and reflect flexibly on the requirements of disputing parties in the ICC arbitration, as well as on the requests of the arbitration community. On the whole, the legislative changes in the ICC Rules may be divided into three categories. The first category consists of adaptations, focused on acceleration of the proceedings. The second category comprises new provisions, added to the rules in order to achieve a better reflection on the requests of both disputing parties and arbitrators in the contemporary ICC arbitration. All the new provisions with their main purpose, being an increase of the use of ICC Rules in the international investment arbitration, have been included in the third category of the latest amendments. These days – after two years since their adoption, the new ICC Rules are considered an important step forward, which is true, at least from the viewpoint of improving the effectiveness of the ICC arbitration. On the other hand, they are neither shorter, nor simpler, than their older version from 1998. As a result, their detailed analysis would have to be so detailed, that even a sensitive reader could get lost in it quite easily. On the contrary, a sketchy overview of the ICC Rules could turn out as insufficient and rushed. Because of this reason, a monitoring overview of the whole skeleton of rules seems to be a more suitable choice, while reviewing the latest amendments of the ICC Rules. And it is exactly the aforementioned monitoring ‘clean-cut’ through the most important changes in the ICC Rules in all above featured categories, that the following paper is aiming at, together with explaining their purpose and meaning for the international arbitration community.
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.