United States: New Seats – New Challenges

1. The arbitration landscape has changed dramatically over the past couple of decades. Among other things, it has seen the emergence of new and prominent centres for arbitration, as well as a number of growing trends, some reflected in the recent round of changes to the rules of most, if not all, of the major arbitral institutions. The number of cases handled by the major institutions has tripled during this period.¹ The number of disputes resolved through arbitration continues to grow exponentially, and "it seems that the growth of arbitration is almost unstoppable".² Users of arbitration in the major industry sectors confirm that it is their preferred method of dispute resolution.³ Indeed, one prominent jurist has described it as the "golden age" of arbitration.⁴

2. The seat of the arbitration is one of the most important choices when selecting arbitration, as highlighted in the 2010 International Arbitration Survey (the "2010 Survey");⁵ it is the second most important decision (after the choice of the law governing the contract) that parties make when negotiating their arbitration agreements.⁶ As evidenced by the 2010 Survey, users continue to select the traditionally established seats of arbitration, but there is also a continuing trend towards the use of a broader spectrum of arbitration venues. This trend is consistent with the shift in the economic centres of the world and the further globalisation of international trade. The diversification of arbitral seats is also symptomatic of increasing diversity of major international players in global business and reflects the fact that parties from emerging countries become ever more sophisticated in their understanding and appreciation of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

3. The 2010 Survey offers an avant-got of the new dynamics that may drive arbitration in the next couple of decades: a shift from geographic neutrality towards geographic proximity; from historic reliability towards innovative adaptability; from the oligarchy of the "Old West" towards aggressive competitiveness of the South and East.

4. In recent years, there has been an expansion of the classic aristocracy of arbitration seats (e.g., the "Big Four" - including the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland and the United States⁷); these usual suspects have not necessarily lost any of their established appeal and they remain the most prominent choices for the seat of international arbitrations. However, other centres have emerged that appear to be absorbing some, if not most, of the regional growth in arbitration around the globe. The "Big Four" remain attractive, but several other centres have, in recent years, proven to be successful and safe seats for international commercial arbitration, namely due to the harmonisation of local arbitration legislations via adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law and its consistent application by state courts. As a result, parties increasingly benefit from greater flexibility in their choice of a "safe" seat; the selection of other arbitration centres ensures commercial certainty and non-interference by state courts and provides closer cultural affinity and greater geographic/language convenience for parties when resolving their disputes.

5. For example, recent ICC statistics show that 20 of the most popular seats of ICC arbitrations in the period from 2000-2011 included, in addition to the usual France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States, also Singapore, Mexico, the PRC (including Hong Kong), Brazil, Argentina, India and Japan.⁸ The 2012 ICC Statistical Report underscores this trend (historically apparent in ICC arbitrations that tend to have a more diverse mix of seats compared to arbitrations administered under other institutional rules), showing that Singapore, Brazil, Mexico, India and the PRC followed France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany in terms of the number of ICC arbitrations seated in those countries that were commenced in 2012.⁹

6. The growing popularity of these alternative seats is now a wellestablished trend but their choice as an arbitral situs in any given case raises new challenges for all users of arbitration (lawyers and clients alike). Time and space does not permit an expose© of the many factors that will inform the success of a particular arbitral seat nor how the more traditional seats compare against more recently established or emerging jurisdictions. Nor does it permit coverage of every new or emerging seat around the world. Instead, this chapter highlights some of the emerging regional centres for arbitration and seeks to touch upon the factors that may drive their choice as an arbitral situs.

