Prof. Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler (short bio) | General Course: International Arbitration: An Interplay of Many Actors

N.B. Documents with an asterisk are highly recommended reading. Others are optional.

DAY 2 – THE PARTIES – Who is bound by the arbitration agreement ?
1. *Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v. The Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Supreme Court, 3 November 2010.
2. *Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Religious Affairs v. Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company, Cour d’Appel, Paris, First Pole, First Chamber, 17 February 2011.
3. Swiss Supreme Court Decision, Judgment of 16 October 2003 (Summary by L. Lévy and B. Stucki, 2005, International Arbitration Law Review, issue 1).
4. Dow Chemical v. ISOVER Saint-Gobain, Interim Award of September 23, 1982, ICC Case No. 4131.
5. William W. PARK, ‘Non-Signatories and International Contracts: An Arbitrator’s Dilemma’ in Permanent Court of Arbitration (ed), Multiple Parties in International Arbitration (Oxford University Press 2009).

DAY 3 – THE PARTIES (cont’d) – Multiple Proceedings
6. *CME Czech Republic B.V v Czech Republic (partial award), 419 (UNCITRAL Arbitration in Stockholm 2001).
7. *Lauder v Czech Republic (final award), 171 (UNCITRAL Arbitration in London 2001).
8. Order of the Consolidation Tribunal in Corn Products International, Inc v. United Mexican States, ICSID Review (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/5 2005).
9. Order of the Consolidation Tribunal in Canfor Corporation v United States of America and Tembec et Al v. United States of America and Terminal Forest Productions Ltd v United States of America (NAFTA Consolidation Tribunal 2005).
10. Gabrielle KAUFMANN-KOHLER, ‘Multiple Proceedings – New Challenges for the Settlement of Investment Disputes’, Key note speech, Fordham Arbitration Day 2013, Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, forthcoming (2014).

DAY 4 – THE ARBITRATORS
– Issue Conflict
11. *Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia et al. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Decision on Disqualification Proposal, Arbitrator of 12 August 2010.
12. *Tidewater Inc. v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/5, Decision on Claimants’ Proposal to Disqualify Professor Brigitte Stern, Arbitrator of 23 December 2010.
13. Michael HWANG, Kevin LIM, ‘Issue Conflict in ICSID Arbitrations’, Transnational Dispute Management, Vol. 8(5), 2011.
– Immunity
14. Hong-Lin YU, Laurence SHORE, ‘Independence, Impartiality and Immunity of Arbitrators: US and English Perspectives’ (2003) 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 935-967.
– Arbitral Secretaries
15. Constantine PARTASIDES, Niuscha BASSIRI, Ulrike GANTENBERG, Leighla BRUTON, Andrew RICCIO, ‘Arbitral Secretaries’ in Albert Jan van den Berg (ed), International Commercial Arbitration – The Coming of a New Age ? (Kluwer Law International 2013).
16. Young ICCA Guide on Arbitral Secretaries.

DAY 5 – COUNSEL, WITNESSES, EXPERTS
– Counsel Misconduct
17. *Hrvatska Elektroprivreda, d. d. v. The Republic of Slovenia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/24, Tribunal’s Ruling regarding the participation of David Mildon QC in further stages of proceedings, 6 May 2008.
18. *The Rompetrol Group N.V. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3, Decision of the Tribunal on the Participation of a Counsel, 14 January 2010.
19. IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration, International Bar Association, 25 May 2013.
– Confidentiality
20. Alexis C. BROWN, ‘Presumption Meets Reality: An Exploration of the Confidentiality Obligation in International Commercial Arbitration’, American University International Law Review, Volume 16, Issue 4, 2001, pp.971024.
21. Emmot v. Michael Wilson & Partners, Judgment of the English Court of Appeal of March 12, 2008 ((2009) EWHC 1 (Comm)).
– Privileges
22. Craig TEVENDALE, Ula CARTWRIGHT-FINCH, ‘Privilege in international arbitration: is it time to recognize the consensus’, Journal of International Arbitration, Volume 36 Issue 6 (2009), pp. 823-839.

