The “Instant Cost Order” is the practical implementation of a means to address the much discussed issue of (the lack of) cost efficiency in international arbitration. It also tackles the question of how pro-active tribunals should be in order to control party-driven arbitral proceedings.
The majority of the costs incurred in an arbitral proceeding does usually have its base in the legal and other costs of the parties. The arbitration costs, i.e., arbitrators’ fees, administrative charges of arbitral institutions, and hearing facilities will add to the total cost of an arbitration proceeding. In order to control the development of costs, it appears that parties require the tribunal’s guidance in relation to legal and other costs, which will necessarily impact the arbitration costs.
Counsel are faced with the problem that although they might wish to keep the costs on a reasonable level they have to do the outmost for their clients to present their case. This is often translated in over-sized submissions, numerous applications for purely strategic reasons, and voluminous production of documents requests.
Continue reading The Instant Cost Order by Niuscha Bassiri for YIAG
Kluwer Arbitration Blog
Marike R.P. Paulsson
The Miami Draft: the Good Twin of the NYC
New York 1958: ‘Vivat, Floreat et Crescat the New York Convention.’ One can indeed but applaud the success of the NYC. Credit goes to a multitude of judges around the world who have applied the NYC so loyally. Yet, cracks have become visible over the last 52 years. Is there a need for a new Convention? If so, wouldn’t a new Convention, if possible at all, make things worse? Would it not be preferable to have a new interpretation instrument to enhance uniformity?
Current interpretation mechanisms of the NYC are varied, and unfortunately divergent in outcomes. We are far from a uniform interpretation. The textual imperfections of the Convention have come to light in courtrooms around the world. Of course, there is no such thing as a perfect Convention. The drafters of the Convention in 1958 could never have been able to produce a text that would foresee the issues which we confront in 2010, no more than the founding fathers of the US Constitution could have anticipated the world wide web. How could the original drafters of the NYC have predicted a worldwide multiform interpretation of the Convention? That would be as if one would have expected an IT expert in the year 1958 to be capable of providing an analysis of the Blackberry. At the occasion of celebrating the Convention’s 40th birthday, its founding father Pieter Sanders remarked: ‘nothing is perfect in this world. After 40 years of practice with the Convention its text could certainly be improved.’ However, an amendment to the Convention is most likely not possible, nor will a Protocol or second Convention be desirable.
Continue reading The Miami Draft: the Good Twin of the NYC by Marike R.P. Paulsson