Click here to download the full paper (PDF)
Authored By: Sakshi Chaturvedi (Dixit) is an advocate specializing in criminal and cyber law, and an LLM graduate in Commercial Law from CMR University, Bangalore,
Click here for Copyright Policy.
ABSTRACT:
The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration was adopted in 1985 to help resolve global commercial disputes. It addresses issues that arose from different national legal systems, which often caused delays and uncertainty in arbitration. This paper discusses about the process of how Model Law created a standardized framework to improve predictability and fairness in cross-border dispute resolution, promoting global trade. It outlines arbitration agreements, allowing parties to choose arbitration over national courts and emphasizing their autonomy in the process. The Model Law also regulates the composition of arbitral tribunals to ensure arbitrator independence and covers procedural fairness. Additionally, it facilitates the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards globally, aligning with the New York Convention. While the Model Law limits judicial intervention to maintain independence, it has faced some criticism for potentially needing more oversight. Adopted by over 80 countries, it helps harmonize arbitration practices, although inconsistencies may still exist. This paper speak about the future challenges including adaption to the digital economy and online dispute resolution, demanding updates for issues like cybersecurity and data protection.
KEYWORDS: UNCITRAL, ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS, NEW YORK CONVENTION, FRAMEWORK.
I. INTRODUCTION:
International arbitration came into view as the recommended step for dispute resolution across cross border transactions for commercial matters. Along with this, it offers parties to consensus a neutral forum, proper procedure, confidentiality and enforceable awards. However, before the establishment of a unified arbitration framework, international arbitration faced many challenges, some of which include being plagued by legal division and judicial irregularities.[1] Recognising these challenges, The United Nations’ Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”) came into resolution with a model called as the MODEL LAW ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION i.e., UNCTRAL Model law (“Model Law”).[2] Purpose of this model was to provide a standardised and harmonized legal structure for arbitration internationally.[3]By analysing the model law, its development, implementation patterns and influence on arbitration jurisprudence, the same provides insights for future refinement of the international arbitration framework. At this juncture, it becomes prudent to note that the UNCITRAL houses key main principles that harmonize international arbitration. The same are party autonomy, less interference of judiciary, fair process, and enforceability or arbitral awards.[4] The Model represents an effort to connect common and civil law by creating a framework that exceeds legal culture while providing sufficient flexibility and local adaptation.[5]
II. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT – ORIGIN TO AMENDMENTS:
At the outset, it is of paramount importance to first understand the historical evolution of the said Model Law. Towards the aforesaid, it can be noted that the UNCTRAL model law is fundamentally rooted in the detailed efforts to unify the international commercial law, a movement that enhanced world paper II. Before this model law came into existence, international arbitration was checked through following national arbitration differing in their treatment.[6] UNCTRAL drafting was started in the year 1981 after following the primary study that describe relative ambiguity in national arbitration law as an important barrier to effective international dispute resolution.[7] Drafting committee faced multiple challenges between common law and civil law approaches to arbitration, as well as maintain fairness and preventing exploitation from powerful economic nation.
II.I CRUCIAL OBJECTIVES WERE ESTABLISHED FOR THE MODEL LAW ITSELF THAT CONTINUE TO ENLIGHTEN ITS APPLICATION:
II.I.I TO HARMONIZE NATIONAL ARBITRATION LAWS:
The Model Law try to reduce separation between national models that were complicating factors in international arbitration by presenting a harmonious framework for legislation.[8]
II.I.II TO MODERNIZE ARBITRATION LAWS:
Many nations, especially developing nations, had laws that were old and were unable to address the fast-changing international commercial scenarios.
II.I.III TO PROMOTE PARTY AUTONOMY:
The Model Law provided that party autonomy shall be a main principle and give powers to the parties for the procedures and their understanding.
II.I.IV TO RESTRICT INTERVENTION BY COURTS:
This model includes only few provisions that will allow court intervention, thus preserving the lead of arbitration.