A. What Factors Drive the Choice of the Seat of Arbitration?

7. The legal and practical consequences of the choice of the seat make it "one of the most important aspects of any international arbitration agreement".¹⁰

8. From a legal perspective, the choice of the seat of the arbitration is essential; it will determine the lex arbitri governing the arbitral proceedings (absent contrary choice of the parties), as well as the law that will apply to any action to set aside the arbitral award.¹¹ In many cases, the law of the seat will also determine the arbitrability (or non-arbitrability) of a particular subject-matter.¹² It may also influence the choice of the arbitrators, the law applicable to the validity and interpretation of the parties' arbitration agreement (absent express choice by the parties),¹³ procedural rules adopted by the arbitrators (absent agreement between the parties), and/or substantive or implied choice-of-law rules applied by the arbitral tribunal.¹⁴

9. As summarised by one prominent commentator, the seat of the arbitration is relevant: (a) "[f]or the support of local courts in the course of arbitration, e.g., with the taking of evidence, and the appointment or removal of arbitrators"; (b) "[f]or the challenge of awards where basic procedural standards of fairness were manifestly not followed, if not manifestly breached"; and (c) "[f]or gap-filling, when the choice of rules of arbitral procedure by the parties is not comprehensive and the local law may provide some guidance".¹⁵ In this regard, whether or not a particular jurisdiction is a signatory to the New York Convention and a Model Law country - as well as the experience of local courts in handling complex commercial disputes and their approach to questions of enforcement of arbitration agreements, support for the arbitral process and enforcement of and non-interference with arbitral awards - are paramount considerations in the choice of a seat for arbitration.¹⁶

10. From a practical perspective, a number of other factors may also influence the choice of one particular seat over another; for example, proximity to evidence and witnesses, availability of experienced arbitrators (and arbitrators with industry or cultural affinity with the parties), transport links, hearing venues and interpreters. Many of these factors are the driving forces behind the growing popularity of more regional centres for arbitration in jurisdictions outside of England, France, Switzerland and the United States.

11. The importance of these factors is reflected in the views of users highlighted by the 2010 Survey,¹⁷ which lists as the three most important factors in the users' choice of the arbitral seat:

i. the "formal legal infrastructure", which "includes the national arbitration law and also the track record in enforcing agreements to arbitrate and arbitral awards in that jurisdiction and its neutrality and impartiality"; one of the essential factors within this category is whether the relevant country is a signatory to the New York Convention;¹⁸

ii. the law governing the substance of the dispute;¹⁹ and

iii. convenience (including "location, industry specific usage, prior use by the organisation, established contracts with lawyers in the jurisdiction, language and culture and the efficiency of court proceedings").²⁰

12. The 2010 Survey concludes that somewhat less determinative in a corporation's choice of seat are: the general infrastructure (including cost,²¹ access through good transport connections, and physical infrastructure such as hearing facilities, including translators, interpreters and court reporters); corporate policy and standard terms and conditions; location of the relevant people involved in the arbitration; location of the arbitral institution chosen for the arbitration; and recommendations of external counsel.²²

13. According to the Survey, nearly one third of the respondents (30%) named London as their preferred seat, followed by Geneva, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore and New York.²³ They also referred to a number of other seats, "suggesting that parties may be increasingly looking beyond the 'traditional' seats of arbitration".²⁴ These results confirm the results of the previous survey conducted by Queen Mary and PwC in 2006 (the "2006 Survey")²⁵ with regard to the traditional seats.²⁶ However, Singapore and Tokyo appear to be a new entry compared to the 2006 Survey.²⁷

14. When the respondents to the 2010 Survey were invited to rank up to five seats that they had not used before, based on their perception of that seat, Singapore and Hong Kong received the highest rankings; Moscow received the lowest (followed by Mainland China).²⁸ These results led Professor Mistelis to anticipate that "Asia [would] play a very significant role in international arbitration in years to come".²⁹

15. This empirical evidence shows that there is an increasing trend towards the choice of more diverse locations for the seat of arbitrations. The current trend of preferred seats of arbitration, and factors contributing to the success of these locations are analysed below.

B. Preferred Seats of Arbitration: Current Trends

1. Valeurs Sres

16. As a general matter, institutional strength and political stability are key to creating a stable enforcement environment and obtaining a foothold as a seat for arbitration.³⁰ This has been achieved early on by a number of jurisdictions, including the traditional places of arbitration in Europe and North America, including France (in particular, Paris), the United Kingdom (London), Switzerland (Geneva, Zurich), Sweden (Stockholm), Austria (Vienna), Germany and the United States (in particular, New York).

17. The United Kingdom, France, Switzerland and the United States have been referred to as the "Big Four"³¹ and were ranked as the most popular places of arbitration in the 2006 Survey.

