Home | News | Faculty | Introduction | Course Outline | Case Studies | References | Arbitration Forum | Contact Us
  Your site:>>>Homepage>>>Arbitration Forum
 
On the Seat of International Arbitration and Its Determination
Zhao Xiuwen

On the Seat of International Arbitration and Its Determination
 
Zhao Xiuwen #
 
(Frontiers of Law in China, Volume 2 Number 4, October 2007)
 
Abstract: The paper studied the concept of the seat of arbitration comparing with international commercial arbitration legislation and practices. It also stressed on the connection and distinction between the seat of arbitration and the place of hearing, and the place where the arbitration tribunal deliberates the case, as well as the method for the determination on the place of arbitration. The author also analyzed the current legislation and practices on the determination on the seat of arbitration in China. The paper pointed out that it is important in both theory and practice to improve both international and domestic arbitration legislation in China to determine the seat of arbitration properly. 
 
Key Words: International Commercial Arbitration, Seat of Arbitration, Place of Hearing the Case, Place of Deliberation of the Case by the Arbitral Tribunal, Determination
 
Arbitration is one of the methods for the settlement of dispute which the parties agreed voluntarily via arbitration agreement. According to the arbitration legislation and practices of many states, the parties may reach agreement on any matters of arbitration, including but not limited on the application of the arbitration rules, the choice of arbitration institution, arbitrator, seat of arbitration, the applicable law for the arbitration agreement, arbitration proceedings and merits of the case, as well as the language, in their arbitration agreement.
 
In the practices of international commercial arbitration, it is the most important that the parties may agree on the seat of arbitration than any other items in their arbitration agreement either in ad hoc or institutional arbitration, since the seat of arbitration plays an important role in deciding the jurisdiction of the arbitration institution and the validity of the arbitration agreement. Even in domestic arbitration, the seat of arbitration concerns such a matter that which court has jurisdiction on the vacation of the arbitral award. Therefore, it is necessary to make clear of the relationship and distinction between the place of arbitration and any location where the arbitration hearings or meetings are conducted, as well as to how to determine the seat of arbitration.
 
This paper intends to study on such matters in order to improve the present arbitration legislation and practices in China as well as to keep them with the international arbitration legislation and practices.
 
I. DEFINITION OF THE SEAT OF ARBITARTION
 
A. The Definition of the Seat of Arbitration
The concept of the seat of arbitration has special meaning in international commercial arbitration. The British Arbitration Act 1996 section 3 defines the seat of arbitration as its “judicial seat”. Some prestigious scholars described in the book “Russell on Arbitration Twenty-First Edition” that: Like other jurisdictions, England regards it as essential for an arbitration to have a “seat”, a geographical location to which the arbitration is ultimately tied and which prescribes the procedural law of the arbitration. The parties are free to choose a seat, or specifically, a procedural law of the arbitration, which may be different from the proper law of the contract and the proper law of the arbitration agreement. English law does not recognize the possibility of “delocalized” arbitral procedures which do not have a connection with any national system of law. It is our point of view that the seat of arbitration means the source where the binding force of arbitral award came from.
 
B. The Nature of the Seat of Arbitration in International Arbitration
In international commercial arbitration legislation and practices, the seat of arbitration usually refers to the place for arbitration, where the award was made. The terms “seat” and the “place” of arbitration could be used interchangeably in practices. Once the place of arbitration is decided, the arbitral tribunal may conduct hearings and meetings in any location of the states other than the place of arbitration. For instance, the parties from Hong Kong and Macau may agree in their arbitration agreement that the ICC(International Chamber of Commerce)Arbitration Rules shall apply and the place of arbitration shall be Singapore. In such a case, the ICC Court of Arbitration is responsible for the administration of the case, while the legal place of arbitration is Singapore. Suppose the arbitrators are from Tokyo, Bangkok and Beijing. After the established the tribunal, the hearings were conducted in Hong Kong or Macau for the parties’ convenience, and the tribunal deliberated the case in Tokyo. In legal sense, in spite of the fact that Singapore, Macau, Tokyo and Bangkok related to the arbitration procedure, the legal place is the Singapore due to the agreement between the parties on the place of arbitration.
 
II. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SEAT OF ARBITARTION AND LOCATION WHERE THE HEARINGS OR MEETINGS ARE CONDUCTED
 
As we discussed above, in international commercial arbitration practices, the seat of arbitration has special meaning which is different from any other places, such as where the hearings or meetings are conducted. Of course, the place of arbitration and those of hearing or meetings are both relate and distinct each other.
 
A. Relations Between the Place of Arbitration and Location of Hearing or Meeting
The relations reflected that while the place of arbitration in the arbitration agreement is the same location where the hearings and the arbitral tribunal’s  deliberation of the case. In such circumstances, the place of arbitration itself is the place of hearings and tribunal’s deliberation. Take the Chinese arbitration for example: there are about 185 arbitration commissions in China currently. The parties agreed to submit their dispute to a particular arbitration commission, in practices the location of this particular arbitration commission is the very place of arbitration, so is the place of hearing, and the same place where the tribunal deliberates the case.
 
B.     Distinctions Between the Place of Arbitration and Location of Hearing or Meeting
The distinctions usually take place in international arbitration practices. The parties from different countries in their arbitration agreement agreed to submit their dispute to a permanent arbitration institution in one country (ICC Court of arbitration in Paris, France) and the place of arbitration in another country (Singapore). When the arbitration tribunal was composed, the arbitrators may decided to have hearing in the third country (New York, USA) for the parties’ convenience. The tribunal agreed to deliberate the case in the fourth country (Mexico city, Mexico) for the arbitrators’ convenience since they were from difference countries. In such a case, the legal place is Singapore agreed by the parties in their arbitration agreement. New York is the place where the hearing was taken place while Mexico city is the place where the tribunal deliberate the case. New York and Mexico city are simple the location for hearing and deliberation and have any meaning on the legal place of arbitration. The award is considered made in Singapore, even though the hearing was not held there. If any of the party intends to set aside the award, it should apply for the competent court in Singapore in accordance with the local law.
 
We could also find the distinction from the Arbitration Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). Article 16 of LCIA Rules provided the following:
 
16.1 The parties may agree in writing the seat (or legal place) of their arbitration. Failing such a choice, the seat of arbitration shall be London, unless and until the LCIA Court determines in view of all the circumstances, and after having given the parties an opportunity to make written comment, that another seat is more appropriate.
 
16.2 The Arbitral Tribunal may hold hearings, meetings and deliberations at any convenient geographical place in its discretion; and if elsewhere than the seat of the arbitration, the arbitration shall be treated as an arbitration conducted at the seat of the arbitration and any award as an award made at the seat of the arbitration for all purposes.
 
16.3 The law applicable to the arbitration (if any) shall be the arbitration law of the seat of arbitration, unless and to the extent that the parties have expressly agreed in writing on the application of another arbitration law and such agreement is not prohibited by the law of the arbitral seat.
 
III. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SEAT OF ARBITRATION IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PRACTICES
 
The seat of arbitration played very important role in international commercial arbitration. Its significance reflected in the following aspects.
 
A.    It decides the validity and the nationality of the award
The most significance of the seat of arbitration closely related to the origin of the legal binding force of the award. In another word, where the binding force of an award came from. Article 39 of the Japanese Arbitration Law provided that “ (3). The arbitral award shall state its date and place of arbitration. (4) The arbitral award shall be deemed to have been made at the place of arbitration.” The award is considered to be made at the seat of arbitration. If the national court set aside award made in the seat of such court, foreign court may refuse to enforce it, as provided by Article 5 (1) (e) of the New York Convention provided.
B.    It decides the court entitled to set aside the award
As usual practices, the national court may only set aside its own award. As to the foreign arbitral award, the court may decide whether to enforce it or not. According to New York Convention, the national court to which a party applies for enforcement of foreign arbitral award, may refuse upon the other party’s application based on the court-confirmed proof, that it had been set aside by the national court where it was made. So only the court, where the award was made, is entitled to set aside the arbitral award. 
 
IV. DETERMINATION OF THE SEAT OF ARBITRATION
 
In international commercial practices, the place of arbitration is ultimately determined by the applied arbitration rules and law, which provided methods to determination of such place as following:
 
A. By the Applied Arbitration Rules
If the parties did not mention the place of arbitration in their arbitration agreement, but the particular arbitration rules or the permanent arbitration institution, the place of arbitration should be decided by the applied arbitration rules. In international commercial arbitration practices, the fact that the parties agreed to present their dispute to a particular arbitration institution, implied to apply the arbitration rules of such institution, unless the parties agreed otherwise. For instance, if the parties agreed to present their dispute to China International Economic & Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), it means to apply the CIETAC Arbitration Rules. And the determination of the arbitration place relied on such applied rules. As to the decision on the place of arbitration in such rules, it could be divided into the following provisions.
 
1.    The place of arbitration is the same as the
Place of Business of the arbitration institution
 
Some arbitration rules have special provision on such place. Article 16 of the LCIA 1998 Arbitration Rules mentioned that if the parties failed to agree on the place of arbitration, the seat of arbitration shall be London, unless and until the LCIA Court determines in view of all the circumstances, and after having given the parties an opportunity to make written comment, that another seat is more appropriate. The Arbitral Tribunal may hold hearings, meetings and deliberations at any convenient geographical place in its discretion; and if elsewhere than the seat of the arbitration, the arbitration shall be treated as arbitration conducted at the seat of the arbitration and any award as an award made at the seat of the arbitration for all purposes.
 
According to 2006 International Commercial Arbitration Court of Russian Federation Arbitration Rules, the place of arbitration is only Moscow. As a result, if the parties submit their dispute to Russian arbitration court, the award made by the court is always in Moscow due to the applied rules.
 
To sum up, if the parties failed to agree on the place of arbitration, it is the applied arbitration rules to determine such place. Some arbitration rules provided that the place of arbitration is the same place of the permanent arbitration institution.

2. The place of arbitration is different from the Place of Business of the arbitration institution
There are such circumstances in international commercial arbitration practices. If the place of arbitration is different from that of the arbitration institution, how to determine the nationality of such international arbitral award? In my personal opinion, it should be the arbitration rules applied and the applicable national law that decide the nationality of such international award. For example, the title of Article 20 of the Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, effective on January 1, 2007, is the Seat of Arbitration. It provides as following:
(1)  Unless agreed upon by the parties, the Board shall decide the seat of arbitration in accordance with Article 9.
(2)  The arbitral tribunal may, after consultation with the parties, conduct hearing at at place which it considers appropriate. The arbitral tribunal may meet and deliberate at any place which it considers appropriate. If any hearing, meeting, or deliberation is held elsewhere than at the seat of arbitration, the arbitration shall be deemed to have taken place at the seat of arbitration.
(3)  The award shall be deemed to have been made at the seat of arbitration.
 
Article 14 of the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) Rules of Arbitration (1998) provided the following determination of the place of arbitration.
(1) The place of the arbitration shall be fixed by the Court unless agreed upon by the parties.
(2) The Arbitral Tribunal may, after consultation with the parties, conduct hearings and meetings at any location it considers appropriate unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
(3) The Arbitral Tribunal may deliberate at any location it considers appropriate.
 
That is to say if the parties failed to determine the place of arbitration in their arbitration agreement, it is the ICC Court of Arbitration that makes such decision. In addition, the place of arbitration could be in Paris, where the ICC Court locates, or in other cities out of France, no matter it is decided by the parties or by the Court. The award made in the state other than France should be considered as the award of the state where it is made. And the local court could set aside such award upon the party’s requirement in accordance with the local law.
 
In ICC international arbitration practices, parties often agreed on the place of arbitration. For instance, in 2003, the parties agreed on the place of arbitration in the clause in 76% of the cases and by subsequent agreement in 11% of the cases. In the remaining 13% of cases, the ICC Court determined the place of arbitration. The following attached 2 tables expressed the arbitration place distributed by ICC Court practices during the period from 1999 to 2003.
 
 
Table 1. Places of Arbitration Agreed by the Parties in ICC Arbitrations
 
 
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Total
France
89
56
103
72
97
417
Switzerland
74
72
73
99
69
387
U.K
46
48
52
48
43
237
U.S.A.
35
37
35
40
46
193
Germany
16
21
20
15
17
89
Singapore
11
11
13
14
14
63
Austria
10
11
8
10
7
46
Netherlands
6
4
10
12
9
41
Italy
2
11
4
5
12
34
Sweden
8
6
3
6
6
29
 
Table 2. Places of Arbitration Agreed determined by ICC Court
 
 
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Total
France
23
23
25
16
17
104
Switzerland
10
12
12
12
5
51
U.S.A.
9
6
4
10
7
36
U.K.
2
7
9
5
6
29
Germany
5
2
4
1
5
17
Belgium
4
3
0
4
2
13
Singapore
1
4
4
0
2
11
Netherlands
3
2
2
1
2
10
Canada
2
1
1
2
3
9
Austria
3
0
2
0
3
8
 
