The Time Limit to Set Aside an Award Under Article 34(3) of the Model Law: A Comparative Study

M. Hwang, Kevin Tan
{"title":"The Time Limit to Set Aside an Award Under Article 34(3) of the Model Law: A Comparative Study","authors":"M. Hwang, Kevin Tan","doi":"10.54648/joia2021028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The time limit to set aside an award under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law is three months. Although Article 34(3) of the Model Law does not appear to confer upon domestic courts discretion to extend this time limit, some exceptional decisions from Asian Model Law jurisdictions suggest that such discretion exists. This article argues that, notwithstanding these decisions, domestic courts do not have any discretion to extend the time limit to apply to set an award aside. This article also highlights certain recurring fact patterns commonly seen when parties try to argue in favour of such a discretion, and studies how the courts in various jurisdictions have treated these similar situations.\nArticle 34 Model Law, Article 34(3) Model Law, Article 5 Model Law, Setting aside of award, Challenge of award, Annulment of award, Time limit for application, Time bar to application, Three months, 28 days","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","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/joia2021028","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

The time limit to set aside an award under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law is three months. Although Article 34(3) of the Model Law does not appear to confer upon domestic courts discretion to extend this time limit, some exceptional decisions from Asian Model Law jurisdictions suggest that such discretion exists. This article argues that, notwithstanding these decisions, domestic courts do not have any discretion to extend the time limit to apply to set an award aside. This article also highlights certain recurring fact patterns commonly seen when parties try to argue in favour of such a discretion, and studies how the courts in various jurisdictions have treated these similar situations. Article 34 Model Law, Article 34(3) Model Law, Article 5 Model Law, Setting aside of award, Challenge of award, Annulment of award, Time limit for application, Time bar to application, Three months, 28 days
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
《示范法》第34(3)条规定的撤销裁决的时限:比较研究
根据联合国国际贸易法委员会(贸易法委员会)示范法,撤销裁决的时限为三个月。虽然《示范法》第34条第(3)款似乎没有赋予国内法院延长这一时限的自由裁量权,但亚洲《示范法》管辖区的一些例外决定表明存在这种自由裁量权。本文认为,尽管有这些决定,国内法院没有任何自由裁量权延长适用撤销裁决的时限。本文还强调了当当事人试图为这种自由裁量权辩护时常见的某些反复出现的事实模式,并研究不同司法管辖区的法院如何处理这些类似情况。第34条示范法、第34条第(3)款示范法、第5条示范法、撤销裁决、对裁决提出质疑、撤销裁决、申请期限、禁止申请时间、3个月零28天
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