18. These venues solidly remain at the top of the ranking of the corporations' preferred seats, for their neutrality and impartiality, arbitration-friendliness, language and cultural familiarity (in particular, for London and New York), hearing facilities, transport connections and established contacts with specialist lawyers.³²

19. The 2012 ICC Statistical Report confirms that Paris, London, Geneva, Zurich, New York, Vienna and Frankfurt hold the leading positions among the most commonly designated cities as seats for arbitration.³³ These traditional arbitration locations are, however, in growing competition with, for example, Singapore, Hong Kong and Mexico, which made their way into the top 10 chosen cities in ICC cases in 2012.³⁴

20. The 2010 Survey shows that London maintains the leading position in the rankings of arbitral seats, whereas Paris and New York "are starting to lag behind"³⁵ Among the reasons for London's continuing success are the dominance of English language, accessibility and importance of English law in international trade, persisting appeal among the Commonwealth jurisdictions and also its attractiveness for some of the "new arbitration markets" - i.e., Russia and the Middle East.³⁶

21. Despite their continuing prominence, these places of arbitration are under increasing competitive pressure and have had to innovate and adapt to keep up with the pace of change elsewhere. This has included amendments to their arbitration statutes (for example, France revised its arbitration law in 2011)³⁷ as well as the opening of new hearing venues (for example, New York's new AAA hearing location opened in May 2013).³⁸

22. Despite these innovations, there is a gradual but growing shift towards other, more regional centres for arbitration which perhaps better match the expectations and preferences of arbitration's users in certain parts of the world, most notably in Asia. There, Singapore and Hong Kong have emerged as important new regional seats for arbitration, with others following in their path.

2. The Leading Regional Arbitration Centres

23. Today, there are some notable jurisdictions that have emerged as leading centres for arbitration in their region; namely, Singapore and Hong Kong for South East Asia, and Dubai and Egypt for the Middle East.

a) Singapore and Hong Kong: Asia's Leading Tigers

24. The success of Singapore and Hong Kong is such that it is now legitimate to speak of their importance as a situs for arbitration not just regionally (in Asia), but globally. The rise in popularity and success of these two key jurisdictions in the global arbitration market is undoubtedly the reflection of their status as stable, neutral and increasingly important global financial and business centres, boasting world-class institutions and infrastructure.³⁹ 25. Both cities have developed their status as leading arbitral venues through: sustained government-investment in arbitration; effective global marketing and promotion; a knowledgeable and supportive court system; effective national arbitration institutions with modern and progressive rules; state of the art facilities for arbitration; an experienced, sophisticated and increasingly international arbitration community; and a modern framework legislation.⁴⁰

(1) Singapore

26. Singapore is currently the leading arbitration jurisdiction in Asia,⁴¹ with a strong track record of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Its role as a major arbitration venue is boosted by its unprecedented economic growth, apparent transparency, low level of corruption and its ranking in one index as the most neutral place in the world to do business with the most developed financial market.⁴² The opening of Maxwell Chambers in 2010 has also contributed to its growing success.

27. Singapore is therefore without doubt among the "most desirable and secure arbitral seats".⁴³ The 2010 Survey concluded that Singapore "has grown as a regional leader since the 2006 survey", and this development evidences "the trend towards regionalisation in arbitration".⁴⁴ The ICC 2012 Statistical Report reveals that Singapore was the fifth most frequently selected seat for ICC arbitrations in 2012.⁴⁵

28. Singapore's competitiveness as a leading arbitration venue is further strengthened by its active approach to amending its arbitral law to keep pace with change (the most recent amendment in 2010 confirming that Singapore courts have the power to grant interim relief in aid of foreign-seated international arbitrations) as well as further, recent revisions to the SIAC Rules. The fifth edition of the Rules entered into force on 1 April 2013, establishing the SIAC Court of Arbitration and providing for the publication of SIAC awards (albeit in a redacted form).⁴⁶ In the 2010 Survey, the SIAC was ranked as the fourth most desirable arbitral institution behind the ICC, the LCIA and the AAA/ICDR; it was also named by the respondents to the survey as the seventh most commonly used arbitral institution over the prior five years.⁴⁷