II.I.V TO SIMPLIFY ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS:
These Provisions results into practical aim at filling procedural gaps and suggesting some rules that could be imposed by law where the parties have left some specific arrangement.
II.I.VI TO RECOGNIZE AND ENFORCE AWARDS:
This Model developed and complemented the New York Convention regime of enforcement of awards.[9]
The determination of the objectives was based on the basic ideas, which are neutrality among the different legal systems, the respect of the party autonomy, procedural flexibility, and predictability in enforcement-these are principles that still control the Law’s use to date. Under the practice that had lived for twenty years, UNCITRAL undertook to revise and repeal the Model Law in 2006.[10] This means that the Model Law captures a considerable number of modifications that corresponded to the changing economic environment besides the new topics from their practical application.
II.II THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES WERE:
II.II.I FLAWLESS WAY OF DOCUMENT DELIVERY:
Article 7 had to be adjusted to draw attention to the new directions of the online business and to present two alternative ways to define and recognize the agreements in arbitration. These were a more flexible form requirement.[11]
II.II.II INTERIM RELIEF SYSTEM:
The new rules 17 through 17J included a set of comprehensive provisions that procreated tribunals with the power to issue interim measures and/or preliminary orders, which was a proper complementation to a gap of the earlier regulation. Articles 1(2), 7, and 35(2) were amended, along with the addition of a new chapter IV A to replace article 17 and a new article 2A.[12]
II.II.III COURT-ORDERED INTERIM MEASURES:
Provided for by Article 17J was the power of courts to grant interim measures to support arbitration, notwithstanding where the arbitration occurs.
II.II.IV RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF INTERIM MEASURES:
A full regime for the recognition and enforcement of tribunal-ordered interim measures was developed.
The amendments thereby made were a major evolutionary step showing how adaptably the Model Law could be made to assimilate into the changing commercial environment while bearing the function of core harmonization. The dual-option approach to some provisions, especially Article 7, offers an innovative method for harmonization through legislation that accepts valid divergences in country preferences and yet continues with the overall objective of harmonization. In 2013, the UNCTRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (the “Rules on Transparency”) were added to a new article 1(4) of the assembled Arbitration Rules (revised) of 2010 to incorporate these Rules on Transparency to any arbitration initiated under any investment treaty concluded after 1 April 2014. The described new paragraph, therefore, provides utmost clarity on the operational application of the Rules on Transparency pursuant to investor-State arbitration under the UNCTRAL Arbitration Rules. Other than these changes, the UNCTRAL Arbitration Rules of 2013 remained unaltered from the 2010 revised version.[13] Subsequent to the adoption of the UNCTRAL Expedited Arbitration Rules in 2021, a new article 1, paragraph 5 was added to the text of the Arbitration Rules to establish the Expedited Rules as an appendix to the UNCTRAL Arbitration Rules. The specific wording “where the parties so agree” in that paragraph underlines the necessity for express consent of the parties for the Expedited Rules to apply to the arbitration.[14]
III. ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE:
The Model Law provides a detailed elucidation and the definitions of “international commercial arbitration” mentioned in its sections. Article 1[15] sets out the fact that arbitration should be considered as internationally binding if the parties are from different countries, the place of arbitration is different from the location of the parties’ business, or the dispute involves more than one country. “Commercial”[16] is a word that covers a lot of ground, including various international commercial activities like trade, distribution, construction, consulting, investment, and joint ventures. This way, the Model Law is an attempt on making the regulation complete for all the types of international business relationships. Nevertheless, the states have the right to alter the principle according to their local policies, so, there have been different interpretations of “international” and “commercial” arbitration in different countries. The Chapter Structure of the Model Law is made up of basic components that tie it into one single arbitration system: the doctrine of separability[17], Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle[18], limits to court intervention, party autonomy[19], a procedural framework in default, and the rules for recognition and enforcement of the award. Moreover, the Model Law carefully takes into account the appropriate relationship between arbitration and national courts, allowing for court intervention for very specific purposes only.
