Non-Monetary Relief in International Arbitration: Principles and Arbitration Practice - Chapter 1 - Performance as a Remedy: Non-Monetary Relief in International Arbitration: ASA Special Series No. 30
Michael E. Schneider is a Founding Partner of LALIVE in Geneva and the Chairman of the Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA). He has practiced international arbitration for more than 35 years, acting as counsel before arbitration tribunals under various rules, including those of the ICC, ICSID, LCIA, Stockholm Institute, the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA), European Development Fund, UNCITRAL and before other international bodies, including the WTO Appellate Body and the United Nations compensation commission. He has also been sitting as arbitrator (chair, sole or co-arbitrator) under the rules of many institutions in Switzerland and abroad. Mr. Schneider is Vice Chair of the ICC Commission on Arbitration, and has been a member of several of its working groups (1998 Revision of the ICC Rules, Construction, Pre-Arbitral Referee). He chaired the UNCITRAL WG II (Arbitration) on the revision of the Arbitration Rules (2006 to 2010) and is a member of the executive committee of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
1. THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY
International arbitration seems to be perceived as a procedure in which parties seek monetary relief, mainly damages for breach of contract. There are important treatises on international arbitration which do not even discuss the variety of remedies which parties may pursue before arbitral tribunals and which such tribunals may grant. Where non-monetary relief is discussed as a remedy in arbitration this is done generally in the context of the question whether arbitrators have the power to grant such relief. The practice of such relief, the distinctions that may have to be made between different types of remedies, the particular issues which they raise are considered rarely if at all.1
The present book emerged from a conference organised by the Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA) and its preparatory research. It is intended as a first step in the direction of a better understanding of the questions which these remedies raise. Indeed, the manner in which the relief sought and possibly granted by courts and arbitral tribunals differs considerably from one legal system to another; so do such concepts as rights, remedies, causes of action and claims. The implications of these differences on international arbitration and the manner in which they should be dealt with internationally do not seem to be well understood. The entire subject of “remedies in international arbitration” does not seem to have received much attention in the international arbitration community.