(2) Hong Kong

29. Hong Kong is consistently ranked as one of the leading world centres for business and finance, and is named as one of the top three financial centres (together with New York and London). Its judiciary is also ranked as the second most efficient in the world, according to one prominent index.⁴⁸

30. Hong Kong's success as an arbitration centre is in large part due to its UNCITRAL-based international arbitration law, its impartial and experienced courts and the availability of well-trained and experienced local lawyers.⁴⁹ Its arbitration framework boasts recent legislative amendments, including the newest arbitration law in the world - the Arbitration Ordinance, effective as of 1 June 2011.⁵⁰ Unlike Singapore, Hong Kong no longer retains a dual domestic/international arbitration regime; its arbitration law incorporates the 2006 revisions to the UNCITRAL Model Law and provides for the enforcement of all awards, including those rendered in Mainland China.⁵¹ However, parties and counsel should be mindful of the "opt-in" provisions of the Ordinance that enable parties to retain certain features of the domestic arbitration regime over the Model Law provisions (when the parties so agree).⁵²

31. Since the return of China's sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997, Hong Kong has arguably lost some of its popularity, in particular with regard to arbitrations involving Chinese state-owned parties.53 Hong Kong has thus given up its place as the No. 1 arbitration centre in Asia to Singapore. Hong Kong was only the tenth most popular situs for ICC arbitrations in 2012 (compared to fifth place for Singapore);54 it also lagged behind Singapore in the 2010 Survey.⁵⁵

32. However, this slight decline compared to Singapore may be a temporary phenomenon, given Hong Kong's extremely proactive approach and the seemingly overwhelming number of disputes in the region. In an effort to keep up with the speed of progress and to maintain its role as an arbitration centre in Asia, Hong Kong is in the process of amending its arbitration law in order to make Hong Kong a more competitive seat of arbitration.⁵⁶ The main objectives of the amendment to the Hong Kong arbitration law are to implement the agreement with Macao for the enforcement and recognition of arbitral awards; and introduce amendments to facilitate the emergency arbitration procedure introduced into the HKIAC Rules.⁵⁷ This revision comes after slightly over two years since the entry into force of the previous version of the Arbitration Ordinance, and shows Hong Kong's reactivity and its willingness (and readiness) to react immediately to change and maintain its competitiveness.

33. The new HKIAC Arbitration Rules (updating the 2008 version) will enter into force on 1 November 2013. The amendments include the introduction of an emergency arbitrator procedure (the extensive provisions for which are contained in Schedule 4), as well as improved provisions on expedited procedure (Article 41) and multiparty and multicontract proceedings (Articles 27 to 29).⁵⁸ These rule changes follow the opening of HKIAC's new hearing facilities in 2012. These revisions may boost the popularity of the HKIAC in Asia, which currently ranks as the sixth most preferred arbitration institution (two places behind the SIAC), according to the 2010 Survey.⁵⁹

b) Dubai and Cairo: Leaders in the Middle East

(1) Dubai International Financial Centre

34. The Dubai International Financial Centre ("DIFC") is an autonomous common law jurisdiction created in 2004 within the otherwise civil law UAE; its arbitration law is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law.⁶⁰ The UAE became a party to the New York Convention in 2006, and the Convention fully applies in the DIFC.⁶¹

35. A significant recent development has been the establishment of the DIFC-LCIA, DIFC's local arbitral institution with a connection to the LCIA.⁶² The Centre was established under the DIFC Arbitration Law No. 1 of 2008, which also removed restrictions on conducting arbitrations in the DIFC allowing parties without a connection to the DIFC to arbitrate disputes under the auspices of the DIFC-LCIA centre.⁶³ This arbitral institution "has a growing caseload and reputation",⁶⁴ and offers attractive prospects for the development of international arbitration in the region.

