International Commercial Arbitration in the CIS and Mongolia - Vol. 17 No. 3 ARIA 2006
Roman Chapaev is an associate at Chadbourne & Parke.
Veronica Bradautanu is an associate at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development .
Originally from American Review of International Arbitration - ARIA
In 2007, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (“EBRD”) conducted an assessment of the national legislative regimes for international commercial arbitration in some of its countries of operations (the “Assessment”). The countries covered by the Assessment include the members of the Commonwealth of Independent States2 and Mongolia (the “States”). Arbitration is commonly regarded as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism in international commercial contracts. It is supplanting litigation primarily because it offers contracting parties the freedom to tailor the method of dispute resolution to their particular needs. Overall, its main advantages are enforceability, party control, neutrality, privacy and confidentiality, costeffectiveness and speed.3
The ability of the disputing parties to enjoy the abovementioned advantages is conditional on standards adopted by national legislation. Poorly drafted law may undermine these advantages and make arbitration a less attractive method of dispute settlement, especially in cases where impediments to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards exist.
As part of its mandate, the EBRD promotes the accepted standards of best international practice. With relation to international commercial arbitration, the standard is set by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (the “Model Law”) as revised and amended by the UNCITRAL Commission in its 39th session in 2006.