IV. GLOBAL EXECUTION, LEGISLATIVE INFLUENCE AND IMPLEMENTATION PATTERN:
The spread of the Model Law around the world since its first promulgation is something truly exceptional. According to the Model Law issue, till the year 2024, over 93 states in total 126 jurisdictions have passed legislation in various parts of the world.[20] The fast initiators: Canada (1986), Cyprus (1987), and Australia (1989) were the very first nations who adopted the Model Law and thus what is highlighted as the purpose of this scheme to the common law jurisdictions.
IV.I REGIONAL CONCENTRATION:
The rollout was fuelled by a ripple effect, where neighbouring countries started to follow the ones that had implemented the early stages. It was most visible in Latin America, where after Mexico’s adoption in 1993[21], a series of similar acts also rushed through the region. Transitional countries: Global strategies, including the encouragement of foreign investments[22] and trade among countries, many former Communist bloc countries after their political and economic reform in the 1990s tendered Model Law mode of legislation as an adjunct to other legal reforms.
IV.II ASIAN EMERGING MARKETS:
The 2000s were a very vast time in the development of the Model Law in Asia, with Japan, South Korea, as well as several Southeast Asian countries adopting their comprehensive legislative frameworks which were patterned after the Model Law.[23]
IV.III HERITAGE OF ARBITRATION CENTRE’S:
In certain traditional arbitration jurisdictions like France, Switzerland, and England, which have always retained independent arbitration systems, not always entirely governed by the Model Law, many of the components of old methodologies of arbitration still exist. This geographical diversity signifies that this model can survive across different legal cultures and economic settings, although the extent to which the law is actually implemented varies dramatically.
Through the comparative study of implementation practices, one can come across various options on how the Model Law incorporated into domestic legal reforms[24]:
IV.IV VERBATIM ADOPTION:
Legal provisions copy the Model Law text with minimal changes and countries get full benefit of harmonization. An example is Germany with its 1998 arbitration act.[25]
IV.V ADAPTED INTEGRATION:
Most countries adopted the basic principles of the Model Law and adapted it to their domestic environment and policy concerns or extended it to language and structure to fit their domestic legislation. Singapore’s International Arbitration Act is an example of this approach.
IV.VI DUAL SYSTEMS:
A few jurisdictions have separate regimes for domestic and international arbitration where the Model Law applies only to international cases. Australia and Canada are examples of such regimes since they permit arbitrary changes in domestic policy but still provide an internationally recognized framework for cross-border disputes.
IV.VII SELECTIVE INCORPORATION:
Countries adopted some provisions of the Model Law and left behind or substantially altered the rest. This was the form that India took in its 1996 Arbitration Act which followed this path until changes were made to the Act in 2001 mainly because of the difficulties it faced in its implementation.
IV.VIII INFLUENCE WITHOUT FORMAL ADOPTION:
Even countries that have not formally adopted the Model Law have revised their arbitration legislation with reference to its principles. 1996 Arbitration Act of England is an example of this; it is not Model Law based but has many of its features.
