The UNCITRAL Model Law after Twenty-Five Years: Global Perspectives on International Commercial Arbitration - Chapter 8 - Delocalization and Its Relevance in Post-award Review
Loukas Mistelis is the Clive M. Schmitthoff Professor of Transnational Commercial Law and Arbitration and the Director of the School of International Arbitration, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London, and is an acknowledged authority on international dispute resolution. Professor Mistelis was educated in Greece, France, and Japan. He has been a member of the Athens Bar since 1993 and was called to the English Bar in 2012. His substantial arbitration experience covers ad hoc and ICC, ICISD, LCIA, UNCITRAL, SCC, and Swiss Chambers. His publications include more than 50 refereed articles and 13 books. His research includes innovative empirical research into corporate attitudes toward dispute resolution. He is also the co-editor (with Laurence Shore) of the multi-volume World Arbitration Reporter: International Encyclopaedia of Arbitration Law and Practice (Juris), member of the Editorial Board of Arbitration International, Global Arbitration Review, the Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, the International Journal of Arab Arbitration, the Journal of International Dispute Settlement, the Review of Arbitration and Mediation (Canada), and General Editor of the Oxford International Arbitration Series.
Historically, one of the most hotly debated topics in international arbitration has been the relevance and varying degree of application of delocalization and denationalization theories. The topic of delocalization was heated in the 1970s and 1980s1 and was reignited in the 2000s.2 Aspects of the debate have focused on a closely related but not identical theme: denationalization. 3 Denationalization assumes that no national system has a bearing on arbitral regulation at any level: only generally accepted international or transnational rules are of relevance. In contrast, delocalization focuses the discussion of the proposition that the local law and local courts (i.e., the law of the seat or arbitration and the courts of the seat of arbitration) have no control or regulatory competence over international arbitration proceedings held on their territory. In other words, arbitration is a creature of the parties, fully emancipated from law and court review or regulation.4
PART III: RECURRING ISSUES-POST-AWARD
Delocalization and Its Relevance in Post-award Review