36. Some commentators also see a positive trend in decisions of the UAE judiciary in enforcing foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention.⁶⁵ However, there remain a number of uncertainties, in particular in relation to awards rendered under the auspices of the DIFC-LCIA⁶⁶ and the consequences of the application of Shari'a law (in particular, in relation to the award of interest).⁶⁷

(2) Cairo

37. Egypt's 1994 national arbitration legislation is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law⁶⁸ and has been exported to other countries in the Middle East, including into the current draft of the new UAE arbitration law.⁶⁹ It is also a signatory to the New York Convention.⁷⁰

38. The Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (the "CRCICA", or the "Cairo Centre"), the leading arbitration institution in Egypt, witnessed a record expansion of its caseload in 2012. The centre registered 78 new cases in 2012 (against 66 cases in 2011).⁷¹ This increase in CRCICA's workload could be the result of the recent revision of its arbitration rules incorporating the new UNCITRAL Model Rules of 2010 and expanding the Centre's role as an appointing authority.⁷² The development of the CRCICA has had a positive impact on the development of Egypt's image as an attractive arbitral seat.⁷³

39. Due to its geographic location and multicultural background (including, in particular, mixed influences of French and Shari'a law), Egypt has a strong potential for capturing disputes involving European, African and Middle Eastern parties. However, political stability will be the key challenge for Egypt's development as an arbitral seat.

c) Stockholm: A Rebirth of the North?

40. Historically, Stockholm became an important arbitral seat because of its geographic and political neutrality. It established its popularity as one of the main arbitration locations because it occupied a unique "East-West niche" at a time when antagonism between the U.S. and the Soviet bloc was at its peak.⁷⁴ Indeed, where a contract involved a party from the Soviet Union, parties regularly elected Stockholm as their seat of arbitration.⁷⁵ Chinese parties were driven by similar considerations, and followed this trend.⁷⁶

41. Today, Stockholm continues to benefit from its authority established via the East-West divide. However, the parties that historically selected Stockholm for its neutrality now shift towards different places of arbitration, driven by geographic proximity or regional predominance. In particular, Russian parties show a growing interest towards London, whereas Chinese parties favor Hong Kong as their preferred seat.

42. Because of the traditional "'reluctance to market Stockholm' in part because the idea of arbitration is that it is 'a service being rendered'" and its unwillingness over an extended period of time to "compete for business,"⁷⁷ one could question whether Stockholm will continue to maintain its position as an established arbitration centre.

43. However, the traditional inertia of this arbitral centre has recently started to change under growing pressure from other arbitral seats. Indeed, the SCC was one of the first institutions to introduce new rules for expedited arbitrations and the appointment of emergency arbitrators, both of which entered into effect on 1 January 2010.⁷⁸

Footnotes

1 See L. Mistelis, Part I: International Commercial Arbitration, Chapter 19: Arbitral Seats - Choices and Competition, in S. Kröll, L. Mistelis, et al. (eds), International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution, at pp. 365-366 (analysing the number of cases handled by major arbitral institutions during the period 1992- 2009).

2 L. Mistelis, Part I: International Commercial Arbitration, Chapter 19: Arbitral Seats - Choices and Competition, in S. Kröll, L. Mistelis, et al. (eds), International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution, at pp. 365-366.

3 See Queen Mary University of London & PwC, 2013 International Arbitration Survey: Corporate Choices in International Arbitration - Industry Perspectives, at p. 4, et seq., available at: http://www.arbitrationonline.org/research/2013/index.html .

4 S. Menon SC, International Arbitration: The Coming of a New Age for Asia (and Elsewhere), ICCA Congress 2012, at p. 1.

5 Queen Mary University of London, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration (published on 6 October 2010), available at: http://www.arbitrationonline.org/docs/2010_InternationalArbitrationSurveyReport.pdf . See also K. Davies, Meeting the Challenge: Efficiency and Flexibility in International Commercial Arbitration, ICLG to: International Arbitration 2011, at p. 1.

6 See L. Mistelis, Part I: International Commercial Arbitration, Chapter 19: Arbitral Seats - Choices and Competition, in S. Krall, L. Mistelis, et al. (eds), International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution, at p. 367.