DAY 6 – THE STATE
23. *InfoCuria from the European Court of Justice, Information on Gazprom v. Republic of Lithuania no C-536/2013 and decision dated 10 October 2013 of the Supreme Court of Lithuania in Gazprom v. Republic of Lithuania, case no 3K-7-326/2013 (unofficial translation).
24. *Judgment of the European Court of Justice of February 10, 2009 in Allianz SpA v. West Tankers Inc. (C-185/07).
25. *Biwater Gauff v. Republic of Tanzania, (ICSID ARB/05/22), Procedural Order no. 5 of February 2, 2007.
26. Gabrielle KAUFMANN-KOHLER, ‘Global Implications of the FAA: The Role of Legislation in International Arbitration’, American Arbitration Association, Federal Arbitration Act at 80, Anniversary Lecture Series, ICSID Review, Foreign Investment Law Journal, Volume 20, No. 2, 2005, pp. 339-356.
27. Gabrielle KAUFMANN-KOHLER, ‘Commercial Arbitration Before International Courts and Tribunals – Reviewing Abusive Conduct of Domestic Courts’ – 2011 American University Washington College of Law Annual Lecture on International Commercial Arbitration’, Arbitration International, Vol. 29(2), 2013, pp. 153-173.
28. Francesco FRANCIONI, ‘Access to Justice, Denial of Justice and International Investment Law’, The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 20(3), 2009.
– Transparency
29. UNCITRAL Rules on transparency
30. Gabrielle KAUFMANN-KOHLER, ‘Non-Disputing State Submissions in Investment Arbitration: Resurgence of Diplomatic Protection?’ In Boisson de Chazournes/Kohen/Viñuales (Eds.), Diplomatic and Judicial Means of Dispute Settlement, Martinus Nijhoff, 2013, pp. 305-324.

DAY 7 – THE LEGITIMACY OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
31. Stephan W. SCHILL, ‘The Sixth Path: Reforming Investment Law from Within’, Transnational Dispute Management, Vol. 11(1), 2014.
32. Chris CAMPBELL, Sophie NAPPERT, Luke NOTTAGE, ‘Assessing Treaty-based Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Abandon, Retain or Reform?’, Transnational Dispute Management, Vol. 11(1), 2014.
33. UNCTAD, “Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: In Search of a Roadmap”, Issue Note No. 2, 26 June 2013.
34. European Commission Fact Sheet on Investment Protection and Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement in EU Process.

OPTIONAL MATERIALS ON SOME OTHER ACTORS
– Third party funders
35. Philippe PINSOLLE, ‘Third Party Funding and Security for Costs’, Cahiers de l’Arbitrage/The Paris Journal of International Arbitration, Volume 2, 213, pp. 399 ff.
36. David A. RONEY, Katherine VON DER WIED, ‘Third-party funding in international arbitration: New Opportunities and New Challenges’, in: MÜLLER Christoph/RIGOZZI Antonio (eds), New Developments in international Commercial Arbitration 2013, Schulthess 2013, pp. 183-207.
– Arbitral institutions and organizations as makers of soft law
37. Gabrielle KAUFMANN-KOHLER, ‘Soft Law in International Arbitration: Codification and Normativity’, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 1(2), 2010, pp.283-299.
– Amici Curiae
38. Katia Fach GOMEZ, ‘Rethinking the role of amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: how to draw the line favorably for the public interest’, Fordham International Law Journal, Volume 35 (2012), pp. 510-564.

Prof. Alan Rau (short bio) | Special Course: ◦Delimiting the Powers of Courts and Arbitrators
[Please note that I have divided the readings into two parts. The first group of materials [# 1-14] is most highly recommended; the readings in the second group [ ## 15-20] will certainly prove useful and interesting but are somewhat less essential for our purposes.]

