Baseball Arbitration (or Final Offer Arbitration (FOA)) is a dispute resolution mechanism to resolve controversies where each party submits a final offer. The arbitral tribunal must then decide by picking only one of these proposals. Given the arbitrators’ powers’ limitations, these proceedings are usually shorter and less expensive than traditional dispute resolution mechanisms. In addition, contrary to conventional arbitration, parties tend not to assume unrealistic or extreme positions, which could promote amicable settlement since it is an all-or-nothing proceeding. FOA could effectively resolve monetary disputes in industries where parties seek to preserve the commercial relationship while avoiding unnecessary delays. Therefore, Baseball Arbitration could be advantageous in the construction and real estate sectors. However, most arbitral institutions do not have specific rules for conducting Baseball Arbitration proceedings. This article proposes a model clause for parties wishing to submit their disputes to FOA. In our proposal, the arbitrator will receive the parties’ final offers and then issue its reasoned award, asserting the rationale to choose one offer over the other. Arbitration, Baseball Arbitration, Final Offer Arbitration, ADR Mechanisms, Construction Disputes, Construction Arbitration, Real State Disputes, Real Estate Arbitration, Model Clauses
{"title":"Baseball Arbitration as a Suitable Alternative for Construction and Real Estate Disputes","authors":"Rodrigo Barradas, J. Vázquez","doi":"10.54648/joia2023010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2023010","url":null,"abstract":"Baseball Arbitration (or Final Offer Arbitration (FOA)) is a dispute resolution mechanism to resolve controversies where each party submits a final offer. The arbitral tribunal must then decide by picking only one of these proposals. Given the arbitrators’ powers’ limitations, these proceedings are usually shorter and less expensive than traditional dispute resolution mechanisms. In addition, contrary to conventional arbitration, parties tend not to assume unrealistic or extreme positions, which could promote amicable settlement since it is an all-or-nothing proceeding.\u0000FOA could effectively resolve monetary disputes in industries where parties seek to preserve the commercial relationship while avoiding unnecessary delays. Therefore, Baseball Arbitration could be advantageous in the construction and real estate sectors. However, most arbitral institutions do not have specific rules for conducting Baseball Arbitration proceedings.\u0000This article proposes a model clause for parties wishing to submit their disputes to FOA. In our proposal, the arbitrator will receive the parties’ final offers and then issue its reasoned award, asserting the rationale to choose one offer over the other.\u0000Arbitration, Baseball Arbitration, Final Offer Arbitration, ADR Mechanisms, Construction Disputes, Construction Arbitration, Real State Disputes, Real Estate Arbitration, Model Clauses","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43927037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Book Review: Law, Practice and Procedure of Arbitration in India (2021), Sundra Rajoo. Thomson Reuters. 1st ed. Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited. Gurgaon. India. 2021","authors":"Shanelle Irani, Vamika Puri","doi":"10.54648/joia2023005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2023005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43678722","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The current People’s Republic of China (PRC) Arbitration Law rejects ad hoc arbitration by requiring the arbitration agreement to specify an arbitration institution. However, such rejection does not constitute a barrier to the enforcement of foreign ad hoc arbitration awards under the New York Convention. To determine the validity of a foreign ad hoc arbitration agreement, China adopts a conflict-of-laws approach in ascertaining its applicable law. Recent years have witnessed China’s initiative to experiment with ad hoc arbitration in its Free Trade Zones (FTZs). The draft revised PRC Arbitration Law published by the Chinese Ministry of Justice (MOJ) in 2021 proposes allowing foreign-related disputes to be resolved by ad hoc arbitration. This article argues that the legal status of ad hoc arbitration in China demonstrates a complex and evolving nature. It notes that while complete legalization of ad hoc arbitration in China is unlikely in the short term, its legal status will continue to evolve, reflecting the complicated relationship between China’s bureaucratized arbitration regime and its increasingly sophisticated arbitration market. Ad Hoc Arbitration, Legal Status, PRC Arbitration Law, Article 16, Article 18, Conflict-of-Laws Approach, Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards, New York Convention, Free Trade Zones, China’s Bureaucratized Arbitration Regime
{"title":"The Complex and Evolving Legal Status of Ad Hoc Arbitration in China","authors":"Panfeng Fu","doi":"10.54648/joia2023003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2023003","url":null,"abstract":"The current People’s Republic of China (PRC) Arbitration Law rejects ad hoc arbitration by requiring the arbitration agreement to specify an arbitration institution. However, such rejection does not constitute a barrier to the enforcement of foreign ad hoc arbitration awards under the New York Convention. To determine the validity of a foreign ad hoc arbitration agreement, China adopts a conflict-of-laws approach in ascertaining its applicable law. Recent years have witnessed China’s initiative to experiment with ad hoc arbitration in its Free Trade Zones (FTZs). The draft revised PRC Arbitration Law published by the Chinese Ministry of Justice (MOJ) in 2021 proposes allowing foreign-related disputes to be resolved by ad hoc arbitration. This article argues that the legal status of ad hoc arbitration in China demonstrates a complex and evolving nature. It notes that while complete legalization of ad hoc arbitration in China is unlikely in the short term, its legal status will continue to evolve, reflecting the complicated relationship between China’s bureaucratized arbitration regime and its increasingly sophisticated arbitration market.