This non-binding framework is in over various jurisdictions with different legal systems, is a proof of its acceptance and success. Its early adopters such as Canada and Australia showed its attractiveness, then its later adoption by Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia showed its adaptability. Overall, the Model Law has further inspired regional efforts at harmonization such as OHADA in Africa[26], and organizations in ASEAN. It has set limited intervention by the courts as a global standard while balancing judicial assistance against arbitral independence. The design of this model really stood out and took things like the principle of “separation” and “competence competes” and got them polished off and got them widely accepted internationally. Despite being adept at logistical aspects of arbitration, there are still thorny issues pertaining to confidentiality and ethical standards. It keeps changing processes and substance to adapt to new trade and commerce needs. The international commercial arbitration system relies on the cooperation of the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, especially its Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. This relationship demonstrates how different international legal tools can cooperate to create a global mechanism for solving disputes that transcend national relationships.[27] As of January 2023, the convention has 172 state parties, which includes 169 of the 193 United Nations member states plus the Cook Islands, the Holy See, and the State of Palestine. Twenty-four UN member states have not yet adopted the convention.;[28] these mechanisms compel domestic courts in member states to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards except in a few specified scenarios. This has bridged the challenges of enforcing awards internationally and has offered a solid footing for international arbitration; however, in doing so, it has left certain unnecessary hurdles procedural-wise.[29] The Convention carries a binding force while the Model Law serves as a non-binding reference point affecting national legislation. The newer supplies, including the new UNCTRAL rules or amendments to such rules, further reinforce this synergy, cementing arbitration into international commerce and allowing it the flexibility to meet growing demands.
V. IMPACT ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION PRACTICES:
The Model Law has been a major factor in international arbitration through some key harmonization effects. It has caused some degree of substantive convergence, one which has begun to influence legal reasoning in those jurisdictions that have not formally adopted it. The English Arbitration Act of 1996, for instance, incorporates many features from the Model Law while retaining distinctive aspects.[30] The Model Law has brought about some stronger degree of procedural uniformity, specifically in the areas of jurisdictional challenges, tribunal formation, and evidence presentation, which greatly affect arbitration practice even in areas where the Model Law is not being applied directly.[31] It has carved out an organized common conceptual framework that would give practitioners a common vocabulary and expectations to help with cross-border collaboration.[32] It has reduced the uncertainty of the law by providing clear guidelines concerning court intervention aimed at minimizing judicial interferences in arbitration. The Model Law serves as a guide, especially in regions where arbitration is less developed, thereby contributing to the improvement of arbitration practice worldwide. It has united the development of arbitration rules and institutional practices, aligning rules, improving appointment processes, and developing professional training that renders international arbitration more coherent.[33]
VI. JUDICIAL INTERVENTION:
The UNCTRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration marks a turning point in the fragile interplay between autonomy of arbitration and judicial intervention by establishing a finely-tuned framework that has dramatically altered the way that courts interact with the arbitration process worldwide. Article 5 of the Model Law is arguably the most important article in the Model Law, stating, “in matters governed by this Law, no court shall intervene except where so provided in this Law,”[34] which, in its simplicity, expresses a rather deeply philosophical shift in the relationship between courts and arbitration that has resonated across different legal systems around the world.[35] The principle of limited judicial intervention represents a shunning on purpose of traditional approaches that in many jurisdictions view the courts as having an inherent supervisory authority over arbitral proceedings, frequently producing unexpected and sometimes unmanageable judicial interference hampering arbitration’s efficiency and autonomy.[36] The Model Law has thus sought to redefine the concept of judicial intervention from an assumed right of courts to a defined exception requiring express statutory authorization by judicial in a clear legislative framework rather than in presumed powers. This revolutionary model keeps intact some judicial involvement, yet recognizes practically that effective arbitration sometimes depends on appropriate judicial assistance—it creates instead a regime with clearly defined scope and timing of intervention, what has been called by writers “maximum support, minimum interference”.[37] The triggers for intervention identified by the Model Law framework are, therefore, quite specific: pre-arbitration, to compel arbitration agreements (Article 8) and assist in the constitution of the tribunal (Articles 11, 13, and 14); during arbitration proceedings to contest jurisdiction (Article 16), assist in the gathering of evidence (Article 27), and issue orders for interim measures (Article 17J); and post-award, through the narrowly defined grounds for set aside (Article 34) and the ones for enforcement (Articles 35-36).
This exhaustive enumeration effectively forbids the courts from developing extra grounds for intervention, thereby minimalizing uncertainty for parties as to when and how courts may involve themselves in their arbitration. Cross-jurisdictional experiences of implementation illustrate this approach’s transformation—indeed, courts in the Model Law jurisdictions have shown significant restraint compared to their former ways.
