No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce website (visited July 23, 2007) <http://www.chamber.se/en/start/>
2 In addition to Prof. Hobér, members of the Revision Committee included Ulf Francke, Patricia Shaughnessy, Christer Söderlund and Martin Wallin. William Mc Kechnie served as the Committee's secretary.
3 The international arbitration community is also aware that the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) are contemplating whether to engage in a revision process for their rules.
4 See the schedule of activities and reports for UNCITRALWorking Group II, available on UNCITRAL's website at <http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/commission/workinggroups/2Arbitration.html.>
5 Between 2001 and 2006, the SCC Institute has administered 19 investor State cases, 13 under bilateral investment treaties, 3 under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) and three by agreement between the parties, <http://www.sccinstitute.com/uk/About/Statistics/.> In recognition of this trend, the SCC co-sponsored a conference with the ECT Secretariat on “Investment Protection and the Energy Charter Treaty” in Washington D.C. in May 2007.
6 Hobér&McKechnie, New Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, 23 Arb. Int. 261, 262 (2007). As noted in n. 2 above, Prof. Hobér was the chair and McKechnie was the secretary of the Revision Committee.
7 Magnusson&Shaughnessy, New Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, 2006 .Stockholm International Arbitration Review 35, 55 (2007). As noted in n. 2 above, Shaughnessy was a member of the Revision Committee. Magnusson is the former Deputy Secretary General of the SCC Institute.
8 Hobér&McKechnie, supra n. 6 at 262.
9 Magnusson&Shaughnessy, supra n. 7 at 54-55.
10 Id., at 34. According to the SCC website, “English is the original drafting language of these rules. In case of conflict in texts, the English text will previal (sic).” See <http://www.sccinstitute.com/uk/Rules/>
11 SCC Arbitration Rules Article 11. The Revision Committee chose to follow the ICC's approach, requiring that the consolidated dispute arise between the same parties. ICC Rules of Arbitration Rule 4(6). The Revision Committee declined to follow the more liberal approach found in Article 4(1) of the new Swiss International Arbitration Rules, which enables the Swiss Chambers of Commerce to consolidate cases even if the parties are not identical. The SCC Arbitration Rules, like the ICC and Swiss rules, do limit consolidation solely to cases that have both been filed with the particular arbitral organization. Therefore, none of these rules address the inconsistent results created by the Czech Republic's refusal to consolidate cases in its well-known dispute with CME, where the two tribunals did not share an identify of parties or the same arbitral organization.
12 Siemens AG&BKMI Industriean Lagen GmbH v. Dutco Construction Co., January 7, 1992, 4 ICC Bull. No 2 at 6 (1993).
13 See Hobér&McKechnie, supra n. 6 at 275.
14 Id.
* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce website (visited July 23, 2007)<http://www.chamber.se/en/start/>