\u0000Ad Hoc Arbitration, Legal Status, PRC Arbitration Law, Article 16, Article 18, Conflict-of-Laws Approach, Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards, New York Convention, Free Trade Zones, China’s Bureaucratized Arbitration Regime","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41652399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Both the Egyptian Arbitration Law of 1994 and the relevant jurisprudence are devoid of any rule that regulates arbitral institutions’ incorporation and good standing. However, recently, and only after the Chevron Sham Arbitration saga, Egyptian courts have tackled the issue of arbitral institutions’ legal framework, where many subsequent related questions were then raised. For instance, is there an actual legal framework that governs arbitral institutions in Egypt? If so, what is the statute applicable to that effect? Are all kinds of arbitral institutions, operating in Egypt, subject to the same legal framework or statute? Is there an actual need to enact a new specific statute to avoid the recurrence of a fraudulent sham arbitration like the Chevron one? This article will attempt to answer all these questions, despite the dearth of Egyptian jurisprudence. It will also shed light on the collateral, but essential, problematic issues that arise while analysing the legal framework of arbitral institutions in general, and the Egyptian Sports Centre, in particular. As a part of this analytical study, and for purposes of comprehensiveness, the current article demonstrates the legal consequences of administering an institutional arbitration (i.e., the internationalization of institutional arbitration) as well as the consequences of wrongful administration of institutional arbitration, with a particular attention to the issue of a fraudulent administration such as in the case of the Chevron Sham Arbitration. Arbitral Institutions, Incorporation, Good Standing, Sham Arbitration, Egyptian Sports Centre, Local Appeal Body, Sports-Related Body, Internationalization, Fraud
{"title":"The Distinctive Aspects of Institutional Arbitration Under Egyptian Law","authors":"Sherif Elatafy","doi":"10.54648/joia2023004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2023004","url":null,"abstract":"Both the Egyptian Arbitration Law of 1994 and the relevant jurisprudence are devoid of any rule that regulates arbitral institutions’ incorporation and good standing. However, recently, and only after the Chevron Sham Arbitration saga, Egyptian courts have tackled the issue of arbitral institutions’ legal framework, where many subsequent related questions were then raised. For instance, is there an actual legal framework that governs arbitral institutions in Egypt? If so, what is the statute applicable to that effect? Are all kinds of arbitral institutions, operating in Egypt, subject to the same legal framework or statute? Is there an actual need to enact a new specific statute to avoid the recurrence of a fraudulent sham arbitration like the Chevron one? This article will attempt to answer all these questions, despite the dearth of Egyptian jurisprudence. It will also shed light on the collateral, but essential, problematic issues that arise while analysing the legal framework of arbitral institutions in general, and the Egyptian Sports Centre, in particular. As a part of this analytical study, and for purposes of comprehensiveness, the current article demonstrates the legal consequences of administering an institutional arbitration (i.e., the internationalization of institutional arbitration) as well as the consequences of wrongful administration of institutional arbitration, with a particular attention to the issue of a fraudulent administration such as in the case of the Chevron Sham Arbitration.\u0000Arbitral Institutions, Incorporation, Good Standing, Sham Arbitration, Egyptian Sports Centre, Local Appeal Body, Sports-Related Body, Internationalization, Fraud","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43901142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article finds that private and criminal law standards differ greatly – both in terms of evidence and in terms of applicable substantive norms. On the basis of an assessment of the interaction between criminal and private law standards under Dutch arbitration law, it submits that in the private law assessment of allegations of illegality, evidentiary and substantive criminal law standards should play a more prominent part. To this end, it considers arguments of system coherence, legal policy and the rule of law. international arbitration, illegality, corruption, fraud, evidence, public policy