VII. COURT PRECEDENTS:
VII.I RHEINLAND VERSICHERUNGEN VS. ATLAREX[38]:
In a case relating an Italian firm and a German insurer, the Italian Supreme Court issued a major 2000 judgement on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). The issue was about bad products the Italian seller sold that caused the insurance provider to pay out of pocket. The court ruled that international sales agreements between different nations are automatically subject to the CISG. It said the case is ruled under the CISG according to the parties’ jurisdictions, not under private international law. It also said, though, that subrogation rights are governed by national law so the insurer can file a lawsuit against the seller in Italy under an Italian claim. Future debates on the CISG and domestic legal systems were affected by this decision.
VII.II ICC INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION[39]:
The ICC International Court of Arbitration case pertains to a 1999 agreement between a Middle Eastern seller and a European buyer. Delayed equipment delivery prompted the buyer to start an arbitration. This case underlines several important points arising from the UNCTRAL Model Law. Despite the seller’s raising of the arbitration clause, the tribunal reviewed its power under the competent competence rule and verified its jurisdiction. As no legislation clause was given, it determined the CISG would control the contract. The tribunal found for the buyer and directed the seller to pay compensation, interest, and arbitration expenses. This shows how well the UNCTRAL Model Law works in global arbitration.
VIII. LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES:
There still remain quite a few challenges and limits despite the efforts made by the Model Law to achieve uniformity in arbitration practices. There is considerable divergence in Model Law application by different countries, which has continued to give rise to many differences that complicate cross-border arbitration. The courts in some localities apply the Model Law items with their local laws which translate into lack of much needed uniform understanding. Also, apart from procedural grounds, much of the arbitration practice, ethics, fees, and the like remain subject to national variability under the Model Law.[40] Such model law integration becomes problematic in systems where arbitration is less developed and often grossly absent supporting environment. Some early adapters of the Model Law have also slackened in updating their practices, making them slow. [41] Cultural and legal traditions generate other strains on the proper application of the Model law. Different expectations regarding disclosures, handling documents, and coordinating witnesses are not adequately addressed by the Model Law in that regard. Judicial attitudes towards arbitration affect the extent to which the court is involved in the proceedings. This means that compliance with orders of the tribunal will depend on the cultural attitudes of the region, as well as expectations regarding formality well done.[42] There is no doubt that the Model Law will need to be amended in the future to address new challenges, such as those caused by technological advances, demands for transparency, efficiency concerns, investment-state issues, and complex disputes. UNCTRAL’s Working Group II is considering possible amendments to accommodate future challenge developments.[43]
IX. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS:
This current modern trend gives birth to various development models for the Model Law. Incremental amendment approach: Further changes can be envisioned over time and may concern specific questions in a largely the same framework as the present Model Law. Rather than further modifying the Model Law itself, UNCTRAL may develop additional instruments on topics such as ethics for arbitrators, management of costs, or technology usage. In strengthening case reporting and judicial training, UNCTRAL is opening doors for more consistent interpretation without amending the law. There is also potential for UNCTRAL to give directions as to how the Model Law could work into various legal traditions and certain business environments. Eventually, there may be a demand of a radical rewrite to incorporate the emerging experiences and realities of business even though it could cause gargantuan disruptions. The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration has made a huge mark on global arbitration by advocating for fairness and efficiency in settling disputes. Since its launch in 1985, it has provided a reliable framework that enhances the consistency of arbitration across different countries. This law has also been a boon for trade and investment, ensuring neutrality and cutting down on procedural inconsistencies. It boosts party autonomy and simplifies the enforcement of arbitration awards, while also encouraging development in supportive jurisdictions. Still, there are hurdles to overcome, like varying interpretations and slow adoption in some areas. Overall, the UNCITRAL Model Law is crucial for international arbitration and will keep adapting to improve how disputes are resolved in global commerce.
