Chlamydomonas Chloroplast Ferrous Hemoglobin

Abstract

In the increasingly cross-border, cross-cultural commercial world of the last several decades, parties to international business transactions have exhibited a growing discomfort in resolving conflicts before local courts under unfamiliar legal systems. As a result, international commercial arbitration has emerged as the preferred choice of corporates for the resolution of disputes arising out of their international business transactions. Underpinned by the ready enforceability of international arbitral awards, the procedural integrity assured by a number of highly regarded international arbitral institutions, and its relative speed and confidentiality, international commercial arbitration has become a highly important component of the landscape of international dispute resolution. But access to the best that the system has to offer has been and remains unequal, in the sense that the quality of arbitral frameworks and institutions differs among jurisdictions. This has meant that enterprises that do business or are domiciled in what might be described as less arbitral-friendly jurisdictions face barriers to the optional use of best-of-class commercial arbitration. Bearing in mind the widespread interest in India, as well as, for example, China, the UAE, Singapore and Korea, in building effective (and competitive) commercial arbitration systems and institutions, this article looks at legislative and judicial developments in the United Kingdom over the past 25 years, with a view to illuminating the hallmark elements of a successful (attractive and effective) national arbitration regime. Three recent decisions of the House of Lords illustrate the central role that national courts and appropriate national legislation can, and arguably should, play in support of international arbitration. This document is reproduced by kind permission of the International Bar Association, London. © International Bar Association