In 2005, a total 521 new cases were registered, bringing the number of cases handled by the ICC Court since its creation to over 14,000. In 87.4% of the cases introduced in 2005, the parties had chosen the place of arbitration either in the arbitration clause or by subsequent agreement. In the remaining 12.6% of cases, the Court was required to fix the place of arbitration either because the parties had not been sufficiently specific (e.g. they had merely specified a country without specifying a city, had expressed no choice at all, or had been unclear I  their choice), or because they disagreed over the place of arbitration. The places of arbitration chosen by the parties or fixed by the Court in 2005 were situated in 85 cities in 50 different countries. The following is the statistic on most frequently selected cities
 
 
City
Agreed by the Parties
Fixed by the Court
Total
Paris
69
16
85
Geneva
53
5
58
London
47
3
50
Zurich
33
2
50
New York
18
2
20
Singapore
14
2
16
Madrid
11
0
11
Mexico City
9
0
9
Vienna
5
5
10
In 2006, ICC Court accepted 593 requests for Arbitration. Those requests concerned 1,613 parties from 125 countries and independent territories. In 10.5% of cases at least one of the parties was a State or parastatal entity. The place of arbitration was located in 52 countries throughout the world. Arbitrators of 71 nationalities were appointed or confirmed under the ICC Rules. The amount in dispute exceeded one million US dollars in 55.5% of new cases.
As to the distinction between the place of arbitration and that of hearing and deliberation, the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) 2002 Arbitration Rules has similar provisions in Article 39:
(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the place of arbitration shall be decided by the Center, taking into consideration any observations of the parties and the circumstances of the arbitration.
(b) The Tribunal may, after consultation with the parties, conduct hearings at any place that it considers appropriate. It may deliberate wherever it deems appropriate.
(c) The award shall be deemed to have been made at the place of arbitration.
 
We may conclude from above-mentioned arbitration rules that the place of arbitration could be the same place of arbitration or different from that of the institution, such as provided by the ICC Rules and LCIA Rules. In the later circumstances, in spite of the fact that under the administration of the arbitration rules, the arbitration could be conducted in the place which is different from that of the arbitration institution. The award is to be made in the place of arbitration other than the institution locates. And the nationality of the award is that of the place of arbitration instead of where the arbitration institution locates. For instance, the parties agreed on the application of ICC Rules, the place of arbitration is London. The award made in accordance with ICC Rules should be treated as British award instead of French award. This author disagrees with the point that the place of arbitration is the place where the arbitration institution locates by some scholar in China. Due to the fact that almost of all the arbitration rules of the permanent arbitration institutions, including UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, have special provision on the place of arbitration, which could be selected by the parties in their arbitration agreement. Such a place could be the same of the arbitration institution locates or different from it, whether the parties agreed in arbitration agreement or decided by the arbitration institution or arbitral tribunal in accordance with the applied arbitration rules.
 
B. By the Applied Arbitration Law
 
If the arbitration agreement did not provided the applied arbitration rules, any party may apply to the national court for the determination of the place of arbitration in accordance with the local arbitration law. For instance, Article 20 of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration drafted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law in 1985 and adopted by dozens of countries and regions currently now has special provision as to the determination of the place of arbitration.
(1) The parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration. Failing such agreement, the place of arbitration shall be determined by the arbitral tribunal having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the convenience of the parties.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this article, the arbitral tribunal may, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, meet at any place it considers appropriate for consultation among its members, for hearing witnesses, experts or the parties, or for inspection of goods, other property or documents.
Article of 28 of the Japanese Arbitration Law also provided clearly the basic principles for the determination of the place of arbitration: (1) The parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration. (2) Failing such agreement as prescribed in the preceding paragraph, the place of arbitration shall be determined by the arbitral tribunal having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the convenience of the parties. (3) Notwithstanding the place of arbitration determined in accordance with the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs, the arbitral tribunal may, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, carry out the following procedures at any place it considers appropriate: (i) consultation among the members of the arbitral tribunal; (ii) hearing of parties, experts or witnesses; and (iii) inspection of goods, other property or documents. Among the basic principles to determine the seat of arbitration, the principle of the parties’ autonomy is in priority. Only the parties failed to decide such a seat, the arbitral institution or tribunal may decide such a seat. 
 
In sum, the agreement of the parties as to the place of arbitration is respected by both the arbitration rules and the applicable law of the state. The place of arbitration agreed by the parties in their arbitration agreement should be the place of arbitration in legal sense. In the absence of such agreement, the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration institution may decide the seat of arbitration. In some special circumstances, the national court may also design such place in accordance with the local law.
 
