The ACICA Arbitration Rules 2021: Advancing Australia’s Pro-Arbitration Culture

L. Nottage, Rober Y. W. Tang, Julia Dreosti
{"title":"The ACICA Arbitration Rules 2021: Advancing Australia’s Pro-Arbitration Culture","authors":"L. Nottage, Rober Y. W. Tang, Julia Dreosti","doi":"10.54648/joia2021036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article compares the new Rules of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA) with ACICA’s 2016 Rules and those of other arbitration institutions, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. It shows how the revisions help to minimize formalization and promote efficiencies, arguably essential for arbitration’s legitimacy given that many of arbitration’s design features are traded off for an attenuated model of the rule of the law, according to a recent analysis by Singapore’s Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon. The article explains new ACICA Rules aimed at reducing costs and delays, including measures to deepen digitalization of arbitration following the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID- 19) pandemic and to reduce the consent-based limitations inherent in arbitration, especially for multi-party and multi-contract disputes. Other new provisions include time limits for awards, and reference to mediation, although not ultimately hybrid Arb-Med. The article also examines how the Rules balance confidentiality with transparency, including new provisions for disclosure of third-party funding. It concludes by reiterating how the 2021 ACICA Rules help meet the expectations of international arbitration users and practitioners, according to recent surveys, and link to possible further reforms to underpin Australia’s increasingly pro-arbitration culture.\ninternational commercial arbitration, Rules, Australia, Asia-Pacific, remote hearings, confidentiality, third-party funding, law reform, costs and delays","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Arbitration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2021036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article compares the new Rules of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA) with ACICA’s 2016 Rules and those of other arbitration institutions, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. It shows how the revisions help to minimize formalization and promote efficiencies, arguably essential for arbitration’s legitimacy given that many of arbitration’s design features are traded off for an attenuated model of the rule of the law, according to a recent analysis by Singapore’s Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon. The article explains new ACICA Rules aimed at reducing costs and delays, including measures to deepen digitalization of arbitration following the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID- 19) pandemic and to reduce the consent-based limitations inherent in arbitration, especially for multi-party and multi-contract disputes. Other new provisions include time limits for awards, and reference to mediation, although not ultimately hybrid Arb-Med. The article also examines how the Rules balance confidentiality with transparency, including new provisions for disclosure of third-party funding. It concludes by reiterating how the 2021 ACICA Rules help meet the expectations of international arbitration users and practitioners, according to recent surveys, and link to possible further reforms to underpin Australia’s increasingly pro-arbitration culture. international commercial arbitration, Rules, Australia, Asia-Pacific, remote hearings, confidentiality, third-party funding, law reform, costs and delays
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ACICA仲裁规则2021:推进澳大利亚支持仲裁的文化
本文将澳大利亚国际商事仲裁中心(ACICA)的新规则与ACICA 2016年的规则以及其他仲裁机构(尤其是亚太地区的仲裁机构)的规则进行了比较。新加坡首席大法官Sundaresh Menon最近的一项分析显示,鉴于仲裁的许多设计特征被削弱为法治模式,这些修订有助于最大限度地减少形式化并提高效率,可以说对仲裁的合法性至关重要。文章解释了旨在降低成本和延误的新ACICA规则,包括在2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行后深化仲裁数字化的措施,以及减少仲裁中固有的基于同意的限制,特别是对于多方和多合同纠纷。其他新条款包括裁决的时间限制,以及提及调解,尽管最终不是混合Arb-Med。该条还审查了《规则》如何在保密性与透明度之间取得平衡,包括关于披露第三方资金的新规定。最后,它重申了根据最近的调查,2021年ACICA规则如何帮助满足国际仲裁用户和从业者的期望,并与可能的进一步改革联系起来,以支持澳大利亚日益支持仲裁的文化,成本和延误
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
50.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Since its 1984 launch, the Journal of International Arbitration has established itself as a thought provoking, ground breaking journal aimed at the specific requirements of those involved in international arbitration. Each issue contains in depth investigations of the most important current issues in international arbitration, focusing on business, investment, and economic disputes between private corporations, State controlled entities, and States. The new Notes and Current Developments sections contain concise and critical commentary on new developments. The journal’s worldwide coverage and bimonthly circulation give it even more immediacy as a forum for original thinking, penetrating analysis and lively discussion of international arbitration issues from around the globe.
期刊最新文献
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Providing for Arbitration in Mainland China Administered by Overseas Arbitration Institutions ZF Auto. v. Luxshare: Supreme Court’s Withdrawal of Judicial Assistance for Discovery from Private Arbitration Political Risk and Its Key Role in Mining Disputes Around the World A New Era of Maritime Arbitration: Ex Machina Determinations Arbitrating Investment Disputes in Time of Geopolitical Unrest: Focus on Investment Protection in Russia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1