On 23 June 2016, the UK voted in a referendum to leave the European Union. This issue looks at the impact of that decision on international arbitration practice in London and its future success as a seat.
We interviewed both stakeholders in the London market and those further afield before, immediately after and eight weeks after the referendum – capturing pre-vote fearmongering and post-vote damage limitation, as well as optimism about Britain outside the EU and the “transnational” view that the locality of arbitration doesn’t matter anyway.
Hopefully, somewhere in the chorus of opinions lies the truth – though until the terms of Britain’s exit are known, it is impossible to know.
We also put the decision to leave the EU in the context of other UK developments, including Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas’s controversial calls for wider scope to appeal arbitral awards to the courts in a lecture earlier this year.
Elsewhere, we cover the award in one of the most politically sensitive inter-state arbitrations to date, the South China Sea case between China and the Philippines, arbitral activity at the Rio Olympics and the newest accession to the New York Convention.
Richard Power of Clyde & Co comes up with alternative approaches to “gas price reopeners”, and San-Francisco and London-based arbitrator Paul Cohen warns lawyers that, as meaningful competition to arbitration grows, we need to become more creative or we’ll be left behind.
In this magazine:
- China v Philippines
- Brexit: before and after
- Gas price reopeners: is there a better way?
- Paul Cohen: Let’s not get left behind
- Obituary: Dolliver Nelson
- The slow evolution of quick arbitral relief
- An eventful 12 months
- Which seat?
- Early case assessments and awarding success fees
- Reintegrating Somalia
- Very young group hosts “Match of the Day”
- Haze and the maze of witness testimony