Act I - Drafting and Negotiating the Arbitration Clause - WAMR 2010 Vol. 4, No. 4-5
Christopher Gibson is a Vice-Chair of ITA’s Academic
Council and professor at Suffolk University Law School. He
is an expert in international law, international arbitration
and intellectual property issues. Before joining Suffolk Law
School, Professor Gibson was a founding partner of Steptoe
& Johnson’s London office, where he specialized in the areas
of international arbitration, as well as intellectual property
and technology disputes and transactions. Prior to joining
Steptoe, Professor Gibson was Head of the Electronic
Commerce Section at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and
a Senior Legal Counsel in its Arbitration and Mediation Center, a Section Chief
at the UN Compensation Commission, and a Legal Assistant at the Iran-United
States Claims Tribunal. Professor Gibson teaches and writes in the areas of
international dispute resolution, intellectual property, international trade and
investment, and internet law and technology.
Originally from World Arbitration And Mediation Review (WAMR)
Preview Page
ACT I - DRAFTING AND NEGOTIATING
THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE
INTRODUCTION TO THE WORKSHOP AND ACT I
Professor Christopher Gibson, Workshop Co-Chair
Thank you, Lucy, and good morning. My name is Christopher
Gibson. It is a real pleasure to join Lucy and my co-chairs for this
year’s workshop, Jean Kalicki and Klaus Reichert, in welcoming
you to this 21st Annual ITA Workshop. As Lucy explained, we are
commencing on a three-year project to explore the life cycle of an
arbitration. We are starting with negotiation of the arbitration
clause and the very early steps in an arbitration – which will be
featured today – we will move through the arbitral process until
finally, in year three, we will be considering issues such as
investor-State claims or enforcement of the arbitral award. The
mock scenario that we have designed, which is included in your
materials, is intended to serve as the factual underpinning for this
three-year exercise. For this reason, we have tried to create a
supple scenario that is able to be taken in different directions in
years two and three.
So let me begin with the case. This year’s problem involves a
dispute over a Turnkey Drilling Contract between two parties.
We have Drill-BD here as Claimant and, on the other side of the
table, we have TorGas. I will provide some of the background.
There was a recent discovery of oil and natural gas reserves in the
Republic of Torvia. Torvia’s Ministry of Energy and the national
oil company, Torvia National Petroleum or TNP, have decided to
enter into a production sharing agreement with a company called
TorGas. TorGas is a locally incorporated entity in Torvia and also
a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Francophonian oil company,
Qualité de l’Essence, S.A. Under the production sharing
agreement, TorGas is responsible for all the exploration, drilling,
and production activities, and bears the financial and mineral
risks. The parties to the production sharing agreement – which is
not in dispute during this year’s workshop – have already agreed
that any disputes will be resolved and settled by arbitration
under the ICC Rules. Torvia is a civil law country and has ratified
the New York Convention.