To boycott proceedings or not? Recourse against arbitral awards on jurisdictional grounds by different categories of respondents under the Model Law

The remedies that award debtors have under Articles 16(3), 34 and 36 of the Model Law, and more critically the inter-relationship between those remedies, has attracted much debate. Yet there is a dearth of analysis on how the availability of each remedy may differ according to the award debtor’s deg...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: CHAN, Darius, NEOH, Claire
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2020
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3201
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/5159/viewcontent/aiaa029.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.sol_research-5159
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.sol_research-51592021-06-08T05:16:40Z To boycott proceedings or not? Recourse against arbitral awards on jurisdictional grounds by different categories of respondents under the Model Law CHAN, Darius NEOH, Claire The remedies that award debtors have under Articles 16(3), 34 and 36 of the Model Law, and more critically the inter-relationship between those remedies, has attracted much debate. Yet there is a dearth of analysis on how the availability of each remedy may differ according to the award debtor’s degree of participation in the arbitral pro- cess. Such analysis carries significant practical value for parties in considering whether and to what extent they should participate in any arbitral process when they harbour jurisdictional objections. This article distils Singapore’s experience, describing how Singapore has implemented the ‘choice of remedies’ principle for participating, non- participating, and boycotting respondents with jurisdictional objections, with compara- tive observations from Hong Kong, England, and New Zealand. This article shows that the ultimate matrix of remedies chosen by Singapore is far from straightforward. The question whether a respondent has participated in the arbitral process is also a vexed one. The analysis in this article begs the question whether in pursuit of harmonization future reforms to the Model Law ought to be considered. 2020-10-01T07:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3201 info:doi/10.1093/arbint/aiaa029 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/5159/viewcontent/aiaa029.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Dispute Resolution and Arbitration International Trade Law
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic Dispute Resolution and Arbitration
International Trade Law
spellingShingle Dispute Resolution and Arbitration
International Trade Law
CHAN, Darius
NEOH, Claire
To boycott proceedings or not? Recourse against arbitral awards on jurisdictional grounds by different categories of respondents under the Model Law
description The remedies that award debtors have under Articles 16(3), 34 and 36 of the Model Law, and more critically the inter-relationship between those remedies, has attracted much debate. Yet there is a dearth of analysis on how the availability of each remedy may differ according to the award debtor’s degree of participation in the arbitral pro- cess. Such analysis carries significant practical value for parties in considering whether and to what extent they should participate in any arbitral process when they harbour jurisdictional objections. This article distils Singapore’s experience, describing how Singapore has implemented the ‘choice of remedies’ principle for participating, non- participating, and boycotting respondents with jurisdictional objections, with compara- tive observations from Hong Kong, England, and New Zealand. This article shows that the ultimate matrix of remedies chosen by Singapore is far from straightforward. The question whether a respondent has participated in the arbitral process is also a vexed one. The analysis in this article begs the question whether in pursuit of harmonization future reforms to the Model Law ought to be considered.
format text
author CHAN, Darius
NEOH, Claire
author_facet CHAN, Darius
NEOH, Claire
author_sort CHAN, Darius
title To boycott proceedings or not? Recourse against arbitral awards on jurisdictional grounds by different categories of respondents under the Model Law
title_short To boycott proceedings or not? Recourse against arbitral awards on jurisdictional grounds by different categories of respondents under the Model Law
title_full To boycott proceedings or not? Recourse against arbitral awards on jurisdictional grounds by different categories of respondents under the Model Law
title_fullStr To boycott proceedings or not? Recourse against arbitral awards on jurisdictional grounds by different categories of respondents under the Model Law
title_full_unstemmed To boycott proceedings or not? Recourse against arbitral awards on jurisdictional grounds by different categories of respondents under the Model Law
title_sort to boycott proceedings or not? recourse against arbitral awards on jurisdictional grounds by different categories of respondents under the model law
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2020
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3201
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/5159/viewcontent/aiaa029.pdf
_version_ 1772829512919154688