{"title":"Dealing with Accusations of Illegality in International Arbitration: Dutch Perspectives on the Interaction Between Private Law and Criminal Law Standards","authors":"Bastiaan Van Zelst","doi":"10.54648/joia2023002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2023002","url":null,"abstract":"This article finds that private and criminal law standards differ greatly – both in terms of evidence and in terms of applicable substantive norms. On the basis of an assessment of the interaction between criminal and private law standards under Dutch arbitration law, it submits that in the private law assessment of allegations of illegality, evidentiary and substantive criminal law standards should play a more prominent part. To this end, it considers arguments of system coherence, legal policy and the rule of law.\u0000international arbitration, illegality, corruption, fraud, evidence, public policy","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43970948","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) and Human Rights (HR) have become two of the most widely discussed topics in the last few years for businesses and law firms alike, but to what extent can ESG and HR issues be resolved through arbitration? This article examines the ESG and HR obligations that currently exist for companies, and analyses their gradual shift from soft law to binding hard law obligations. The rising number of ESG and HR related hard law obligations, paired with the increasing commercial awareness of the importance of ESG and HR, naturally leads to a greater potential for disputes. This article explores to what extent arbitration may be an appropriate dispute resolution method for these claims. In particular, it recognizes that although limitations to arbitration (such as in transparency and third party participation) exist, amendments have already been made to institutional rules to better position arbitration towards handling ESG and HR disputes. With the continuation of this trend, it is expected that arbitration will be more commonly used to resolve ESG and HR disputes. ESG, Environmental, Social, Governance, Human Rights, Dispute, Arbitration, ADR, Climate Change, Sustainability
{"title":"Exploring the Suitability of Arbitration for Settling ESG and Human Rights Disputes","authors":"Gauthier Vannieuwenhuyse","doi":"10.54648/joia2023001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2023001","url":null,"abstract":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) and Human Rights (HR) have become two of the most widely discussed topics in the last few years for businesses and law firms alike, but to what extent can ESG and HR issues be resolved through arbitration? This article examines the ESG and HR obligations that currently exist for companies, and analyses their gradual shift from soft law to binding hard law obligations. The rising number of ESG and HR related hard law obligations, paired with the increasing commercial awareness of the importance of ESG and HR, naturally leads to a greater potential for disputes. This article explores to what extent arbitration may be an appropriate dispute resolution method for these claims. In particular, it recognizes that although limitations to arbitration (such as in transparency and third party participation) exist, amendments have already been made to institutional rules to better position arbitration towards handling ESG and HR disputes. With the continuation of this trend, it is expected that arbitration will be more commonly used to resolve ESG and HR disputes.\u0000ESG, Environmental, Social, Governance, Human Rights, Dispute, Arbitration, ADR, Climate Change, Sustainability","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45511782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Book Review: The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Under International Investment Law, Simon Klopschinski, Christopher S. Gibson & Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan. 1st ed. Oxford: OUP. 2021","authors":"U. Kriebaum","doi":"10.54648/joia2022038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022038","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47985702","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Arbitration is widely regarded as one of the most efficient mechanisms to solve complex commercial disputes. However, it has not yet been able to present sufficiently cohesive solutions for cases involving contracts obtained through corruption and, oftentimes, the current arbitrator’s toolkit might not be enough to deal with such disputes without compromising the decision, risking its enforceability, and eventually unsettling the status quo of arbitration as an adequate mechanism for dealing with commercial disputes. To harmonize the current treatment of corruption allegations in arbitration and the broader societal fight against corruption, this article analyses the issues arising out of corruption allegations in arbitration and demonstrates how burden and standard of proof can be used as the missing link to seek such cohesiveness. Moreover, it analyses how the use of red flags – which can be obtained primarily from anti-corruption compliance practice – in arbitration is desirable. As a result, this article proposes a systemized framework for addressing allegations of corruption, in which a red flag of great gravity or the accumulation of red flags, in the absence of counterevidence or sufficient evidence to rule out the plausibility of the risk, authorizes arbitrators to apply negative inferences vis-à-vis the suspicion of corruption. corruption, bribery, standard of proof, burden of proof, red flags, adverse inferences, public policy, soft law, compliance, United Nations Convention Against Corruption, Civil Law Convention on Corruption
