My doctoral dissertation has been published as an e‑book and in print. Its title translates as ‘SICC or Arbitration? A Comparison of Proceedings in the Singapore International Commercial Court with the Advantages and Disadvantages of International Arbitration Proceedings’. It does what it says on the tin, so here’s just a bit of background.
I was back in Kuala Lumpur for Asia ADR Week 2024 and an Oxford-style debate on the topic of ‘The Extent and Limitations of Arbitrators’ Discretionary Powers’.
Last weekend the Asia ADR Summit was held in Kuala Lumpur. I had the honour and pleasure of participating in an Oxford-style debate on the topic: ‘This House believes that “humanity” is dispensable in arbitration, and artificial intelligence will supplant arbitrators in the future’.
Here is my statement and my rebuttal.
If you know me, you know that I don’t always do things in life in the orthodox order. After passing my first state examination in law at the beginning of 2001, I wanted to do a doctorate. In fact, I had already made several preparations for it. But then life intervened and took me from Hamburg to Singapore. Which was fine, and I soon abandoned the idea of becoming a Doctor of Law and concentrated on my second state examination, then my career, and whatever else was happening in my life (which, as life goes, wasn’t all smooth sailing). A while ago, however, I picked up the idea again and pursued it further. Yesterday I was in Munich for my oral doctoral examination at Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU). I’m happy to report: I made it.
May courts or arbitral tribunals engage in the amicable settlement of disputes between parties? More specifically, may a Singapore court or arbitral tribunal actively do so? What do the inquisitorial processes mentioned in the law have to do with it?
I have set out my thoughts in an article that the German Arbitration Journal (SchiedsVZ) has just published in its September/October 2023 issue.
Supplemental: Kluwer Arbitration Blog has published a summary of the article.
I’ve had the website of dahm adr overhauled. This is where I arbitrate and mediate.
Please have a look: https://www.dahm.sg.
An arbitral award made by an emergency arbitrator sitting in Singapore is enforceable in Singapore. The law is clear on this.
However, the law is less clear on foreign emergency awards. Are they enforceable in Singapore?
The Singapore Institute of Arbitrators invited me to debate the following motion: ‘This House Believes That Artificial Intelligence Will Have Replaced Arbitrators within Twenty-Five Years’. In short: can – will – algorithms replace arbitrators within a generation?
We were debating this last night. Here are my opening and closing statements.
As of this week, German lawyers are required to use an electronic communication tool designed especially for them: the special electronic lawyers’ mailbox (besonderes elektronisches Anwaltspostfach or beA). The problem is that the beA is inherently insecure, so it seems better to avoid using it. This would include, if possible, not litigating before a German court if there’s a chance that the opponent or the court might use the beA in the proceedings. This seems all the more appropriate where there is a risk of snooping or foul play by the opponent or third parties, or where the stakes are high – and when aren’t they?
I don’t like how we use the term guerrilla tactics in international arbitration. Referring to guerrilla disapprovingly implies methods of traditional warfare are alright. Artillery or old-school tactical formations – okay. Sneaky ambushes or hit-and-run attacks – not okay.
This really very long and quasi-academic post is based on a speech I gave to MBA students of the Management Development Institute of Singapore sometime in 2016. Subject: how do we resolve disputes and what borders, geographical or otherwise, do we cross in doing so? Borders and otherwise, geddit, I was talking about dispute resolution in cyberspace and algorithms.
Here’s my piece on Singapore’s ratification of this Convention on Peter Bert’s dispute resolution blog.
Anfang 2015 wurde der Singapurische Internationale Handelsgerichtshof (Singapore International Commercial Court oder SICC) eröffnet. Das Gericht ist als Teil des singapurischen Supreme Court für internationale Handelssachen zuständig und vereint schiedsgerichtliche und gerichtliche Elemente. Singapur will damit seine Position als internationales Streitschlichtungszentrum ausbauen.
Parties to a legal dispute may believe they understand each other’s legalese or the legal ‘etiquette’ applicable. When really they don’t. This may happen when a party from a civil law jurisdiction sets foot in a common law environment, or vice versa. In international arbitration proceedings, for example.
Apparently the High Court of Singapore had to decide a case just like this.
International arbitration has a problem: proceedings that take too long and are too expensive. To help solve this we should combine the best aspects of civil law and common law procedure better.
This is my speech at the In-house Congress in Jakarta, Indonesia, on 23 April 2014. It was on why it’s important your commercial contracts contain an arbitration clause that works well.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén