Do you want to improve your writing? Try our new evaluation service and get detailed feedback.
Check Your Text it's free

Article 5. 1. (b) of New York Convention defines that the recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused on the ground that the party against

Article 5. 1. (b) of New York Convention defines that the recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused on the ground that the party against ljXPW
Article 5. 1. (b) of New York Convention defines that the recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused on the ground that the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case. However, the main thrust of this provision of the Convention is directed at ensuring that the requirements of “due process” are observed and that the parties are given a fair hearing. Obviously, parties’ right to be heard is of particular concern in regard to caucusing. If the Arbitral Tribunal holds private sessions and listens to what one party has to say in the absence of the other, that party may reveal facts to the members of the tribunal the other party is unable to rebut. Such an ex parte conversation is a textbook example for a violation of the right to be heard and usually constitutes a ground to vacate the award. Nevertheless, there is also one strong contra-argument which is against the abovementioned “right to be heard” principle when the mediating arbitrator uses caucusing technique. The argument is “confidentiality of information gained through caucusing” principle. During caucusing party is able to provide the mediator with confidential information that is not shared with the other party and mediator’s possession of such confidential information from both parties usually allows the mediator to guide the parties to an amicable settlement. In order to avoid from the conflict of mentioned principles, for example, Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution Rules for the Facilitation of Settlement in International Arbitration (hereinafter “CEDR Settlement Rules”), in its Article 3 (General principles) states that: “4. Nothing said or done by any Party or its counsel in the course of any settlement discussions, or in the course of any other steps taken by the Arbitral Tribunal to facilitate settlement, shall be used against a Party in the event that the arbitration resumes (save as regards the allocation of costs in accordance with Article [6] of these Rules). 5. The tribunal shall not take into account for the purpose of making an Award, any substantive matters discussed in settlement meetings or communications, unless such matter has already been introduced in the arbitration”. Unfortunately, while the Prague Rules do not prohibit the use of caucusing during the hybrid process of mediation during arbitration and have not formulated any general principles such as in CEDR Settlement Rules, the basic principles “right to be heard in arbitration” and “confidentiality of information obtained in mediation” are more likely to collide and risk the final award under the “due process” ground.
Article 5. 1. (b) of New York Convention defines that the recognition and enforcement of the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
award
may
be refused
on the ground that the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
party
against whom the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
award
is invoked
was not
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
given
proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
arbitration
proceedings or was
otherwise
unable to present his case.
However
, the main thrust of this provision of the Convention
is directed
at ensuring that the requirements of “due process”
are observed
and that the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
parties
are
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
given
a
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
fair
hearing.

Obviously
,
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
parties’
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
right
to
be heard
is of particular concern in regard to caucusing. If the
Possible spelling mistake found.
Arbitral
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
Tribunal
holds private sessions and listens to what one
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
party
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
has to
say in the absence of the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
other
, that
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
party
may reveal facts to the members of the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
tribunal
the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
other
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
party
is unable to rebut. Such an ex parte conversation is a textbook example for a violation of the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
right
to
be heard
and
usually
constitutes a ground to vacate the award.

Nevertheless
, there is
also
one strong contra-argument which is against the
Possible spelling mistake found.
abovementioned
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
“right
to
be heard
”
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
principle
when the mediating arbitrator
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
uses
caucusing technique. The argument is “confidentiality of
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
information
gained through caucusing”
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
principle
. During caucusing
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
party
is able to provide the mediator with confidential
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
information
that is
not shared with the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
other
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
party
and mediator’s possession of such confidential
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
information
from both
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
parties
usually
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
allows
the mediator to guide the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
parties
to an amicable settlement.

In order to avoid from the conflict of mentioned
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
principles
,
for example
,
Possible spelling mistake. 'Centre' is British English.
Centre
for Effective Dispute Resolution
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
Rules
for the Facilitation of
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
Settlement
in International
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
Arbitration
(hereinafter “
Possible spelling mistake found.
CEDR
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
Settlement
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
Rules”)
, in its Article 3 (General
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
principles)
states that:

“4. Nothing said or done by any
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
Party
or its counsel in the course of any
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
settlement
discussions, or in the course of any
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
other
steps taken by the
Possible spelling mistake found.
Arbitral
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
Tribunal
to facilitate
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
settlement
, shall be
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
used
against a
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
Party
in the
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
event
that the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
arbitration
resumes (save as regards the allocation of costs in accordance with Article [6] of these
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
Rules). 5
. The
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
tribunal
shall not take into account for the purpose of making an
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
Award
, any substantive matters discussed in
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
settlement
meetings or communications, unless such matter has already
been introduced
in the arbitration”.

Unfortunately, while the Prague
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
Rules
do not prohibit the
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
use
of caucusing during the hybrid process of mediation during
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
arbitration
and have not formulated any general
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
principles
such as in
Possible spelling mistake found.
CEDR
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
Settlement
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
Rules
, the basic
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
principles
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
“right
to
be heard
in
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
arbitration”
and “confidentiality of
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
information
obtained in mediation” are more likely to collide and
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
risk
the final
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
award
under the “due process” ground.
What do you think?
  • This is funny writingFunny
  • I love this writingLove
  • This writing has blown my mindWow
  • It made me angryAngry
  • It made me sadSad

IELTS essay Article 5. 1. (b) of New York Convention defines that the recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused on the ground that the party against

Essay
  American English
7 paragraphs
442 words
6.0
Overall Band Score
Coherence and Cohesion: 5.5
  • Structure your answers in logical paragraphs
  • ?
    One main idea per paragraph
  • Include an introduction and conclusion
  • Support main points with an explanation and then an example
  • Use cohesive linking words accurately and appropriately
  • Vary your linking phrases using synonyms
Lexical Resource: 5.0
  • Try to vary your vocabulary using accurate synonyms
  • Use less common question specific words that accurately convey meaning
  • Check your work for spelling and word formation mistakes
Grammatical Range: 6.5
  • Use a variety of complex and simple sentences
  • Check your writing for errors
Task Achievement: 6.0
  • Answer all parts of the question
  • ?
    Present relevant ideas
  • Fully explain these ideas
  • Support ideas with relevant, specific examples
Labels Descriptions
  • ?
    Currently is not available
  • Meet the criteria
  • Doesn't meet the criteria
Recent posts