header-logo header-logo

21 May 2010 / Ana Stanic
Issue: 7418 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Working progress?

Ana Stanic discusses the revised UNCITRAL arbitration rules

The UNCITRAL arbitration rules (the rules) were adopted by the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and the UN General Assembly in 1976. The rules seek to create a unified, predictable and stable procedural framework for ad hoc (non-administered) international arbitration acceptable in countries with different legal, social and economic systems.

Although designed for international trade disputes, the rules have been successfully used in state-to-state and investor-state arbitrations. In addition, the rules have been used as the template (sometimes with modifications) for arbitral rules of numerous arbitral institutions, including International Centre for Dispute Resolution, Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, Cairo International Commercial Arbitration Centre and the Iran-US Claims Tribunal.  

 “Seeking to modernise the rules and to promote greater efficiency in arbitral proceedings”, an UNCITRAL Working Group was set up to discuss possible revisions of the rules in 2006. The group, which has met on 52 occasions since inception, comprises representatives of the 60 members of UNCITRAL. Many non-member countries and non-governmental organisations, such as

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll