After the establishment of various international commercial courts in Asia, Continental Europe is now following Asia’s example by establishing its own. This chapter discusses the reasons for the new international commercial courts in France, Germany and the Netherlands. It then sets out how the three European countries position their international commercial courts, looking at the different procedures, functions and organization. The chapter distinguishes these courts from their Asian counterparts, and compares them to each other. This is done by looking at changes of legislation, whether English is used for the full procedures or only partially, by reviewing the courts’ rules of procedure, by discussing their (online) accessibility and by reviewing how the courts have functioned so far.

How international are international commercial courts (ICommCs)? Among lawyers, the notion of international courts (ICs) comes with a strong public international law connotation. This chapter traces examples of hybridity in international adjudication, focusing particularly on the admixing of domestic and international judicial forms, practices and legal cultures. More specifically, we focus on three core forms of hybridity in relation to ICs and ICommCs: professional, institutional and legal. After surveying a number of past and current ICs, we argue that hybridity is not a phenomenon only found in domestic international courts, but also a feature of many ‘proper’ ICs. We find that all three forms of hybridity are found at both ICs and ICommCs, which suggests that these – at first glance distinct forms of transnational adjudication – are in fact converging on a number of levels.

This chapter looks at the current relationship between international commercial courts (ICommCs) and international commercial arbitration (ICA). It first covers the historical background and current drivers for international dispute resolution. It finds ICommCs are of complex identity whose utility will be tested by market choice. The chapter then discusses what is meant by autonomy in the present context, and continues by looking at the needs and requirements of international dispute resolution (‘imperatives’) from a number of perspectives: those of the consumer (the ‘business imperative’), of governments (the ‘political imperative’) and of non-arbitral decision-makers (the ‘jurisprudential imperative’). From that review, a measure of interdependence between ICA and ICommCs emerges. The chapter ends with the conclusion that ICA and ICommCs will enjoy a competitive and collaborative, but not hybrid, relationship.

This chapter discusses the jurisdiction provisions of various international commercial courts (ICommCs). The aim is to show, on the basis of examples from Europe and Asia, under which circumstances these courts can be solicited. This contribution does not endeavour to systematically address all existing ICommCs. It puts less emphasis on ICommCs created for special economic zones which are stand-alone courts but focuses instead on the European ICommCs, the SICC and the CICC, which remain international chambers within the ordinary court system, albeit being subject to specific rules or protocols. The latter are more interesting for the purpose of this chapter, as the choice of a particular court division with certain special features is not a common choice of court under private international law rules. The main issues this chapter addresses are choice-of-court agreements, specific agreements on proceedings in English before an ICommC as well as rules permitting a transfer of cases to an ICommC.

Depending upon how one defines the term ‘international commercial court’, the twenty-first century has witnessed a growth, particularly in the Middle East and Asia, of specialist courts which appear to have been established with the resolution of international commercial disputes in mind. This chapter considers the role these new courts are fulfilling in the field of international commercial dispute resolution, with a particular emphasis on the role and character of the judiciary and the development of jurisprudence, as well as broader issues relating to access to justice more generally. There also features a short case study in relation to the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre.

Along the road to nation state independence, various hybrid common law courts, mixed courts and ad hoc tribunals were established throughout the Gulf region. At the turn of the twenty-first century, the most recent incarnations of these dispute resolution forums took the form of international commercial courts within newly established financial centres and off-shore free-zone jurisdictions. Focusing on applicable law in the courts of the Dubai International Financial Centre, Abu Dhabi Global Market and Qatar Financial Centre, this chapter assesses the jurisdictional differences and relevant case law across these court systems. The development of these court systems suggest that the values and symbolic capital attached to applicable law can shed light on the distinct normative and legal practices developed within these jurisdictions, and processes of hybrid transnational lawmaking generally.

This chapter examines the regulation of counsel within international commercial courts, with particular attention given to such courts in Qatar, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Singapore. The chapter begins by assessing debate on counsel ethics within international arbitration. Because debate within international arbitration is more developed, it offers a background for identifying challenges endemic to the ethical regulation of transnational lawyering in international commercial courts. The chapter then identifies three regulatory approaches to regulating counsel practising before these courts. It is argued that this diversity affords due space to the distinct institutional structures and needs of the various courts and that it would be imprudent and unnecessary to pursue greater harmonization.

In early 2018, China announced the establishment of a special court system to resolve disputes arising out of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects, the China International Commercial Court (CICC). This chapter contributes to the emerging literature on hybrid courts by providing the first comprehensive analysis of the China International Commercial Court. The chapter submits that the CICC corresponds to a new stage of regulatory (and economic) development reached by China which demonstrates the country’s ambition to strengthen the rule of law for a number of economic transactions which are key for the country’s future economic development. This chapter critically reviews the genesis of the CICC, its anatomy and problematic features. The analysis places the CICC in the broader context of China’s economic and regulatory development, in particular with respect to the existing domestic courts (in China and other BRI countries) as well as with respect to many arbitration centres already in place (in China and other BRI countries).

The establishment of international financial centres has become a common strategy for rapidly modernising states. Such centres assist host states with attracting capital, generating income from taxes, contributing to the development of innovative economies and increasing the role of states in global governance. Overall, financial centres, and their systems of dispute resolution, can positively contribute to promoting foreign investment. The creation of the Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) with its AIFC Court and International Arbitration Centre (IAC) is one recent example of an initiative to assist a rapidly developing frontier market, Kazakhstan, to become a more competitive economy regionally as well as globally. This chapter offers a perspective of what has been achieved in Kazakhstan with a view to assisting other frontier markets, including in Central Asia, to create their own international dispute resolution systems.

As the international business community and their legal advisors have become more sophisticated in choosing the fora for resolving their disputes, a number of ‘international’ courts have been established to compete with arbitration in the lucrative international dispute resolution market. This chapter examines the features of these courts that have been designed in response to the perceived strengths and deficits of national courts in relation to arbitration so as to maximise those strengths and reduce those deficits for courts and improve their competitive advantages for those in need of international commercial dispute resolution services.

International commercial courts seem quite likely to become a successful product on the dispute resolution market. But they are not merely that. They are not mechanisms resolving an array of disputes which are isolated from and have no effect on their socio-economic environment. They rather are likely to trigger social externalities, to contribute to the development or reinforcement of a wider social order. It is too early to say with certitude what that social order will be, given both the state of the research and the current level of use and impact of these courts. But plausible hypotheses suggest that a general societal pushback is possible, and at the very least that this is a question that deserves our attention, as much if not more than procedural technicalities.

The rise of international commercial courts in the past fifteen years or so is a game changer for dispute resolution. The thriving success of the Commercial Court of England and Wales may be the source of inspiration for the design and operation of a number of the existing international commercial Courts. notably, it is often said that the international commercial courts compete for lucrative judicial business but this so-called competition has never been properly analysed. Are these courts competing for the same kinds of judicial business? Are their frameworks strategically designed to advance their ambition? This chapter examines the jurisdictional frameworks of three notable international commercial courts: the Chinese International Commercial Court, the Commercial Court of England and Wales and the Singapore International Commercial Court. The discussion shows that a careful scrutiny of the jurisdictional rules of the aforesaid courts will tell us a lot about their respective strategic interests and competitive advantages.

I describes four kinds of knowledge and associate each with distinctive projects. What we generally refer to as positivist IR aspires to what Aristotle calls episteme: scientific knowledge that can be expressed mathematically. Interpretivist approaches aspire to phroēesis, which is best understood as practical knowledge that helps us cope with the world. This distinction cuts across paradigms and is a far more fundamental division.