1. U.S. Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 (1925).
2. Décret nₒ. 2011-48 du 13 janvier 2011 portant réforme de l’arbitrage.
3. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.
4. United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”).
5. Rules of Arbitration of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, art. 6.
6. American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Third, The U.S. Law of International Commercial Arbitration (tentative drafts) :
§ 4-14 (September 1, 2011)
§§ 4-11, 4-12, 4-14, 4-16, 4-22, 4-29 (December 23, 2011)
§§ 2-11, 2-15, 2-18, 2-24, 2-28, 2-29(March 26, 2013)
7. Alan Scott Rau, Everything You Really Need to Know about “Separability” in Seventeen Simple Propositions,” 14 American Review of International Arbitration 1 (2003).
8. Alan Scott Rau, “Arbitral Jurisdiction and the Dimensions of Party ‘Consent,’” 24 Arbitration International 199 (2008). [A revised version of this article appears in Permanent Court of Arbitration (ed.), Multiple Party Actions in International Arbitration: Consent, Procedure and Enforcement (Oxford University Press, 2009)].
9. Alan Scott Rau, “Arbitral Power and the Limits of Contract: Yet Another Trilogy,” 22 American Review of International Arbitration 435 (2012).
10. Alan Scott Rau, “Fear of Freedom,” 17 American Review of International Arbitration 469 (2008).
11. Jan Paulsson, The Idea of Arbitration, chapter 3 (2013).
12. Alan Scott Rau, Arbitrating “Arbitrability,” 7 World Arbitration and Mediation Review 487 (2013)
13. BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina, 134 S. Ct. 1198 (U.S. Supreme Court March 5, 2014).
14. Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064 (U.S. Supreme Court 2013).
15. REMOVED
16. Pierre Mayer, Litispendance, connexité et chose jugée dans l’arbitrage international, in Liber Amicorum Claude Reymond: Autour de l’arbitrage 185 (2004).
17. Alan Scott Rau, “Separability in the United States Supreme Court,” 2006:1Stockholm International Arbitration Review 1 (2006).
18. Alan Scott Rau, The Errors of Comity: Forum Non Conveniens Returns to the Second Circuit, 23 American Review of International Arbitration 1 (2012).
19. BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina, Brief of Amici Curiae Professors and Practitioners of Arbitration Law in Support of Reversal, 2013 WL 4769419 (U.S.)(August 30, 2013).
20. BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina, Brief of Amici Curiae Practitioners and Professors of International Arbitration Law in Support of Respondent, 2013 WL 5935163 (U.S.) (November 1, 2013).

Prof. Christophe Seraglini (short bio) | Special Course: ◦Secrecy in Arbitration

A. English sources
– Confidentiality in arbitration
1. G. Born, International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International 2014, « Chapter 20: Confidentiality in International Arbitration », p. 2779.
2. J.-F. Poudret and S. Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, 2007, para. 367.
3. J. Paulsson and N. Rawding, « The Trouble with Confidentiality », Arbitration Law, vol. 11, Issue 3, p. 303.
4. F. Patrick Lord Neill of Bladen, « Confidentiality in Arbitration », Arbitration International, vol. 12, Issue 3, p. 287.
5. L. Y. Fortier, « The Occasionnally Unwarranted Assumption of Confidentiality », Arbitration International, vol. 15, Issue 2, p. 131.
6. H. Smith, « Confidentiality in Arbitration », Arbitration International, vol. 11, Issue 3, p. 337.
7. High Court of Australia 7 april 1995, Esso v. Plowman, Arbitration International, vol. 11, Issue 3, p. 235.
– Arbitration and legal privilege
8. K. Peter Berger, « Evidentiary Privileges: Best Practice Standards versus/and Arbitral Discretion », Arbitration International, vol. 22, Issue 4, p. 501.
9. P. Heitzmann « Confidentiality and Privileges in Cross Border legal practice: The need for global Standard », ASA Bull., vol. 26, Issue 2, p. 205.