V. DETERMINATION OF THE SEAT OF ARBITRATION IN ARBITRATION LAW AND PRACTICES IN MAINLAND CHINA
 
The arbitration conducted under current Arbitration Law of the PRC refers only to institutional arbitration instead of ad hoc arbitration. If the parties agreed to settle their dispute by arbitration in China, they should present it to the selected arbitration commission. According to the Arbitration Law, Arbitration agreements shall include arbitration clauses included in the contracts, and agreements on application for arbitration that are reached in another written form before or after the dispute arises. And the following items should be included in the arbitration agreement: (1) a declaration of the intention to apply for arbitration; (2) the arbitrable matters; and (3) the selected arbitration commission. If an arbitration agreement contains no or unclear provisions concerning the arbitrable matters or the arbitration commission, the parties may reach a supplementary agreement.  If no such supplementary agreement can be reached, the arbitration agreement shall be void.
 
In current arbitration legislation and practices in China, the place of arbitration is usually the place where the arbitration commission is situated. The parties agreed to submit their dispute to particular arbitration commission, the commission usually conducts the arbitration in the place of its location. Therefore, the party should turn to the intermediate people’s court where the arbitration commission locates, if it intended to challenge the award for application of setting aside after it was made.  The People's Court that has accepted an application for the vacation of an arbitral award shall rule to vacate the award or to reject the application within two months of the date of acceptance.
 
In the international commercial arbitration practices in China, there could be also cases that the cases are accepted by the Chinese arbitration institution where the place of arbitration is out of China. For instance, Article 31 of the CIETAC 2005 Arbitration Rules specially provides the place of arbitration as following:
(1) Where the parties have agreed on the place of arbitration in writing, the parties agreement shall prevail.
(2) Where the parties have not agreed on the place of arbitration, the place of arbitration shall be the domicile of the CIETAC or its Sub-Commission.
(3)The arbitral award shall be deemed as being made at the place of arbitration.
Suppose one Chinese party entered a contract with a Japanese party. The arbitration clause provided that “Any dispute arising from the contract should be settled by the CIETAC, the place of arbitration is in Singapore”. We could infer from the arbitration clause that the CIETAC has jurisdiction over the contract. The place of arbitration is in Singapore. The award shall be deemed made in Singapore by the arbitral tribunal composed in accordance with CIETAC Rules under the auspices of CIETAC. After the award was made, both parties dissatisfy and intend to set aside the award, for which national court the party should apply? By applying different national law, there could be the following possibilities:
 
Firstly, the Chinese party may turn to the Chinese court where CIETAC is situated for application vacating award in accordance with the Chinese law based on Article 58 of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter refers to as CAL): “If a party can produce evidence which proves that an arbitral award involves any of the following circumstances,  he may submit an application for vacation of the award to the intermediate People's Court of the place where the arbitration commission is located”
 
Secondly, the Japanese party may also turn to the Singapore court for application vacating the CIETAC award. Because according to Art.31 of the CIETAC Rules 2005, the award should be deemed made in Singapore, since the parties had already selected Singapore as the place of arbitration. Singapore court of course is entitled to set aside such a CIETAC award in accordance with Article 48 of its Arbitration Act 2001.  
 
As a result, once award is made, the Japanese party could apply for setting aside the award to the Singapore court, where the award was made. While the Chinese party may apply for setting aside in accordance with Art. 58 of CAL to the Beijing competent court, where CIEATC Beijing was situated.  
 
Foreign arbitral awards under New York Convention generally refer to the awards made in the territory of a Sate other than the State where the recognition and enforcement of such awards are sought. It was provided in Art.1 (1) of New York Convention. Such provision reflected the standard of territoriality as to the determination of the nationality of arbitral award. According to the current CIETAC Rules of 2005, awards made under the auspices of CIETAC are not necessarily Chinese awards.  
 
The amendment of CITAC Rules reflected that the parties’ autonomy is much respected in CIETAC and the trend of development in the international commercial arbitration. This is also has some significance for the domestic arbitration. For example, cases arbitrated in Beijing Arbitration Commission could be arbitrated in Tianjin between the parties from Hebei and Shandong. The award is to be made in Tianjin. And the party may apply for setting aside by Tianjin Intermediate People’s  Court. Of course, there has room for amendment of both arbitration rules for different arbitration commissions and the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC (hereinafter refers to as CPL). Until the CPL amendment, application for setting aside arbitration awards in China should be the intermediate people’s court where the arbitration commission is located.
 
