Within the traditional framework of international arbitration, an arbitral tribunal produces a final and binding award, which can be only exceptionally annulled based on the narrowly tailored grounds available under the law of the seat. However, parties sometimes seek to limit or expand the grounds for annulment, hoping to increase the chances for successful resolution of their dispute. As the clauses modifying the scope of judicial review become more popular, important questions come to the fore with respect to their validity, application and usefulness. This paper will analyse the compatibility of these clauses with the nature of arbitration, by examining their compliance with the principles of party autonomy and finality. Main characteristics and application of these arbitration clauses will be also discussed. In addition, the author will explore how the stipulation of these clauses affects the quality of awards, integrity of arbitral proceedings and enforceability of awards abroad.
- Barceló III, John J. 2009. Expanded Judicial Review of Awards After Hall Street and in Comparative Perspective. 1–19 in Resolving International Conflicts—Libor Amicorum Tibor Várady, edited by Yehuda Elkana, Nenad Dimitrijević, Peter Hay, and Lajos Vékás. Budapest: CEU Press.
- Born, Gary B. 2016. International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing. 5th ed. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
- Born, Gary B. 2014. International Commercial Arbitration. 2d ed. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
- Hamlin, James B. 4/1998. Contractual Alteration of the Scope of Judicial Review: The US Experience. Journal of International Arbitration 15: 47–62.
- Hulea, Dan C. 1/2003. Contracting to Expand the Scope of Review of Foreign Arbitral Awards: An American Perspective. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 29: 313–368.
- Kapeliuk-Klinger, Daphna. 2019. National Report for Israel (2013 through 2018). 1–31 in ICCA International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, Supplement No. 104, edited by Lise Bosman. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
- Kroll, Stefan M., Peter Kraft. 2015. Part II: Commentary on the German Arbitration Law (10th Book of the German Code of Civil Procedure), Chapter VII: Recourse Against the Award, § 1059 – Application for Setting Aside. 383–420 in Arbitration in Germany: The Model Law in Practice, edited by Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Patricia Nacimiento, and Stefan M. Kroll. 2d ed. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
- McIlwrath, Michael, John Savage. 2010. International Arbitration and Mediation: A Practical Guide. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
- Mitzner, Matthew M. 1/2009. Snatching Arbitral Freedom from Hall Street’s Clenched Fist. Review of Litigation 29: 179–218.
- Montgomery, Leanne. 2/2000. Expanded Judicial Review of Commercial Arbitration Awards – Bargaining for the Best of Both Worlds: Lapine Technology Corp. v. Kyocera Corp. University of Cincinnati Law Review 68: 529–554.
- Moses, Margaret L. 3/2003. Party Agreements to Expand Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards. Journal of International Arbitration 20: 315–323.
- Park, William W. 2006. Arbitration of International Business Disputes. 1t ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Park, William W. 3/1989. National Law and Commercial Justice: Safeguarding Procedural Integrity in International Arbitration. Tulane Law Review 63: 647–709.
- Park, William W. 2001. Why Courts Review Arbitral Awards. 595–606 in Law of International Business and Dispute Settlement in the 21st Century – Liber Amicorum Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, edited by Robert Briner, Yves L. Fortier, Klaus P. Berger, and Jens Bredow. Köln, Berlin, Bonn, Munchen: Carl Heymanns Verlag KG.
- Pavić, Vladimir. 2010. Annulment of Arbitral Awards in International Commercial Arbitration. 131–152 in Investment and Commercial Arbitration – Similarities and Divergences, edited by Christina Knahr, Christian Koller, Walter Rechberger, and August Reinisch. Utrecht: Eleven International Publishing.
- Raghavan, Vikram. 3/1998. Heightened Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards: Perspectives from the UNCITRAL Model Law and the English Arbitration Act of 1996 on Some US Developments. Journal of International Arbitration 15: 103–134.
- Rau, Alan S. 4/2006. Fear of Freedom. American Review of International Arbitration 17: 469–495.
- UNCITRAL Secretariat. 2008. Explanatory Note on the 1985 Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as Amended in 2006.
- UNCITRAL. 2020. Status: UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments as adopted in 2006. https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/modellaw/commercial_arbitration/status (last visited 1 December 2020).
- Van den Berg, Jan A. 1986/3. Non-Domestic Arbitral Awards Under the 1958 New York Convention. Arbitration International 2: 191–219.
- Vanderelst, Alain. 2/1986. Increasing the Appeal of Belgium as an International Arbitration Forum? – The Belgian Law of March 27, 1985 Concerning the Annulment of Arbitral Awards. Journal of International Arbitration 3: 77–86.
- Várady, Tibor. (2–3)2006. On the Option of a Contractual Extension of Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards or: What Is Actually Pro-Arbitration? Zbornik PFZ 56: 455–478.
- Walser, Manuel, Lisa Sartor. 2020. Liechtenstein: International Arbitration 2020, in ICLG – International Arbitration Laws and Regulations 2020, available at: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/international-arbitration-laws-and-regulations/liechtenstein (last visited 1 December 2020).
- Weber, Stefan, Katharina Kitzberger. 2020. Austria: International Arbitration 2019, in ICLG – International Arbitration Laws and Regulations 2020, available at: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/international-arbitration-laws-and-regulations/austria (last visited 1 December 2020).