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

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll