This is a unique work for those who are involved in international arbitration. Utilizing a chart of parallel provisions it compares the leading sets of Asian international arbitration rules. It was first created by Simpson as an internal reference tool. The Comparison of Asian International Arbitration Rules will be of great value in three distinct areas of international arbitration practice. First, in assisting clients in selecting arbitration rules and drafting arbitration provisions for their international commercial contracts. For example, where a client seeks to include a provision governing a specific procedural issue in an arbitration clause, the chart provides easy reference to the different provisions used in the leading sets of international arbitration rules. Second, the chart will assist in developing arguments on procedural issues in connection with representation of clients in international arbitration proceedings. Finally, comparison will facilitate evaluation by scholars, practitioners and the institutions themselves of the desirability and effectiveness of particular provisions in light of comparable ones. Compiling this chart was a challenging process, primarily because the various sets of international arbitration rules deal with specific procedural issues very differently. Additionally, one of the most difficult tasks in compiling this chart was deciding which sets of Asian international arbitration rules to include in the chart in light of space and formatting limitations. Ultimately various factors were considered in deciding which sets of rules to include in the chart. The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission ("CIETAC"), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre ("HKIAC"), Japan Commercial Arbitration Association ("JCAA"), Korean Commercial Arbitration Board ("KCAB"), and Singapore International Arbitration Centre ("SIAC") rules were included as leading sets of institutional Asian international arbitration rules. Other Asian institutional arbitration rules are not included simply for reasons of manageability and space. The arbitration rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade ("UNCITRAL") were included as the preeminent set of ad hoc international arbitration rules, which are frequently used by parties in Asia as well as by Asian arbitration organizations, such as the HKIAC, as the basis for their institutional arbitration rules. The structure of this chart follows the structure of the second edition of our chart on international arbitration rules, in part, to facilitate the use of the two charts together. Like the second edition of the chart on international arbitration rules, this chart contains an index of topics with page references to assist in locating subjects in the rules, and the full texts of the sets of arbitration rules are included in an appendix for ease of reference

Comparison of Gulf International Arbitration Rules has been inspired by its sister publications, Comparison of Asian International Arbitration Rules and Comparison of International Arbitration Rules, which were prepared by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and published by Juris Publishing in 2003 and 2008 respectively. This volume sets forth the main arbitration rules and regulations available in the Middle East region and provides a basis of comparison on their efficiency and cost-effectiveness Due to the great number of arbitration institutions that have been forming across the Middle East over the past couple of decades the present overview is confined to the most commonly-used sets of rules in the Gulf region: the Arbitration Rules of the 2007 Dubai International Arbitration Centre (the “DIAC Arbitration Rules”), the 2008 Arbitration Rules of the Dubai International Financial Centre-London Court of International Arbitration (the “DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Rules”), the 1993 Arbitration Regulations of the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Centre (the “ADDCAC Rules”), the 2006 Arbitration Rules of the Qatar International Centre for Commercial Arbitration (the “QICCA Arbitration Rules”), the 1994 Arbitration Rules of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Commercial Arbitration Centre (the “GCC Arbitration Rules”) and the 2009 Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association/Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution (the “AAA/BCDR Arbitration Rules”). Due to their increasing prominence for ad hoc arbitration in the region, the 2005 Arbitration Rules of the Qatar Financial Centre (the “QFC Arbitration Rules”) and the 1976 Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) (the “UNCITRAL Rules”) including recent 2010 revisions are included. Full sets of these rules are appended to the comparative chart that makes up the core of this publication. There is also a comparative table on costs and fees to give the reader a clear idea of filing, administrative and arbitrators’ costs under the various arbitration rules. The comparative entries in the chart on parallel provisions of the various sets of arbitration rules follows a logical self-explanatory sequence, mapping the course of an arbitration from the commencement of the proceedings to the issuance of the final award. The first two headline entries on the “arbitration clause” and the “arbitral institution” are meant to provide relevant framework information and to assist the client in swiftly identifying the standard wording of an arbitration clause under the relevant rules (to avoid any debilitating pathologies in the famous midnight drafting process of commercial contracts) as well as the main services and functions provided by the arbitration institution concerned. The arrangement of the information and data provided in the various entries is meant to facilitate consultation of the rules on particular comparative aspects, which we hope is further assisted by the detailed table of contents contained at the very beginning of the volume.

Comparison of International Arbitration Rules, prepared by the international arbitration practice group of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, provides a detailed and up-to-date chart comparing the specific provisions of the leading sets of international rules--those of the ICC, AAA/ICDR, LCIA, SCC, ICSID, UNCITRAL and CPR. The Comparison is designed to assist parties in selecting arbitration rules and drafting specific arbitration provisions for their international commercial contracts; assist counsel in developing arguments on procedural issues that arise in the international arbitration proceedings; assist arbitration institutions and commentators in analyzing, formulating and promulgating appropriate arbitration rules; and assist countries and international organizations in developing appropriate national or model arbitration laws and rules. The Comparison is therefore of great practical utility to international arbitration users, practitioners, institutions, academics and legislators alike.

Explores how the text and principles of the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law are implemented, or not, in key Asian jurisdictions.

A prosperous economy goes hand in hand with a competent, impartial, and efficient legal system. International investment is only possible when the business parties are confident that adequate dispute resolution possibilities exist. A conference on "Arbitration in China" was held by the Association for International Arbitration (AIA) in March 2009. This book - a product of the conference - highlights the newest opportunities and updates - for lawyers, arbitrators, mediators, and investors - about arbitration and mediation in the event a dispute were to arise with Chinese partners. The book includes the conference's opening remarks, presented by the president of the AIA, Johan Billiet, who highlights the differences between Chinese and 'Western' arbitration. Other contributions include: the issue of mediation and arbitration in China * International Chamber of Commerce arbitration in China * arbitration differences between China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission and other Asian institutions, such as Hong Kong International Arbitration Center, Singapore International Arbitration Center, Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, and Japan Commercial Arbitration Association * recent developments in Chinese arbitration * the issue of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in China.