Revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: further steps

Giuditta Cordero Moss

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Comments on proposed changes to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 submitted by the UNCITRAL Working Group II in February 2010 to bring about necessary modernisation. Considers the prevalence over the Rules of mandatory arbitral rules and other applicable laws, and highlights potential problems for parties who may not realise that certain provisions are unenforceable in some jurisdictions. Discusses examples of how parties could be misled by the revised Rules' mechanisms for enhanced flexibility, in respect of the law applicable to the merits of the dispute and the effects of the arbitral award.

    Legislation Cited: Arbitration Rules 1976 (United Nations)

    © 2012 Sweet & Maxwell
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)96-99
    JournalInternational Arbitration Law Review
    Volume13
    Issue number3
    Publication statusPublished - 2010

    Fingerprint

    arbitration
    Law
    working group
    modernization
    jurisdiction
    UNO
    flexibility
    legislation

    Keywords

    • Arbitration
    • Applicable law
    • Awards
    • International commercial arbitration
    • Rules
    • Arbitration Rules 1976 (United Nations)

    Cite this

    Moss, Giuditta Cordero. / Revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules : further steps. In: International Arbitration Law Review. 2010 ; Vol. 13, No. 3. pp. 96-99.
    @article{997972fdfe5f4b3d9f402659a5d210b2,
    title = "Revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: further steps",
    abstract = "Comments on proposed changes to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 submitted by the UNCITRAL Working Group II in February 2010 to bring about necessary modernisation. Considers the prevalence over the Rules of mandatory arbitral rules and other applicable laws, and highlights potential problems for parties who may not realise that certain provisions are unenforceable in some jurisdictions. Discusses examples of how parties could be misled by the revised Rules' mechanisms for enhanced flexibility, in respect of the law applicable to the merits of the dispute and the effects of the arbitral award.Legislation Cited: Arbitration Rules 1976 (United Nations) {\circledC} 2012 Sweet & Maxwell",
    keywords = "Arbitration, Applicable law, Awards, International commercial arbitration, Rules, Arbitration Rules 1976 (United Nations)",
    author = "Moss, {Giuditta Cordero}",
    year = "2010",
    language = "English",
    volume = "13",
    pages = "96--99",
    journal = "International Arbitration Law Review",
    issn = "1367-8272",
    publisher = "Sweet & Maxwell",
    number = "3",

    }

    Revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules : further steps. / Moss, Giuditta Cordero.

    In: International Arbitration Law Review, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2010, p. 96-99.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules

    T2 - further steps

    AU - Moss, Giuditta Cordero

    PY - 2010

    Y1 - 2010

    N2 - Comments on proposed changes to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 submitted by the UNCITRAL Working Group II in February 2010 to bring about necessary modernisation. Considers the prevalence over the Rules of mandatory arbitral rules and other applicable laws, and highlights potential problems for parties who may not realise that certain provisions are unenforceable in some jurisdictions. Discusses examples of how parties could be misled by the revised Rules' mechanisms for enhanced flexibility, in respect of the law applicable to the merits of the dispute and the effects of the arbitral award.Legislation Cited: Arbitration Rules 1976 (United Nations) © 2012 Sweet & Maxwell

    AB - Comments on proposed changes to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 submitted by the UNCITRAL Working Group II in February 2010 to bring about necessary modernisation. Considers the prevalence over the Rules of mandatory arbitral rules and other applicable laws, and highlights potential problems for parties who may not realise that certain provisions are unenforceable in some jurisdictions. Discusses examples of how parties could be misled by the revised Rules' mechanisms for enhanced flexibility, in respect of the law applicable to the merits of the dispute and the effects of the arbitral award.Legislation Cited: Arbitration Rules 1976 (United Nations) © 2012 Sweet & Maxwell

    KW - Arbitration

    KW - Applicable law

    KW - Awards

    KW - International commercial arbitration

    KW - Rules

    KW - Arbitration Rules 1976 (United Nations)

    M3 - Article

    VL - 13

    SP - 96

    EP - 99

    JO - International Arbitration Law Review

    JF - International Arbitration Law Review

    SN - 1367-8272

    IS - 3

    ER -