7 See S. Wilske & T. Fox, Chapter II: The Arbitrator and the Arbitration Procedure - The Global Competition for the 'Best' Place for International Arbitration - Myth, Prejudice, and Reality Bits, in C. Klausegger, P. Klein, et al. (eds), Austrian Arbitration Yearbook 2009, at p. 390.

8 See G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing, Kluwer 4th ed. (2013), at p. 73.

9 See 2012 ICC Statistical Report, at p. 14.

10 G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing, Kluwer 4th ed. (2013), at p. 68.

11 See, e.g., G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing, Kluwer 4th ed. (2013), at pp. 67-68.

12 See, e.g., G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing, Kluwer 4th ed. (2013), at p. 69.

13 This may be the case in England & Wales; see Sulamerica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v. Ensesa Engenharia S.A. [2012] EWCA Civ 638. C.f., Arsanovia Ltd v. Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings [2012] EWHC 3702 (Comm).

14 G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing, Kluwer 4th ed. (2013), at pp. 69-70.

15 L. Mistelis, Part I: International Commercial Arbitration, Chapter 19: Arbitral Seats - Choices and Competition, in S. Krall, L. Mistelis, et al. (eds), International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution, at p. 371. The author also provides a synthesis of the critique of the importance attributed to the seat of arbitration (which is beyond the scope of this chapter). See L. Mistelis, Part I: International Commercial Arbitration, Chapter 19: Arbitral Seats - Choices and Competition, in S. Krll, L. Mistelis, et al. (eds), International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution, at pp. 371, et seq.

16 See G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing, Kluwer 4th ed. (2013), at p. 71.

17 See Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration.

18 See Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, at pp. 17-18.

19 Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, at pp. 17-18.

20 Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, at pp. 17-18.

21 The cost of arbitration is an important factor, but it is only indirectly contingent on the choice of the seat. Arguably, it is more directly function of the choice of the arbitral institution. The comparison of the cost of arbitrating at various arbitral institutions is, however, beyond the scope of this chapter. For a recent survey of the costs of arbitration conducted at the major arbitral institutions, see L. Flannery & B. Garel, Arbitration Costs Compared: The Sequel, GAR, 15 January 2013.

22 Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, at p. 18.

23 Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, at p. 19.

24 Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, at p. 19 (emphasis added).

25 See Queen Mary University of London and PwC, International Arbitration: Corporate Attitudes and Practices 2006, available at: http://www.arbitrationonline.org/docs/IAstudy_2006.pdf . See also L. Mistelis, Part I: International Commercial Arbitration, Chapter 19: Arbitral Seats - Choices and Competition, in S. Krall, L. Mistelis, et al. (eds), International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution, at pp. 367-370 (discussing the results of the 2010 International Arbitration Survey, and namely noting that "[o]ther seats mentioned by respondents included Stockholm, Vienna, Hong Kong, Zurich, Tokyo and Mainland China").

26 Queen Mary University of London and PwC, International Arbitration: Corporate Attitudes and Practices 2006, at p. 14 (the 2006 Survey established that the preferred international arbitration venues selected by the respondents were England, Switzerland, France and the United States).

27 See L. Mistelis, Part I: International Commercial Arbitration, Chapter 19: Arbitral Seats - Choices and Competition, in S. Krall, L. Mistelis, et al. (eds), International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution, at p. 369.

28 See Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, at p. 20.

29 L. Mistelis, Part I: International Commercial Arbitration, Chapter 19: Arbitral Seats - Choices and Competition, in S. Krall, L. Mistelis, et al. (eds), International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution, at p. 370. See Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, at p. 20.

30 See K. Davies, To 2027 and Beyond: A Survey of Arbitration in the 'Asian Century', TDM Vol. 8 Issue 5 (December 2011), at p. 47.

31 S. Wilske & T. Fox, Chapter II: The Arbitrator and the Arbitration Procedure - The Global Competition for the 'Best' Place for International Arbitration - Myth, Prejudice, and Reality Bits, in C. Klausegger, P. Klein, et al. (eds), Austrian Arbitration Yearbook 2009, at p. 390.

32 Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, at pp. 19-20.

