The thrust of this article is to examine a contemporary international arbitration process in commercial and investment cases, specifically the interplay of common law and civil law elements in the taking of evidence. It begins with a survey of the provisions of the most popular international arbitration instruments, including international arbitration rules and IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration. Following the discussion of some relevant examples of international arbitration instruments, the author tries to answer the question whether these instruments, in their current form, support the popular thesis that the international arbitration process has become largely harmonized. In trying to verify this thesis, the article also goes beyond the text of international arbitration instruments and considers the influence of the cultural biases of international arbitration actors.

This article examines the consequences of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) ruling in Achmea concerning Investor-State Arbitration (ISA) under intra- EU Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) from a treaty law perspective. It begins by briefly setting out the arguments of Advocate General Wathelet and the CJEU supporting their different positions on whether intra-EU BITs ISA clauses are compatible with EU law. The article then proceeds to analyse Achmea’s implications for intra-EU BIT ISA. It concludes that, as a result of the CJEU’s ruling, arbitral tribunals are deprived of their jurisdiction to entertain investors’ claims brought under intra-EU BIT ISA clauses. Finally, the article argues that Achmea’s applicability to cases brought under intra-EU BIT ISA clauses is limited, using the application of EU law as a relevant qualification. In order for an arbitral tribunal to be deprived of its jurisdictional competence as a result of Achmea, it must be entitled to interpret and apply EU law directly or indirectly in determining its jurisdiction.

This article explores investment protection under Chinese international investment agreements (IIAs), particularly under the China-Poland bilateral investment treaty (BIT). As a state that both imports and exports foreign direct investment, China currently promotes balanced and safeguarded BITs that protect its increasing overseas investments and preserves the necessary space to regulate in the public interest. The Chinese government remains reluctant to be directly involved in investment arbitration as a respondent, while Chinese investors are active in taking advantage of the IIAs’ regime. When compared to China’s recent treaty practice and new developments in global investment governance, the China-Poland BIT is relatively outdated in terms of investment protection, promotion, social clauses, and dispute settlement. In terms of the investment protection effects of BITs, China is seemingly in a more urgent position to update the China-Poland BIT. However, if we evaluate the overall effects of a modernized BIT on investment promotion, regulation, and dispute settlement, an updated China-Poland BIT will fit the interests of both the Polish and Chinese governments. Notwithstanding the on-going negotiation between the EU and China, this article aims, along with presenting the Chinese practice regarding BITs, to describe de lege lata the state of protection offered to Chinese and Polish investors under the China-Poland BIT.

One of the most significant changes in modern arbitration rules is the adoption of emergency arbitrator proceedings. These proceedings were introduced in order to provide a party in need of urgent interim measures before the constitution of an arbitral tribunal with an additional option besides going to state courts. In emergency arbitrator procedures such a party may seize an emergency arbitrator to grant the requested urgent relief. This article provides the Polish perspective on the effectiveness of emergency arbitrator proceedings, given that the Polish law is silent on the institution of emergency arbitrator and the possible recognition and enforcement of the decisions of an emergency arbitrator. The article analyses the Polish regulations on interim measures, together with their enforcement, by comparing the relationship, similarities and divergences between an arbitral tribunal, a state court, and an emergency arbitrator. This brings us to the conclusion that the existing legal framework as to the enforcement of interim measures issued by an arbitral tribunal provides a solid foundation for drawing an analogy to the recognition and enforcement of such orders granted by an emergency arbitrator. Thus, the provisions on enforcement of arbitral tribunal’s orders per analogiam allow for the recognition and enforcement of emergency arbitrators’ decisions on interim measures in Poland.

The idea of a Multilateral Investment Court seems to be one of the most prominent initiatives of the “multilateralization” of international investment law during this century. The creation of a new international, permanent court concentrated on settling investor – state disputes is an extraordinary challenge. Possible problems relate not only to the negotiations concerning the organizational and procedural aspects necessary to ensure the efficient operation of this type of body. It is also necessary to take into account the dynamics of the functioning of international adjudication as such, as well as the controversies surrounding the international legal protection of foreign investments.

The feature that most attracts private parties from different states to referring their dispute to an arbitral tribunal is the flexibility of the procedure. However, the differences between arbitration and court litigation are not only procedural, but they concern the substance of the parties’ cases. This is because in the realm of international arbitration the law applicable to the merits of the case is determined according to other provisions than the statutory conflict of laws rules. Depending on the arbitration law of the seat, the entire private international law statute can be captured in a single provision – “absent the parties’ choice, the arbitral tribunal shall apply the rules of law which it determines to be appropriate”. It follows that arbitral tribunals, unlike state courts, are not bound by the conflict of laws rules of the forum. What’s more, the merits of a dispute submitted to arbitration may be governed not only by some national body of law (e.g. the Polish Civil Code) but also by a non-state, nonnational set of provisions – “rules of law” (e.g. the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts). The aim of this article is to analyze how the parties and tribunals may make use of their autonomy in determining the law applicable to a dispute. Furthermore it examines whether there are any limits thereto in light of the Rome I Regulation.

Construction contracts are susceptible to disputes as they regulate very complex multi-party relationships. Previous studies not only fail to aptly outline the distinction between “conflict” and “dispute”, but also fail to adequately study the causes of construction disputes in-light of project delivery systems. The present research aims at assessing the causes and settlement mechanisms of construction disputes in Design-Bid-Build (DBB) and Design-Build (DB) delivery systems with a view to add evidence to the existing knowledge. Accordingly, four most relevant causes of construction disputes identified from previous works of literature were incorporated in a questionnaire survey to determine their frequency of occurrence in the two delivery systems. The Relative Important Index (RII) of the four direct causes of construction disputes computed by SPSS software revealed that, in DBB contracts, the frequency of occurrence of disputable claims (unsettled claims for money/extension of time) has RII = 0.794969/0.777358, project delay has RII = 0.708176, and poor quality of work has RII = 0.469182. In DB contracts, the frequency of occurrence of disputable claims has RII = 0.533333/0.515723, project delay has RII = 0.495597, and poor quality of work has RII = 0.465409. The RII values proved that, DBB projects are significantly prone to disputes than DB projects. Furthermore, qualitative data obtained from road and building project reports exposed that DBB projects are exceedingly prone to disputes because they are frequently vulnerable to an increase in the volume of work due to frequent change orders and design deficiencies. The research further found out that, despite a clear proscription in the laws of the land, there is a routine out of court settlement of public construction disputes in Ethiopia.

Th e 19th-century dispute over the Austro-Hungarian border in the Polish Tatra Mountains ended with an international arbitration award in 1902 in Graz. It is widely regarded as a success for the defenders of integrity of the Polish lands under partitions. Th e article examines the indications that the conciliation tribunal did not resolve the dispute on its own, but issued a judgment merely implementing a confi dential agreement between the Austrian and Hungarian governments on this matter.