Early Determination of Jurisdiction, which focuses on Article 8(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, thoroughly examines the pivotal issue of whether national courts should (or could) conclusively settle jurisdictional disputes before or after the arbitrators have determined jurisdiction. In other words, the question of when a court should exercise its authority with conclusive effects. The interpretation and application of the competence-competence principle are not uniform across jurisdictions. Conflicting approaches – to the extent, effects, and consequences of permitting an arbitral tribunal to decide on its own jurisdiction and the proper timing for judicial involvement – rest upon significant theoretical and policy concerns that have practical implications.

What’s in this book:

• The analysis covers the following salient issues and aspects:
• prima facie versus plenary or full standard of judicial review;
• obligations and powers the law affords judges in the presence of an (even putative) arbitration agreement;
• cases highlighting the controversies in interpreting and applying the Model Law’s concepts, principles, and rules;
• anddetailed analysis of the text of the Model Law, including its drafting history. 

Article 8(1) of the Model Law is analysed according to its interplay with other provisions of the same instrument and the New York Convention.

This dissertation examines the timing of judicial determination of jurisdictional disputes in the presence of an arbitration agreement. The analysis focuses on Article 8(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (and Article II(3) of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards). It circumscribes the discussions to a nuanced interpretative strategy.

It is uncontroversial that national courts have the authority to decide, conclusively, disputes on arbitral jurisdiction. It is common ground that arbitrators, too, have the authority to rule on their own jurisdiction, subject to judicial control. This is known as the principle of competence-competence, which is widely recognised in arbitration legislation, institutional rules, and practice. The critical research question that this dissertation deals with is whether national courts should (or could) conclusively determine arbitral jurisdiction before or after the arbitrators have preliminarily determined that controversy.

This dissertation does not question who has the authority to settle jurisdictional disputes (conflict of jurisdictions). The assumption is that both, judges and arbitrators, enjoy such decision-making power. Instead, this research is about when (timing) a court should exercise that authority with conclusive effects.

This work examines and answers the when question from an autonomous legal-interpretation perspective, detached from a given State's law, concepts, and rules. Its theoretical framework is specific to the Model Law and national arbitration laws that have adopted it without deviating from it – at least not from the wording of Article 8.

Finances in International Arbitration focuses on various aspects of finances of arbitration, such as evaluating the costs of disputes, arbitral institution costs, financing of disputes, recovery of costs of arbitration and other related financial matters. Costs of arbitration have always been a main concern in international arbitration. It is a topic most often discussed and analysed. In spite of the recent developments in third-party funding regulations as well as other mechanisms made available to users of arbitration to reduce costs, the topic remains a key focus for users of arbitration. This book celebrates the career of Dr Patricia Shaughnessy, in particular, for the establishment of the top-ranked Masters of Law (‘LLM’) programme in International Commercial Arbitration at Stockholm University. Over twenty-five renowned practitioners and academics worldwide, who have been influenced by Dr Shaughnessy, explore this much-debated topic on the occasion of her 65th birthday.

Procedural due process requires all legal proceedings to be fair and that every party involved is given notice of the proceedings, are treated equally, and are given an opportunity to be heard and to deal with the case of its opponent before a decision is made by a lawfully constituted tribunal or decision maker. However, while the mandatory due process requirements are of utmost importance within international arbitration, where are its limits? How far shall the equal treatment and procedural fairness go, and can it happen at the expense of procedural efficiency? The users of international arbitration tend to be concerned on the delays and high expenses of arbitration. A recurrent complaint is the ‘judicialisation’ of arbitration; that the procedure is becoming as equally formal dispute resolution proceeding as litigation. Simultaneously, the international arbitration field has been promoting arbitral cost and time efficiency, by incorporating relevant provisions to national arbitration laws, institutional arbitration rules and to other soft law elements. This contribution addresses the balance between the requirements of due process and efficiency within international arbitration.