33 See ICC 2012 Statistical Report, at p. 14.

34 See ICC 2012 Statistical Report, at p. 14.

35 L. Mistelis, Part I: International Commercial Arbitration, Chapter 19: Arbitral Seats - Choices and Competition, in S. Krall, L. Mistelis, et al. (eds), International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution, at p. 377.

36 See L. Mistelis, Part I: International Commercial Arbitration, Chapter 19: Arbitral Seats - Choices and Competition, in S. Krall, L. Mistelis, et al. (eds), International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution, at p. 377.

37 See, e.g., Carducci, The Arbitration Reform in France: Domestic and International Arbitration Law, 28(1) Arb. Int'l 125 (2012); Castellane, The New French Law on International Arbitration, 28(4) J. Int'l Arb. 371 (2011); Gaillard, France Adopts New Law on Arbitration, N. Y. L. J. (24 January 2011); Pierce, Born & Scherer, Revision to French Arbitration Law Arrives, N. Y. L. J. S5 (16 May 2011); Scherer & Born, Long-Awaited New French Arbitration Law Revealed, Kluwer Arb. Blog (15 January 2011); Schwartz, The New French Arbitration Decree: the Arbitral Procedure, 2 Gaz. Pal., Cahiers de l'arbitrage 349 (2011).

38 See AAA News Alert, AAA Opens State-of-the-Art Hearing Location in New York City, 8 May 2013, available at: http://www.adr.org/aaa/ShowPDF?doc=ADRSTAGE2011037 . 39 See K. Davies, To 2027 and Beyond: A Survey of Arbitration in the 'Asian Century', TDM Vol. 8 Issue 5 (December 2011), at p. 10.

40 See K. Davies, To 2027 and Beyond: A Survey of Arbitration in the 'Asian Century', TDM Vol. 8 Issue 5 (December 2011), at pp. 10-11.

41 See Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, at pp. 17-18.

42 See K. Davies, To 2027 and Beyond: A Survey of Arbitration in the 'Asian Century', TDM Vol. 8 Issue 5 (December 2011), at p. 9.

43 G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing, Kluwer 4th ed. (2013), at p. 73.

44 Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, at p. 20.

45 See ICC 2012 Statistical Report, at p. 14. In addition, the BIMCO shipping association has recently amended its standard Dispute Resolution Clause to include Singapore among the recommended arbitral seats in order to "provide a more global spread of choice of maritime arbitration centres for users". See BIMCO website, Revised law and Arbitration Clause Released, 21 December 2012, available at: https://www.bimco.org/en/News/2012/12/21_Revised_Law_and_Arbitration.aspx .

46 See, e.g., SIAC Website, SIAC's New Governance Structure and Revised Rules of Arbitration, 1 April 2013, available at: http://www.siac.org.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=a rticle&id=429:siacs-new-governance-structure-and-revisedrules- of-arbitration-&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50 ; G. Born, New Rules at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, Kluwer Blog, 14 May 2013; E. Chua & A. Nicholls, Singapore: New Rules, GAR, 4 April 2013.

47 Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, at p. 23.

48 See K. Davies, To 2027 and Beyond: A Survey of Arbitration in the 'Asian Century', TDM Vol. 8 Issue 5 (December 2011), at p. 11.

49 See, e.g., G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing, Kluwer 4th ed. (2013), at p. 76. See also K. Davies, To 2027 and Beyond: A Survey of Arbitration in the 'Asian Century', TDM Vol. 8 Issue 5 (December 2011), at pp. 8-9, 11-12.

50 See K. Davies, To 2027 and Beyond: A Survey of Arbitration in the 'Asian Century', TDM Vol. 8 Issue 5 (December 2011), at p. 11.

51 See K. Davies, To 2027 and Beyond: A Survey of Arbitration in the 'Asian Century', TDM Vol. 8 Issue 5 (December 2011), at pp. 11-12.

52 See, e.g., J. D'Agostino, New Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance Comes Into Effect, Kluwer Blog, 1 June 2011.

