On September 16-17, Professor Mark Feldman was invited to attend the 2018 China Arbitration Summit in Beijing. The Summit was co-organized by the Supreme People’s Court of China, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, as well as the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). It is one of the most influential gatherings in the field of international commercial arbitration.
In celebrating the New York Convention’s 60th anniversary, the Summit aimed to reflect on the legacy of international dispute resolution mechanisms of enforcement available hitherto. Moreover, it sought to examine the prospect of diversifying and internationalizing dispute resolution mechanisms and exploring the ways in which the integration of different legal cultures has impacted dispute resolution.
Professor Feldman participated in a panel entitled Retrospect and Prospect: 60th Anniversary of New York Convention. The Panel was moderated by Anna Joubin-Bret, Secretary of UNCITRAL. Other panelists included Shen Hongyu, Presiding Judge of Supreme People’s Court of China, Kap-You (Kevin) Kim, Vice President of ICC International Court of Arbitration, Leng Sun Chan, Deputy Chairman of Singapore International Arbitration Center, Roman Zykov, Secretary General of Russian Arbitration Association, Emmanuel Jacomy, Partner of Shearman & Sterling LLP, and Matthew Richardson, Partner of Alston & Bird LLP.
In his talk, Professor Feldman addressed the question of whether there have been any major developments with regards to international dispute resolution and enforceability over the past ten years, since the 50th anniversary of the New York Convention. He concentrated on two significant developments, namely, (1) the entry into force of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements in 2015, and (2) the shifts towards greater institutionalization as demonstrated by the EU’s establishment of an Investment Court System as well as the launch of international commercial courts in jurisdictions including Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Singapore, and China. Professor Feldman observed that for states pursuing greater institutionalization to resolve international disputes, there currently are two options available with respect to enforceability: first, testing the outer limits of the New York Convention, and second, seeking to advance the existing regime for enforcement of foreign judgments. Professor Feldman concluded that China and Singapore, by pursuing “option two” with respect to their recently-launched international commercial courts (seeking to advance enforceability of foreign judgments), ultimately are supporting the New York Convention by not testing its outer limits.
Professor Feldman is a leading scholar of international investment law and investment arbitration. Recently, he has been appointed by the Geneva Center for International Dispute Settlement (CIDS) to serve as a member of the CIDS Academic Forum on Investor-State Dispute Settlement.
