A proposal for international arbitration law in Namibia based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW De Jure Pub Date : 2023-08-14 DOI:10.17159/2225-7160/2023/v56a18
T. Warikandwa, L. Usebiu
{"title":"A proposal for international arbitration law in Namibia based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration","authors":"T. Warikandwa, L. Usebiu","doi":"10.17159/2225-7160/2023/v56a18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"International business arbitration is not covered by Namibia's present arbitration law, the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965 (the Act). There is no explicit language in the Act that addresses foreign arbitration as the Act, solely by default, covers national or domestic arbitration. When it comes to international arbitration, the Act has many flaws. Modern commercial arbitrations are increasingly being guided by the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (MLICA) of UNCITRAL (the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) or by state legislation that has been influenced by it. It is undeniable that Namibia must embrace MLICA, including the majority of the 2006 revisions of the MLICA, in order to participate in the global economic village. Furthermore, Namibia has not yet ratified the 1958-adopted New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (CREFAA), which has been hailed as the most effective treaty governing global trade. This article suggests that Namibia should implement both the MLICA and the CREFAA. If this strategy is not adopted, businesses in Namibia will be hesitant to engage in international business transactions due to the lack of legal certainty that the New York Convention and contemporary domestic arbitration legislation bring.","PeriodicalId":41915,"journal":{"name":"De Jure","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"De Jure","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/2225-7160/2023/v56a18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

International business arbitration is not covered by Namibia's present arbitration law, the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965 (the Act). There is no explicit language in the Act that addresses foreign arbitration as the Act, solely by default, covers national or domestic arbitration. When it comes to international arbitration, the Act has many flaws. Modern commercial arbitrations are increasingly being guided by the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (MLICA) of UNCITRAL (the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) or by state legislation that has been influenced by it. It is undeniable that Namibia must embrace MLICA, including the majority of the 2006 revisions of the MLICA, in order to participate in the global economic village. Furthermore, Namibia has not yet ratified the 1958-adopted New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (CREFAA), which has been hailed as the most effective treaty governing global trade. This article suggests that Namibia should implement both the MLICA and the CREFAA. If this strategy is not adopted, businesses in Namibia will be hesitant to engage in international business transactions due to the lack of legal certainty that the New York Convention and contemporary domestic arbitration legislation bring.
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
根据《贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法》在纳米比亚制定国际仲裁法的建议
纳米比亚现行仲裁法《1965年第42号仲裁法》(该法)不包括国际商业仲裁。该法案中没有明确的语言涉及外国仲裁,因为该法案完全默认适用于国家或国内仲裁。就国际仲裁而言,该法案存在许多缺陷。现代商事仲裁越来越多地以贸易法委员会(联合国国际贸易法委员会)的《国际商事仲裁示范法》或受其影响的国家立法为指导。不可否认的是,为了参与全球经济村,纳米比亚必须接受MLICA,包括MLICA 2006年修订的大部分内容。此外,纳米比亚尚未批准1958年通过的《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决纽约公约》(《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决纽约公约》),该公约被誉为管理全球贸易的最有效条约。本文建议纳米比亚应同时实施MLICA和CREFAA。如果不采取这一战略,由于《纽约公约》和当代国内仲裁立法缺乏法律确定性,纳米比亚的企业将对从事国际商业交易犹豫不决。
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
De Jure
De Jure LAW-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊最新文献
Administrative Legal Protection of Persons Who Report Breaches of European Union Law Statute and Powers of the Audit Office The Ex Proprio Motu Principle in the Application of Coercive Administrative Measures by the Labour Inspection Development of Bulgarian Maritime Law, Maritime Administration and Services Provided at Bulgarian Ports (1879 – 1944) On the Opportunity to Impose a Pecuniary Penalty on the Economic Successor of the Infringer of Fair Competition Rules
×
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