Stockholm International Arbitration Review (SIAR) 2008-3 - PDF (Downloadable Electronic Product)
Stephen Bond is Senior of Counsel in Covington & Burling LLP’s London office. Formerly a co-head of the White & Case international arbitration practice group. He has served as counsel, co-counsel, chairman or co-arbitrator in numerous international arbitrations, principally under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce, and also under those of the London Court of International Arbitration, the Stockholm Arbitration Institute, the Japanese Commercial Arbitration Association, the Vienna Centre and UNCITRAL.
Mr. Bond has served in arbitrations focused predominantly on disputes in the oil and gas, international joint venture, construction, computer, sales and distribution fields and that involve the application of various civil and common law legal systems. He has also provided expert witness statements on international arbitration-related matters.
During his career, he has held a number of high profile positions that include Secretary General of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) from 1985-1991 and the U.S. Member of the ICC International Court of Arbitration for the period 1994-1999. He was Vice Chairman of the ICC Working Group charged with drafting the 1998 ICC Rules of Arbitration.
Prior to joining White & Case in 1991 and in addition to his ICC experience, he served as Assistant Legal Adviser in the Office of the Legal Adviser of the Department of State and as Counselor for Legal Affairs in the United States Mission to the United Nations in Geneva, where he was accorded the State Department's Distinguished Honors Award.
* Mr. Timur D. Aitkulov, Clifford Chance, Moscow
* Professor Frédéric Bachand, McGill University Faculty of Law, Montreal
* Ms. Linn Bergman, SCC Arbitration Institute, Stockholm
* Ms. Lisa Bingham, Hanotiau & van den Berg, Brussels
* Mr. Oliver Caprasse, University of Liège and University of Brussels, Hanotiau & van den Berg, Liège and Brussels
* Mr. Nils Eliasson, Mannheimer Swartling Advokatbyra, Hongkong
* Mr. John Fellas, Hughes,Hhubbard & Reed, New York
* Mr. Grant Hanessian, Baker & McKenzie, New York
* Mr. Jeffrey M. Hertzfeld, Salans, Paris
* Mr. Devashish Krishan, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, New York
* Ms. Olga Mouraviova, White & Case, Paris
* Mr. Noah Rubins, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Paris
* Professor Patricia Shaughnessy, Stockholm University, Faculty of Law, Stockholm
* Mr. Michael Bühler, Jones Day, Paris
* Professor Thomas E. Carbonneau, The Dickinson School of Law Pennsylvania State University, Carlisle, Pennsylvania
* Mr. Ulf Franke, Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, Stockholm
* Mr. Kaj Hobér, Mannheimer Swartling Advokatbyrå Stockholm, Sweden
* Ms. Marina Kaldina, Basic Element, Moscow, Russia
* Ms. Aigoul Kenjebayeva, Salans, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan
* Mr. Alexander S. Komarov, International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Russian Federation, Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Moscow, Russia
* Professor Joseph Lookofsky, University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law, Copenhagen, Denmark
* Professor William W. Park, Boston University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts
* Mr. Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, Rechtsanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof Ettlingen bei Karlsruhe, Germany
* Professor Alan Scott Rau, University of Texas at Austin School of Law, Austin, Texas
* Professor Michael Reisman, Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut
* Mr. Wang Sheng Chang, Beijing, China
To view full journal at the subscription rate:
SIAR 2008 - 3 Preview Page
Those of us who lecture or advise clients on the drafting of arbitration clauses always try to hammer home the notion that simply to cut and paste an arbitration clause from an older contract into a newer one may be a grave mistake. The world of arbitration is in constant flux. Court decisions may effect more or less important modifications in the arbitration landscape of a country and may even have an impact far beyond the shores of the jurisdiction directly concerned. We all recall how an Australian court decision on the confidentiality of arbitration and a French court decision on the appointment of arbitrators in a multiparty arbitration shook up and altered perceptions and practice almost everywhere. Obviously, legislation, arbitral awards and treaties may do the same.
The contents of this issue illustrate once again that there is no place for complacency in international arbitration. The articles cover developments in or related to China, the European Union, Switzerland and the Ukraine.
STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION REVIEW Volume 2008:3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Stephen R. Bond, General Editor
Chinese Investment Treaties and the Dispute Resolution Opportunities Offered by Most-Favoured Nation Provisions
John Savage & Elodie Dulac
Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Law
Recent Swiss Developments on Exclusion Agreements
Laurent Lévy & Tetiana Bersheda
Recent Developments concerning Dispute Resolution of Shareholder Agreements in Ukraine: For Better or for Worse?
Timur Bondaryev & Markian Malskyy
Decision of the Swedish Supreme Court, judgment rendered 28 March 2008 in Case No. T 2113-06, “The Petrobart Case”
Challenge of an arbitral award terminating the arbitration for lack of jurisdiction.
The scope of application of the so-called “doctrine of assertion” in arbitration.
The Petrobart Saga
Comments on the Swedish Supreme Court’s Recent Judgment on the So-called “Doctrine of Assertion” and the Arbitrators’ Jurisdiction in Investment Disputes
Comments on the “Petrobart v. Kyrgyz Republic” Case
Decision of the Svea Court of Appeal, judgment rendered 13 April 2006 in Case No. T 3739-03, “Petrobart Limited v. Kyrgyz Republic”
Decision of the Svea Court of Appeal, judgment rendered 19 January 2007 in Case No. T 5208-05, “Kyrgyz Republic v. Petrobart Limited”
COURT DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION
Decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal, judgment rendered 12 March 2008 in Case No: 2007 FOLIO 1521,“Emmott v. Michael Wilson & Partners Limited”
Confidentiality of documents produced for the purposes of an arbitration in London—Distinction between privacy and confidentiality—Limits to duty of confidentiality.
Observations by Stewart Boyd
Decision of the Svea Court of Appeal, judgment rendered 25 September 2006 in Case No. Ö 1952-05, “The Soyak Case”
Can a decision on fees to the arbitrators made by an arbitral institution be appealed?
Arbitrator Fees in Institutional Arbitration Subject to Substantive
Review in Court
Observations by Patrik Schöldström
The “Soyak” Case – Judicial Terrorism or Justified Cost Control?
Observations by Marie Öhrström
Decision of the Supreme Court of Finland, judgment rendered 2 July 2008 in Case No.: S2006/716, “Werfen Austria GmbH v.Polar Electro Europe B.V., Zug Branch”
Whether—by awarding damages on the basis of a legal doctrine that neither party invoked nor had an opportunity to comment on—the arbitral tribunal exceeded its authority or failed to
provide the parties a sufficient opportunity to present their cases.
Finality of Arbitral Awards – Common Grounds?
Observations by Petra Kiurunen
Observations by Sophie Nappert
NOTES & INFORMATION
IN MEMORIAM: Mohamed Aboul-Enein
IN MEMORIAM: Gunnar Lagergren
BOOK REVIEW: The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration,
Professor Margaret L. Moses
Christopher R. Seppälä
LIST OF BOOKS RECEIVED