As to the competition in the international service trade as arbitration, the parties may choose whatever arbitration institution they like. Some services provided by arbitration commissions could be widely used while others could be reduced due to the quality of service. The place of arbitration is worth to be paid much more attention even in our domestic arbitration service market. It is important for the domestic arbitration commission to pay much attention to the place of arbitration in their arbitration rules.
 
VI. CONCLUSION
 
We could draw the following conclusion from above-analyzed:
1.     In international commercial arbitration, the seat of arbitration refers to the place, where the award was considered to be made. It is the court, where the arbitral award was made, being entitled to set aside the arbitral award.
2.     It is the applied arbitration rules and arbitration law that determine the seat of arbitration.
3.     According to the applied arbitration rules and law, the basic principles to determine the seat of arbitration are : (1) The parties may agree to the place of arbitration in their arbitration agreement. (2) If they failed to agree on it, the place of arbitration should be determined by the arbitral tribunal or institution in accordance with the applied arbitration rules or law.
4.     Under the institutional arbitration, the seat of arbitration could or could not be the same as the business place of such permanent arbitration institution. The deciding point is the provision of the applied arbitration rules of this institution. Under ad hoc arbitration, the seat is decided by the applied arbitration law.  
5.     The nationality of the international arbitral award should be the state where the arbitral award is made in accordance with the universally applied standard.
6.     The place of arbitration is also has some significance for the domestic arbitration. And there are rooms for further reform on the CPL and CAL as to the determination of the place of arbitration in order to keep up with the international commercial arbitration legislation and practices.


 
【注释】
# Professor and Director of International Arbitration, Renmin University of China Law School, arbitrator for China International Economic & Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) since 1989, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration & Conciliation Center since 1995, Beijing Arbitration Commission since 1997, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators since 2003 (MCIArb), Singapore International Arbitration Center since 2007.
Russell on Arbitration Twenty-First Edition by David St. John Sutton, John Kendall and Judith Gill, published in 1997 by Sweet & Maxwell Limited, p.74-75.
The provision of Art. 5 (1) (e) of the New York Convention as following: “(1) Recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the competent authority where the recognition and enforcement is sought, proof that: ……(e) The award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made.” By the end of 2006, there are 142 contracting parties. China became a party in 1987. as to the contracting parties in detail, see www.uncitral.org.

 
Article 22 of 2006 Arbitration Rules of Russian Federation Arbitration Court.
www.sccinstitute.com
Christopher R. Drahozal & Richard W. Naimark, Towards a Science of International Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2005, at 85-87; also “2003 Statistical Report”, (2004) 15(1) ICC Int’l Ct. Arb. Bull. at 7-12.
ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Vol. 17/No.1 –2006. at 5.
ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Vol. 17/No.1 –2006. at 10-11.
http://www.iccwbo.org/court/arbitration/id11088/index.html,visited on March 3, 2007.

Mr. Kang Ming, deputy secretary of CIETAC holds such a point. He holds that in institutional arbitration, the place of arbitration is the place where the arbitration institution locates……The place of ICC Arbitration should be (Paris) France. See Kang Ming, Issues Relating to Market Access for Commercial Arbitration Service in China, from Arbitration and Law, No.6, 2003, at 57.
Law No. 138, 2003, effective on March 1, 2004.
There are 187 arbitration commissions in China, including CIETAC and CMAC (China Maritime Commission).
This law was adopted on August 31, 1994 at the Ninth Session of the Standing Committee of the Eight National People Legislation’s Congress and implemented on September 1, 1995.  English translation available at http://www.cietac.org.cn/english/laws/laws_5.htm (accessed Apr. 18, 2006).
Art. 16 of the Arbitration Law of the PRC.
Art. 18 of the Arbitration Law of the PRC.
Art. 58 of the Arbitration Law of the PRC.
Art. 60 of the Arbitration Law of the PRC.
 
Updatetime:2008-11-26
Hits:7863
 
上一条:Zhao Xiuwen, Lisa A. Kloppenberg  REFORMING CHINESE ARBITRATION LAW AND PRACTICES IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
下一条:
 
 【Print】 【Close】
 
==Other article==
Zhao Xiuwen, Lisa A. Kloppenberg  REFORMING CHINESE ARBITRATION LAW AND PRACTICES IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
 
Copyright 2008,International Arbitration Institute, Renmin University Law School
No. 59 Zhong Guan Cun Street, Haidian District, Beijing, China, 100872
Email: interarb@126.com, Constructed by Zhong Chuang Network
JING - ICP No.06036180
All Rights Reserved