B. French sources
– Confidentiality in arbitration
10. J.-M. Garinot, Le secret des affaires, Travaux du CNRS, Lexis Nexis, 2013, vol. 41, p. 248.
11. E. Loquin, « Les obligations de confidentialité dans l’arbitrage », Rev. Arb. 2006, p. 323.
12. P. Cavalieros, « La confidentialité de l’arbitrage », Gaz. Pal. 15 December 2005, n°349, p. 6.
13. C. Müller, « La confidentialité en arbitrage commercial international : un trompe-l’œil ? », ASA Bulletin, 2005, vol. 23, P. 216.
14. Bull. CCI. 2009, « La confidentialité dans l’arbitrage », special supplement of the International Court of Arbitration of the ICC, p. 19, for the topic of confidentiality:
A. Dimolitsa, « Règlements institutionnels et régimes nationaux relatifs à l’obligation de confidentialité incombant aux parties en matière d’arbitrage », p. 19.
G. Burn and A. Pearsall, « Les exceptions au principe de confidentialité en matière d’arbitrage international », p. 25.
M. Hwang and K. Chung, « La confidentialité et ses exceptions – quelle voie suivre pour leur protection ? », p. 43.
A. Cohen Smutny and K M. Young, « Confidentialité et Etats », p. 79.
S. Lazareff, « Confidentialité et arbitrage : approche théorique (et même philosophique) », p. 87.
15. F. Fages, « La confidentialité de l’arbitrage à l’épreuve de la transparence financière », Rev. Arb. 2003, p. 5.
16. J-L Devolvé, « Vraies et fausses confidences, ou les petits et grands secrets de l’arbitrage », Rev. Arb. 1996, p. 373.
17. Tribunal de commerce de Paris 22 February 1999, True North c. Publicis, Rev. Arb., 2003, p. 189.
18. Paris Court of Appeal, 18 February 1986, Aïta c. Ojjeh, Rev. Arb. 1986, p. 583.
19. Paris Court of Appeal, 4 April 2002, NAFIMCO, Rev. Arb. 2003, p. 143.
– Arbitration and national security privilege
20. « Arbitrage international et secret de la défense : le point de vue des praticiens », RDAI, n°6, 2004, p. 827.
21. Paris Court of Appeal, 9 June 2011, n°10/11853.
22. Paris Court of Appeal, 11 May 2010 n°09/10252.
23. Civ. 1ère 11 February 2009 n°06-18746 with the commentary of C. Jarrosson in Rev. Arb. 2009, p. 518.
http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/CommonUI/document.aspx?id=KLI-KA-1105502-n
http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/CommonUI/document.aspx?id=KLI-KA-1105503-n
24. M. Henry, Chronique de droit de l’arbitrage n°7, « Le devoir de révélation dans la jurisprudence récente : de la rigueur à l’excès », LPA, 21 February 2011, p. 6.
25. J-B Racine, observations sous Paris Court of Appeal, 10 September 1998, Paris Court of Appeal, 7 September 1999, 20 April 2000 and Paris Court of Appeal, 1er mars 2001, Rev. Arb. 2001, p. 559.
26. X. Delpech, « Moyen d’appréciation par la Cour de cassation de l’arbitrabilité d’un litige », D. 2009, p. 557.
– Arbitration and confidentiality of investigations
27.  A. De Fontmichel, « Procédure pénale et arbitrage commercial international : quelques points d’impact », Cahiers de l’arbitrage, 1 April 2012, p. 309.
28. D. Chilstein, « Droit pénal et arbitrage », Rev. Arb. 2009, p. 3.
– Arbitration, legal privilege and obligation of disclosure
29. Bull. CCI. 2009, « La confidentialité dans l’arbitrage », special supplement of the International Court of Arbitration of the ICC, p. 19, for the topic of legal privilege, especially business or trade secrets privilege: Y. Derains, “Preuve et confidentialité”, p. 63.
30. M. Henry, « Le devoir de révélation dans les rapports entre arbitres et conseils : de la suggestion aux électrochocs », Cahiers de l’arbitrage, 1 July 2011, p. 787.
31. M. Henry, « Le devoir de révélation dans la jurisprudence récente : de la rigueur à l’excès », LPA – Chronique de droit de l’arbitrage n°7, 21 February 2011, p. 6, IV.
32. T. Kaissi, « Consécration d’une obligation de révélation étendue », LPA – Chronique de droit de l’arbitrage n°11, 28 January 2014, p. 6.
33. Civ. 1ère 20 March 2013, n°12-18238.
– Confidentiality Agreement
34. M. Bühler « les clauses de confidentialité dans les contrats internationaux », RDAl, n° 3, 2003, pp. 359.