References:
- UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade L., U.N. Doc. A/40/17, Annex I (1985).
- Sankalp Jain, Framework Governing International Commercial Arbitration: UNCITRAL Model Law and Principles.
- Andrew Myburgh & Jordi Paniagua, Qualitative and Quantitative Benefits in the Use of Model Laws: The Impact of UNCITRAL on Foreign Direct Investment.
- N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade L., Report of the Secretary-General: Possible Features of a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.
- N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade L., UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985: With Amendments as Adopted in 2006.
- Kent Anderson, Testing the Model Soft Law Approach to International Harmonization: A Case-Study Examining the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.
Cite this article as:
SAKSHI CHATURVEDI (DIXIT), “Evolution and Impact of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration Practices” Vol.6 & Issue 1, Law Audience Journal (e-ISSN: 2581-6705), Pages 417 to 432 (21st July 2025), available at https://www.lawaudience.com/evolution-and-impact-of-the-uncitral-model-law-on-international-arbitration-practices/.
References and Footnotes:
[1] Arbisman, Juliya, et al., “Due Process and Procedural Irregularities,” in The Guide to Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards, 3rd ed., Global Arbitration Review, 17 May 2023, https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guide-challenging-and-enforcing-arbitration-awards/3rd-edition/article/due-process-and-procedural-irregularities.
[2] R. Garg, All About UNCITRAL Model Laws, iPleaders (Aug. 4, 2024), https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-about-uncitral-model-laws/.
[3] UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade L., U.N. Doc. A/40/17, Annex I (1985),available at https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/modellaw/commercial_arbitration.
[4] Sankalp Jain, Framework Governing International Commercial Arbitration: UNCITRAL Model Law and Principles, SSRN (Nov. 10, 2015), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2777728 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2777728.
[5] Basaran, Halil. (2020). IS INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION UNIVERSAL?. ILSA journal of international law. 21. 497-534.
[6] Andrew Myburgh & Jordi Paniagua, Qualitative and Quantitative Benefits in the Use of Model Laws: The Impact of UNCITRAL on Foreign Direct Investment, at 1, https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/17-06783_ebook.pdf (last visited Mar. 19, 2025).
[7] U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade L., Report of the Secretary-General: Possible Features of a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/207 (June 14, 1981).
[8] Andrew Myburgh & Jordi Paniagua, The Role of the UNCITRAL Model Law in Harmonizing Arbitration Laws, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381217861_The_Role_of_the_UNCITRAL_Model_Law_inHarmonizing_Arbitration_Laws (last visited Mar. 19, 2025).
[9] Spiros V. Bazinas, The Role of International Arbitration in the Caribbean: The Jamaican Perspective, http://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/docs/gm_jamaica_feb_2015_presentations_Spiros_V_Bazinas_1.pdf (last visited Mar. 19, 2025).
[10] U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade L., Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the Work of Its Thirty-Ninth Session, U.N. Doc. A/61/17 (2006).
[11] U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade L., UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985: With Amendments as Adopted in 2006.
[12] “Ibid”
[13] U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade L., UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (With New Article 1, Paragraph 4, as Adopted in 2013).
[14] UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with Amendments as Adopted in 2006, U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade Law, https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/modellaw/commercial_arbitration (last visited Mar. 19, 2025).
[15] Scope of application
[16] The term “commercial” should be given a wide interpretation so as to cover matters arising from
all relationships of a commercial nature, whether contractual or not. Relationships of a commercial nature
include, but are not limited to, the following transactions: any trade transaction for the supply or exchange
of goods or services; distribution agreement; commercial representation or agency; factoring; leasing;
construction of works; consulting; engineering; licensing; investment; financing; banking; insurance;
exploitation agreement or concession; joint venture and other forms of industrial or business cooperation;
carriage of goods or passengers by air, sea, rail or road.
