This study deals with one of the most important subjects that can be raised in the field of arbitration, namely. challenging arbitral awards. It provides an in-depth analysis, and identifies the deficiencies, of article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Basically, the study argues that the Model Law has failed to recognise appeals to arbitral tribunals of second instance as well as appeals to courts on points of law, and whereas it has also failed to provide sufficient grounds for setting aside arbitral awards, the grounds that it provides were not well formulated by its drafters. The study also provides an in-depth analysis of the adoption of article 34 by Bahrain, Egypt, England, Jordan, Oman and Tunisia. Whilst it concludes that Egypt, Jordan, Oman and Tunisia have tackled some of the deficiencies of article 34, the study recommends UNCITRAL to adopt, after inserting some amendments, sections 30, 67, 68, 69 and 70 of the English Act as a substitute for article 34. In addition, this study proves that the Model Law is defective in many respects in relation to its provisions that deal with arbitral awards, and it discusses a number of unnecessary divergences from the Model Law made by Egypt, England, Jordan, Oman and Tunisia.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:495458 |
| Date | January 2008 |
| Creators | Al-Hyari, Omar Hisham Radwan |
| Publisher | University of the West of England, Bristol |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
Page generated in 0.0154 seconds