Prof. João Bosco Lee (short bio) | Special Course: Qualification and Arbitration

1. BORN Gary B., International Commercial Arbitration, Second Edition, Kluwer Law International,  2014.
2. DE BOISSESSON Matthieu, “L’arbitrage et le problème de la qualification”, Mélanges Offertes à Claude Reymond Liber Amicorum Claude Reymond Autour de L’arbitrage, Paris, Litec, 2004, p. 29-42.
3. FOUCHARD Philippe, GAILLARD Emmanuel, GOLDMAN Berthold, International Commercial Arbitration, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 1999.
4. GOLDMAN, Berthold, “Les Conflits de loi dans l’arbitrage international de droit privé”, in: Recueil des cours de L’Aacadémie de droit international de la Haye, T. 109 (1963), p. 351-480
5. GRIGERA NAÓN Horacio A., Choice of Law problems in international commercial arbitrations, Recueil des cours de l’académie de droit international, vol 289 (2001), pp.168 et seq.
6. HEISKANEN Veijo, “And/Or: The Problem of Qualification in International Arbitration, Arbitration International”, Arbitration International,  2010, Volume 26, Issue 4, p. 44.
7. LEW Julian D. M.; MISTELIS Loukas A.; Kröll Stefan Michael, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2003.
8. KAUFMANN-KOHLER Gabrielle, “La qualification en arbitrage commercial international”, Droit International Privé, Paris, A. Pedone, 2013, p.300-322.
9. MAYER Pierre, “L’autonomie de l’arbitre international dans l’apréciation de sa propre compétence”, in: Recueil des cours de L’Aacadémie de droit international de la Haye, T. 217, 1989, p.327-425.
10. POUDRET Jean-François, BESSON Sébastien, Droit comparé de l’arbitrage international, Genève, LGDJ, 2002.
11. REDFERN Alan , HUNTER J. Martin, BLACKABY Nigel, PARTASIDES Constantine,International Arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2009.

Prof. Zachary Douglas (short bio) | Special Course: A Theory for Distinguishing the Scope of Investment Protection Obligations

1. A. van Aaken, ‘Chapter 23: Primary and Secondary Remedies in International Investment Law and National State Liability: a Functional and Comparative View’ in S. Schill (ed) International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (OUP: 2010) pp. 721-754.
2. Z. Douglas, The International Law of Investment Claims (CUP: 2009) Ch. 1.
3. Z. Douglas, ‘Chapter 12: Property, Investment and the Scope of Investment Protection Obligations’ in Z. Douglas, J. Pauwelyn & J. Vinuales, The Foundations of International Investment Law: Bringing Theory into Practice (OUP: 2014) pp. 363-406.
4. Z. Douglas, ‘The Enforcement of Environmental Norms in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ in Harnessing Foreign Investment to Promote Environmental Protection (CUP: 2013) pp. 415-441 (read only pp. 418-424).
5. B. Kingsbury & S. Schill, ‘Investor-State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality and the Emerging Global Administrative Law’, International Law and Justice Working Paper 2009/6.
6. A. Pellet, ‘Chapter 1: The Definition of Responsibility in International Law’ in J. Crawford, A. Pellet & S. Olleson (eds), The Law of International Responsibility (OUP: 2010) pp. 3-16.
7. A. Roberts, ‘Clash of Paradigms: Actors and Analogies Shaping the Investment Treaty System’ (2013) 107 AJIL 45-94.

