The UNCITRAL Model Law after Twenty-Five Years: Global Perspectives on International Commercial Arbitration - Chapter 4 - Direct Review of Arbitral Jurisdiction under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: An Assessment of Article 16(3)
Simon Greenberg is a Partner with Clifford Chance’s international arbitration group in Paris. His arbitration experience covers all major arbitral institutions and a range of dispute types, notably including technology/IP, telecommunications, construction, post-acquisition, and weapons procurement. He is a Court Member (for Australia) of the ICC International Court of Arbitration. Before joining Clifford Chance in early 2012, he spent four years as Deputy Secretary-General of the ICC Court and previously practiced with leading international arbitration firms in Paris and Australia. He has authored or co-authored numerous articles and two books on international arbitration. His first book, International Commercial Arbitration: An Asia-Pacific Perspective (Cambridge 2011) is the first subject-by-subject international arbitration text book with an Asia-Pacific focus. His most recent book, The Secretariat’s Guide to ICC Arbitration (ICC 2012) includes an articleby-article commentary on the 2012 ICC Rules of Arbitration. Mr. Greenberg also lectures on international commercial contracts at Sciences Po in Paris and is a Visiting Professor of international arbitration at Hong Kong University.
Article 16(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Model Law)1 addresses the procedural aspects of how and when arbitral tribunals rule on jurisdiction. It also provides for the immediate review, by a domestic court at the place of arbitration, of an arbitral tribunal’s positive jurisdictional decision. There is little debate that, as a matter of principle, domestic courts should maintain ultimate control over whether or not an arbitral tribunal possesses jurisdiction. The vexing questions have to do with the extent of that control and when it should be exercised. The difficulty of these questions has meant that “the most contentious issue in the debates on Article 16 was the question of court control over the arbitral tribunal’s decision on its jurisdiction.”2 The debates raised questions about what kind of court control should be exercised and whether that control should be exercised before the arbitral proceedings, during the arbitral proceedings—either with or without a stay of the arbitration—or during proceedings to set aside an eventual award on the merits.
Table of Contents:
PART II: RECURRING ISSUES-PRE-AWARD
Chapter 4 Direct Review of Arbitral Jurisdiction under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: An Assessment of Article 16(3) Simon Greenberg