[17] UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with Amendments as Adopted in 2006, art. 16, U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade Law, https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/modellaw/commercial_arbitration (last visited Mar. 19, 2025); Akash Srivastava, Emergency Arbitration and India – A Long Overdue Friendship, 10
INDIAN J. ARB. L. 98 (July 2021).
[18] Adrianna Dulic, First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan and the Kompetenz-Kompetenz
Principle, 2 PEPP. DISP. RESOL. L.J. 77 (2002).
[19] Bantekas, Ilias & Ortolani, Pietro & Ali, Shahla & Gomez, Manuel & Polkinghorne, Michael. (2020). UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: A Commentary. 10.1017/9781108633376.
[20] https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/modellaw/commercial_arbitration/status
[21] https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/modellaw/commercial_arbitration/status
[22] Andrew Myburgh & Jordi Paniagua, Qualitative and Quantitative Benefits in the Use of Model Laws: The Impact of UNCITRAL on Foreign Direct Investment, at 1, https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/17-06783_ebook.pdf (last visited Mar. 19, 2025).
[23] Terence Gomez, Pietro Masina, Silvia Vignato. “Development and Transformation in Southeast Asia: The Political Economy of Equitable Growth”. 2020, pp.25.
[24] Kent Anderson, Testing the Model Soft Law Approach to International Harmonization: A
Case-Study Examining the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, 23 AUST. YBIL
1 (2004).
[25] UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, U.N. Doc. A/40/17 (1985)
[26] Pascal Agboyibor, OHADA: Business Law in Africa, 1999 INT’l BUS. L.J. 228 (1999).
[27] U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade L., The Role of UNCITRAL in International Arbitration, in International Commercial Arbitration and the UNCITRAL Model Law 25, 29 (2015).
[28] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Status of the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/963 (2023).
[29] 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S. 38 (1958).
[30] Harani Dhanavel & Pooja, Making Arbitral Award More Transparent: The Need for Adequate Reasoning, SSRN (Oct. 2, 2020), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3932123 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3932123.
[31] Christopher R. Drahozal, Diversity and Uniformity in International Arbitration Law, 31 Emory Int’l L. Rev. 393 (2017), available at https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol31/iss3/2
[32] Michael F. Hoellering, The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 20 INT’L L. 327 (1986) https://scholar.smu.edu/til/vol20/iss1/19
[33] Christopher R. Drahozal, Diversity and Uniformity in International Arbitration Law, 31 Emory Int’l L. Rev. 393 (2017). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol31/iss3/2
[34] U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade L., UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, art. 5.
[35] Marjan Marandi Parkinson, Corporate Governance during Financial Distress – An
Empirical Analysis, 58 INT’l J.L. & MGMT. 486 (2016).
[36] Csenge Merkel, The Rise and Fall of Daylight Saving Time: The Uncertainties of
Internal Market Harmonisation, 2019 ELTE L.J. 147 (2019).
[37] Ilieva, P. (2016). Judicialisation of international commercial arbitration. (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City, University of London)
[38] CLOUT case 378
[39] Arbitration Case No. 9978
[40] Utkarsh Vaishnav, Judicial Intervention in Arbitration Related to BALCO Judgment, 7 INT’l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 1474 (2024).
[41] Shaun Pereira, ‘Deferred Challenges to Jurisdiction Under the Model Law’, (2018), 35, Journal of International Arbitration, Issue 6, pp. 719-731, https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Journal+of+International+Arbitration/35.6/JOIA2018036
[42] HOWARD, M. 2018. Impacts of cultural differences on international arbitration based on the example of Iran. Robert Gordon University [online], PhD thesis. Available from: https://openair.rgu.ac.uk
[43] Working Group II: Dispute Settlement
81 st session, 3 – 7 February 2025, New York