Andrea Carlevaris – Workshop – ICC Arbitration Practice

– Articles
1. The 2012 ICC Rules: Important Changes and Issues for Future Resolution, W.L. Craig and L. Jaeger (Les Cahiers de l’Arbitrage/The Paris Journal of International Arbitration 2012/1)
2. L’arbitre international entre Charybde et Scylla: le principe jura novit curia entre principe de la contradiction et impartialité de l’arbitre, A. Carlevaris (Les Cahiers de l’arbitrage 2010/2)
3. Condolidation, joinder, cross-claims, multiparty and multicontract arbitrations: recent ICC experience, S. Greenberg, J.R. Feris and C. Albanesi (Dossier VII, Multiparty arbitration, ICC Publication no. 701, 2010)
4. ICC Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings: An Overview, N. Voser and C. Boog (ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, vol. 22 special supplement, 2011)

 

– Cases

1. Avax v Tecnimont
Cour de Cassation, 25 juin 2014
Cour d’appel de Reims, 2 novembre 2011
Cour de Cassation, 4 novembre 2010
Cour d’appel de Paris, 12 février 2009

2. Dallah Estate v Government of Pakistan
Cour d’appel de Paris (with English translation), 17 February 2011
Supreme Court, UK, 3 November 2010
Court of Appeal, UK, 20 July 2009

3. Engel Austria GmbH v Don Trade
Cour d’appel de Paris, 3 décembre 2009

4. Global Gold Mining v Robinson & others
District Court of New York, 6 February 2008

5. Société nationale des pétroles du Congo et République du Congo v Total FINA ELF E&P
Cour d’appel de Paris, 29 avril 2003

6. Braspetro Oil Services Company v The management and Implementation Authority of the Great Man-Made River Project
Cour d’appel de Paris, 1 juillet 1999

7. BKMI Industrien Lagen & Siemens v Dutco Construction
Cour de Cassation, 7 janvier 1992
Cour d’appel de Paris, 5 May 1989

Prof. Phillip Capper (short Bio) | Special Course: Arbitrating Major Infrastructure Projects

– Cases

1. Abu Dhabi Gas Liquefaction Co Ltd v Eastern Bechtel Corp and Another, Court of Appeal, 23 June 1982

2. Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. and Another v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd and Others, 1993.

3. CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK, 2011

4. PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK v CRW Joint Operation, 2010

5. Salini Costruttori S.P.A. and Italstrade S.P.A. v Kingdom of Morocco, 2001

6. SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v Republic of the Philippines

7. Sulamerica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v Enesa Engenharia AS, Royals Court of Justice, 2012

– Articles

1. 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, White & Case LLP Publication, 2010.

2. 2012 International Arbitration Survey: Current and Preferred Practices in the Arbitral Process, White & Case LLP Publication, 2012.

3. Christopher Ennis, The Expert Witness in International Disputes, Society of Construction Law, August 2012. Paper presented to the Centre of Construction Law 25th Anniversary Conference held at King’s College, London on 29th June 2012.

4. Christopher R. Seppala, An Engineer’s/Dispute Adjudication Board’s Decision Is Enforceable by an Arbitral Award, White & Case LLP Publication, December 2009.

5. Christopher Seppala and Elizabeth Lefebvre-Gross, Can a Contractor Obtain Compensation for a Radical Increase in its Costs if a Construction Contract Contains No Price Escalation Clause?, White & Case LLP Publication, July 2008.

6. Christopher R. Seppala, How Not to Interpret the FIDIC Disputes Clause: The Singapore Court of Appeal Judgment in the Persero Case, White & Case LLP Publication, April 2012.

7. Christopher R Seppala, Obtaining the Right International Arbitral Tribunal – a Practitioner’s View, The International Construction Law Review, Volume 25, Part 2, April 2008, pages 198-219.

8. Christopher Wong, Recent Developments on Demand Bonds and Guarantees in England and Australia, The International Construction Law Review, 2012.

9. Doug Jones, Can Prevention Be Cured by Time Bars?, Society of Construction Law, October 2009.

10. Doug Jones, Developing Best Practice in International Arbitration: Witness Statements, presented at the Generations in Arbitration Conference V Mallesons Stephen Jaques, Moot Alumni Association, Hong Kong, 2011.

11. Doug Jones, Party Appointed Expert Witnesses in International Arbitration – A Protocol at Last, The Journal of the London Court of International Arbitration, Volume 24, Number 1, 2008.

12. Doug Jones, Party Appointed Experts: Can They Be Usefully Independent?, Transnational Dispute Management, Vol. 8, issue 1, February 2011.

13. Doug Jones, Powers of an Arbitral Tribunal to Grant Interim Measures of Protection, The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Malaysia International Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 2006.

14. Doug Jones, The Cost, Time and Process Implications of the New IBA Rules of Evidence, Financial Review, International Dispute Resolution Conference, 2010.

15. Doug Jones, Wither the Partial Expert?, 2006.

16. Ellis Baker, Is It All Necessary? Who Benefits? Provision for Multi-Tier Dispute Resolution in International Construction Contracts, Society of Construction Law, January 2009.

17. Extract of a Note Prepared by Phillip Capper and Robert Hunter, Choice of Dispute Resolution Procedure.

18. Frederic Gillion, Impact of the new ICC Rules (2012) on the management of construction arbitration cases, Fenwick Elliott Publication.

19. Gotz-Sebastian Hok, Dispute Adjudication Boards – The International or Third Dimension, The International Construction Law Review, 2012.

20. Keith Pickavance, Putting the SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol into Practice – Is It What the Industry Wants?, Society of Construction Law, September 2004.

21. Klaus Peter Berger, Law and Practice of Escalation Clauses, The Journal of the London Court of International Arbitration, Volume 22, Number 1, 2006.

22. Kurt Dettman and Christopher Miers, Dispute Review Boards and Dispute Adjudication Boards: Comparison and Commentary, Dispute Resolution Board Foundation Forum, February 2012.

23. Mark Goodrich and Christopher Hunt, Construction: Split Hearings – When Are They Appropriate?, White & Case Publication, December 2009.

24. Michael E. Schneider, Technical Experts in International Arbitration, introductory comments to the materials from arbitration practice.

25. Michael Kerr, Concord and Conflict in International Arbitration, Arbitration International, Volume 13, Number 2.

26. Nael G. Bunni, Case Study: Splitting the Cake by Submitting Partial Issues to Expert Determination/Conciliation.

27. Nael G. Bunni, Claim and Dispute Resolution Provisions of FIDIC’s 1999 Major Forms, Comparative Law Yearbook of International Business.

28. Nael G. Bunni, Dispute Boards – Do’s and Dont’s.

29. Nael G. Bunni, Dispute Boards with Particular Emphasis on FIDIC’s DAB Procedure, presented at International Construction Contracts and Dispute Resolution Conference, co-hosted by ICC and FIDIC, April 2005.

30. Nael G. Bunni, Interim Measures in International Commercial Arbitration, A commentary on the Report by Luis Enrique Graham.

31. Nael G. Bunni, The 1999 FIDIC Contracts for Major Works – What Improvements do They Offer with Reference to the Standard Forms in the Gulf, International Conference on Arbitration & ADR in the Construction Industry, 2005.

32. Nael G. Bunni, The Gap in Sub-Clause 20.7 of the 1999 FIDIC Contracts for Major Works, April 2005.

33. Nael G. Bunni, The Management of Construction Arbitration, A Seminar Arranged by the ICC United Kingdom in Association with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, 2001.

34. Phillip Capper, Arbitration and Adjudication after 1996: Practice, Procedures and Opportunities, Construction Law Journal, 1997.

35. Phillip Capper, Interlocutory Arbitral Award Rendered in 2006 in SCC Case 10/2005 – Observations, Stockholm International Arbitration Review, 2007/2.

