ABSTRACT

-Full issue available in PDF. Copies can be ordered from Docdel at Sweet & Maxwell's Yorkshire Offices. Email docdel@sweetandmaxwell.co.uk

The Practicalities of Delocalisation in International Commercial Arbitration

Author: Moses Oruaze DICKSON

Type: Article

ref: 52017461-496

N0:5 of 2017

Pages: 461-496

Although the notion of “delocalisation” is gaining popularity in the arbitration domain, truly and realistically it is acknowledged that arbitration is considered to be a far-fetched ideal. Arbitration may have been seen to be detached from the situs, but this is limited to certain circumstances and subject to contact judicial intervention. The proposed paper will outline the circumstances in which international commercial arbitration essentially operates independently and addresses where judicial intervention is inevitable which ultimately leads to scaling up the arguments and reaching a plausible conclusion. The paper perpetuates to illustrate a detailed account of the international commercial arbitration forum. First and foremost, the paper portrays detailed analysis of the historical background of arbitration and how it emerged till present. The majority of the paper is devoted to the concept of delocalisation. In the pursuance of justifying delocalisation, the paper is focused on the notion of party autonomy and other jurisdictional concepts which justify the existence of delocalisation. Furthermore, a comparative examination of England, US and China continues to demonstrate how different legal systems adapt to the culture of arbitration and amend their legislation to recognise international commercial arbitration as an independent litigation option. The law of the seat of the arbitration has a huge impact upon the future prospects of the international commercial arbitration forum being declared entirely delocalised. Thus, the paper shall suggest reforms on the jurisdictional characteristics of arbitration and how can one strike an ideal balance between the developing system of arbitration and the continuing jurisdictional intervention.