53 See G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing, Kluwer 4th ed. (2013), at p. 76.

54 See ICC 2012 Statistical Report, at p. 14.

55 See Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, at p. 20.

56 See, e.g., D. Thomson, Hong Kong Amends Law Ahead of Rules Revision, GAR, 10 April 2013, available at: http://globalarbitrationreview.com/news/article/31479/hongk o n g - a m e n d s - l a w - a h e a d - r u l e s - revision/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Law+Business+Re search&utm_campaign=2357783_GAR+Briefing&dm_i=1KSF, 1EJ9Z,9GPLVR,4RLZZ,1; J. D'Agostino & B. Young, Hong Kong tables Amendments to Arbitration Law, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 3 April 2013, available at: http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2013/04/03/hong-kongtables-amendments-to-arbitration-law/ .

57 D. Thomson, Hong Kong Amends Law Ahead of Rules Revision, GAR, 10 April 2013.

58 See HKIAC website, The 2013 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules Unveiled, 12 June 2013, available at: http://www.hkiac.org/index.php/en/news/479.

59 See Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, at p. 23.

60 See, e.g., J. Paulsson, N. Rawding, et al. (eds), The Freshfields Guide to Arbitration Clauses in International Contracts, Kluwer 3rd ed. (2010), at p. 51.

61 See S. Finizio & C. Howitt, When International Arbitration Meets Sharia, CDR March-April 2013, at p. 52.

62 See http://www.difcarbitration.com/; http://www.lcia.org/LCIA/Overseas.aspx . See also A&O, Launch of the New DIFC/LCIA Arbitration Centre, 23 October 2009, available at: http://www.allenovery.com/publications/engb/ Pages/Launch-of-the-new-DIFC-LCIA-arbitration-centre.aspx.

63 See R. Bell & L. Chicken, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in the UAE - Part II: Enforcing DIFC-LCIA Arbitral Awards, 8 March 2011, available at: http://www.clydeco.fr/insight/articles/enforcement-of-arbitralawards-in-the-uae-part-ii-enforcing-difc-lcia-arbit .

64 S. Finizio & C. Howitt, When International Arbitration Meets Sharia, CDR March-April 2013, at p. 52.

65 G. Blanke & S. Corm-Bakhos, Middle East and Africa Overview: UAE, in ICLG to: International Arbitration 2012, at p. 378.

66 See S. Finizio & C. Howitt, When International Arbitration Meets Sharia, CDR March-April 2013, at p. 52.

67 See G. Blanke & S. Corm-Bakhos, Middle East and Africa Overview: UAE, in ICLG to: International Arbitration 2012, at p. 378.

68 See A. El Ahdab & J. El Ahdab, Arbitration with the Arab Countries: Arbitration in Egypt, Kluwer (2011), at pp. 155-223.

69 See, e.g., Dr. K. El Shalakany, Chapter 45: Egypt, in ICLG to: International Arbitration 2011, at p. 379.

70 See, e.g., Dr. K. El Shalakany, Chapter 45: Egypt, in ICLG to: International Arbitration 2011, at p. 379.

71 See L. Szolnoki, Record Year for Cairo Centre, GAR, 20 February 2013.

72 See S. Haridi, M. Alrashid & A. Bouhabib, The Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA), Newly Revised Arbitration Rules, TDM Vol. 8 Issue 2 (May 2011), at pp. 1-4.

73 See, e.g., Dr. K. El Shalakany, Chapter 45: Egypt, in ICLG to: International Arbitration 2011, at p. 379.

74 Y. Dezalay & B. Garth, Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the Construction of a Transnational Legal Order, Chicago (1996), at p. 188.

75 Y. Dezalay & B. Garth, Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the Construction of a Transnational Legal Order, Chicago (1996), at pp. 188-190.

76 Y. Dezalay & B. Garth, Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the Construction of a Transnational Legal Order, Chicago (1996), at p. 190 ("the Chinese - following the Soviet Union - also found it suitable to agree to arbitration in Stockholm for business disputes between the United States and China.").

77 Y. Dezalay & B. Garth, Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the Construction of a Transnational Legal Order, Chicago (1996), at pp. 190-191.

78 See http://www.sccinstitute.com/?id=23718.

To read this article in full together with its remaining footnotes please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.