36. Pierre A. Karrer, Court Ordered Interim Measures in Support of Arbitration, IFCAI Conference, 2003.

37. Pierre A. Karrer, Tribunal-Appointed Experts in International Commercial Arbitration, Pestalozzi Lachenal Patry Publication.

38. Rebecca Shorter, Dispute Boards – Modern Approaches to Dispute Resolution in International Projects, First Published in Global Arbitration Review, Volume 8, Issue 4.

39. Richard Fernyhough, International Commercial Arbitration – Could Do Better, Society of Construction Law, September 2012.

40. Richard H. Kreindler, Practical Issues in Drafting International Arbitration Clauses in the Engineering Context, International Arbitration Law Review, 2001.

41. Richard Harding QC, Procedural Orders and Preliminary Meetings in International Construction Arbitration, Society of Construction Law, October 2012.

42. Robert Gaitskell QC, Trends in Construction Dispute Resolution, Society of Construction Law, December 2005.

43. Robert Gaitskell QC, Using Dispute Boards Under the ICC’s Rules: What Is a Dispute Board and Why Use One?, Society of Construction Law, December 2005.

44. Sean Brannigan QC, Recognising your Tribunal: Dealing with Evidence in International Construction Arbitrators, Society of Construction Law, November 2012.

45. Stephen Dale, Expansion of Discovery in International Construction Arbitration, Society of Construction Law, 2012.

46. Ugo Draetta, Dispute Resolution in International Constuction Linked Contracts, Revue de Droit des Affaires Internationales / International Business Law Journal, No. 1, 2011.

 

– Rules and Guidelines
1. CIArb – Protocol for the Use of Party-Appointed Expert Witnesses in International Arbitration
2. CIArb Practice Guideline 16 – Interviewing of Prospective Arbitrators
3. FIDIC Guidance Memorandum to Users of the 1999 Conditions of Contract dated 1st April 2013
4. IBA Guidelines for Drafting International Arbitration Clauses
5. IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration
6. IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration
7. ICC – Effective Management of Arbitration – A Guide for In-House Counsel and Other Party Representatives
8. ICC Arbitration and Mediation Rules
9. ICC Commission Report – Controlling Time and Costs in Arbitration
10. ICC Commission Report – Managing E-Document Production
11. ICC Dispute Board Rules
12. ICC Expertise Rules

13. ICC Final Report on Construction Industry Arbitrators

14. ICC Note on the Appointment, Duties and Remuneration of Administrative Secretaries

15. ICC Pre-Arbitral Referee Rules

16. ICC Standard Dispute Board Clauses

17. ICDR Guidelines for Arbitrators Concerning Exchanges of Information

18. LCIA Arbitration Rules

19. UNCITRAL Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings

Prof. Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo (short bio) | Special Course: The Role of International Law in the Protection Against State Court Interferences with Commercial Arbitration: Saipem v. Bengladesh and its Progeny

– Case Law

1. ATA. v. JORDAN
2. FRONTIER PETROLEUM v. CZECH REPUBLIC
3. GEA v. UKRAINE
4. ROMAK v. UZBEKISTAN
5. WHITE INDUSTRIES v. INDIA
6. SAIPEM v. BANGLADESH (Award)
7. SAIPEM v. BANGLADESH (Decision on Jurisdiction)

 

– Articles
1. Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Commercial Arbitration Before International Courts and Tribunals – Reviewing Abusive Conduct of Domestic Courts, 2011 American University Washington College of Law Annual Lecture on International Commercial Arbitration, Arbitration International, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp. 153-173.
2. Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo, The Enforcement of Annulled Awards: Further Reflections in Light of Thai-Lao Lignite, American Review of International Arbitration, 2014 (forthcoming).
3. Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo, Unlawful Interference with International Arbitration by National Courts of the Seat in the Aftermath of Saipem v. Bangladesh, Liber Amicorum Bernardo Cremades, 2010.