{"title":"Corruption Allegations in Arbitration: Burden and Standard of Proof, Red Flags, and a Proposal for Systematization","authors":"Martim Della Valle, Pedro Schilling de Carvalho","doi":"10.54648/joia2022035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022035","url":null,"abstract":"Arbitration is widely regarded as one of the most efficient mechanisms to solve complex commercial disputes. However, it has not yet been able to present sufficiently cohesive solutions for cases involving contracts obtained through corruption and, oftentimes, the current arbitrator’s toolkit might not be enough to deal with such disputes without compromising the decision, risking its enforceability, and eventually unsettling the status quo of arbitration as an adequate mechanism for dealing with commercial disputes. To harmonize the current treatment of corruption allegations in arbitration and the broader societal fight against corruption, this article analyses the issues arising out of corruption allegations in arbitration and demonstrates how burden and standard of proof can be used as the missing link to seek such cohesiveness. Moreover, it analyses how the use of red flags – which can be obtained primarily from anti-corruption compliance practice – in arbitration is desirable. As a result, this article proposes a systemized framework for addressing allegations of corruption, in which a red flag of great gravity or the accumulation of red flags, in the absence of counterevidence or sufficient evidence to rule out the plausibility of the risk, authorizes arbitrators to apply negative inferences vis-à-vis the suspicion of corruption.\u0000corruption, bribery, standard of proof, burden of proof, red flags, adverse inferences, public policy, soft law, compliance, United Nations Convention Against Corruption, Civil Law Convention on Corruption","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42428137","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article reports on the findings of the Dutch Supreme Court in its first two decisions on corruption and arbitration in the context of annulment proceedings. In the Bariven decision of 16 July 2021, the Supreme Court reinstated an arbitral award which the Court of Appeal in The Hague had annulled, citing strong indications of corruption. The Yukos decision was handed down on 5 November 2021 but did not put an end to a saga which has been playing out in the Dutch courts since 2014. The annulment proceedings are currently pending before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal which will have to find on the merits of the Russian Federation’s procedural fraud defence following cassation by the Supreme Court over a refusal to admit this defence by the Hague Court of Appeal. This article is a case report, and its aim is limited to providing non-Dutch readers with insight into the Bariven and Yukos Supreme Court decisions. The article includes an introduction on Dutch annulment proceedings, the public policy exception as applied in such proceedings, and the related but distinct action of revocation. international arbitration, corruption, Netherlands, annulment, revocation, Bariven, Yukos
{"title":"Dutch Supreme Court Finds for the First Time on Corruption and Arbitration in Context of Annulment Proceedings: Case Report on the Bariven and Yukos Decisions","authors":"Wouter J.L. de Clerck","doi":"10.54648/joia2022037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022037","url":null,"abstract":"This article reports on the findings of the Dutch Supreme Court in its first two decisions on corruption and arbitration in the context of annulment proceedings. In the Bariven decision of 16 July 2021, the Supreme Court reinstated an arbitral award which the Court of Appeal in The Hague had annulled, citing strong indications of corruption. The Yukos decision was handed down on 5 November 2021 but did not put an end to a saga which has been playing out in the Dutch courts since 2014. The annulment proceedings are currently pending before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal which will have to find on the merits of the Russian Federation’s procedural fraud defence following cassation by the Supreme Court over a refusal to admit this defence by the Hague Court of Appeal. This article is a case report, and its aim is limited to providing non-Dutch readers with insight into the Bariven and Yukos Supreme Court decisions. The article includes an introduction on Dutch annulment proceedings, the public policy exception as applied in such proceedings, and the related but distinct action of revocation.\u0000international arbitration, corruption, Netherlands, annulment, revocation, Bariven, Yukos","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43271133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Law Commission of England and Wales is currently reviewing the English Arbitration Act 1996 with a view to its being reformed. In September, it published a consultation paper making various recommendations on a preliminary basis. This article respectfully suggests that the Law Commission should revise its approach in respect of its proposed amendment to section 67 (challenges to jurisdiction) and its decision not to include in the review the question of the law governing the arbitration agreement: the former in order to protect the legitimacy of arbitration; and the latter in order to enhance legal certainty and clarity. Arbitration Act 1996, law reform, Law Commission, section 67, law applicable to the arbitration agreement
{"title":"Two Brief Comments on the Law Commission’s Proposed Reform of the Arbitration Act 1996","authors":"J. Grierson","doi":"10.54648/joia2022033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022033","url":null,"abstract":"The Law Commission of England and Wales is currently reviewing the English Arbitration Act 1996 with a view to its being reformed. In September, it published a consultation paper making various recommendations on a preliminary basis. This article respectfully suggests that the Law Commission should revise its approach in respect of its proposed amendment to section 67 (challenges to jurisdiction) and its decision not to include in the review the question of the law governing the arbitration agreement: the former in order to protect the legitimacy of arbitration; and the latter in order to enhance legal certainty and clarity.\u0000Arbitration Act 1996, law reform, Law Commission, section 67, law applicable to the arbitration agreement","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45203776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：