Click here for complete IDQ newsletter

This issue of International Disputes Quarterly continues our theme of focusing on arbitral developments in a particular region. This time we focus on Asia and the Pacific Rim.

White & Case has a strong presence throughout Asia, with offices in Hong Kong, Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, Singapore, Bangkok and Almaty. In addition, lawyers from Asia and the Pacific work throughout the offices in our worldwide arbitration group. Many of these practitioners have contributed to this edition. In particular, our arbitration group in Hong Kong has contributed a number of articles relating to arbitral developments in Hong Kong and Mainland China. The growth of the Chinese economy and of China's presence in the world, means that today, more than ever, arbitration practitioners are watching with interest how China will handle disputes between Chinese and foreign parties. Some recent developments covered in this edition include new time limits for the enforcement of arbitral awards in China, the recognition of Hong Kong ad hoc arbitral awards in Mainland China, provisions for the reciprocal enforcement of money judgments in Hong Kong and Mainland China, and a new Chinese law on the mediation and arbitration of labor disputes. In addition, the major international arbitral institutions continue to grow in this region, with the ICC Secretariat establishing a branch office in Hong Kong, and the major Hong Kong and Chinese arbitral institutions (HKIAC and CIETAC) entering into an agreement to share resources.

Outside of China and Hong Kong, this edition of International Disputes Quarterly also covers court decisions in India and Australia which are seen as unfavorable to the development of international arbitration. In Venture Global Engineering [hyperlink to article], the Supreme Court of India extended the power of Indian courts to set aside "foreign awards" (i.e., awards in arbitrations outside India) on the grounds that they violate Indian statutory provisions and are contrary to Indian public policy. In Seeley International Pty Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia, taking a very literal reading of an arbitration clause, held that the parties were not confined to seeking declaratory relief in arbitration; they could also seek such relief from the Federal Court. The decision serves as a reminder to parties drafting arbitration clauses to exercise caution in expressing which disputes are intended to be referred to arbitration, and which disputes are intended to be resolved by other means (e.g. by the courts).

With the recent images of the devastation in China and Myanmar, and as the Olympic Games kick off in Beijing on August 8, the world's spotlight seems firmly fixed on Asia. This edition of International Disputes Quarterly gives a sampling of some developments affecting arbitration in the region. We hope you find it informative.

The White & Case International Disputes Quarterly is prepared for the general information of our clients and other interested persons. It should not be acted upon in any specific situation without appropriate legal advice.

This newsletter may include links to websites other than the White & Case website. White & Case LLP has no responsibility for any websites other than its own, and does not endorse the information, content, presentation or accuracy, or make any warranty, express or implied, regarding any other website.

This newsletter is protected by copyright. Material appearing herein may be reproduced or translated with appropriate credit.

© 2008 White & Case LLP