The arbitration process in the Middle East is developing in a way which is quite promising. The Middle East region is reasonably well-equipped with arbitration facilities. There are a number of significant regional arbitration centres – for example, Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC); DIFC/LCIA situated in the Dubai International Financial Centre; the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Centre (ADCCAC); Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (QICDRC); and the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution/American Arbitration Association (BCDR-AAA). However, the judicial intervention and uncertainty in the enforceability of arbitral award is a matter of great concern. It has been noticed that the judiciary in the Middle East has not achieved the same standards of excellence in arbitration as others in more favourable jurisdictions. There have been instances where the lawyers conducting arbitration were subjected to prosecution for unfavourable outcomes. As a consequence, they were sometimes declining appointments and even resigning from ongoing cases as they were unhappy about the risks they were running. Under DIAC Rules, there was no appeal process. Further, as awards had to be signed within Dubai itself, this sometimes meant arbitrators having to fly in and out solely for this purpose.
India has huge potential to develop maritime arbitration but it would be a long and difficult ride before it is fully achieved. There have been significant improvements in recent years in India’s provision for structured arbitration. It was noticed that a properly functioning arbitration system was necessary if the country was to attract more trade and investment. The Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, amended in 2015, had introduced changes in respect of interim relief, public policy considerations, High Court involvement in arbitration and 12-month time limits to determine awards. This was aimed at countering concerns that arbitral awards in India were taking too long. However, the 12 months could be extended by agreement between the parties. The whole package has been improved. The Mumbai International Arbitration Centre’s Rules were approved in June 2016 and the Centre opened for business in October. The aim was to establish a cost effective and transparent process, focusing on procedures for multi-party and multi-contract cases, expedited arbitration and the scrutiny of awards.
China is a relatively young player in the international shipping arbitration scene. The Maritime Arbitration Commission (MAC) is the predecessor of the present China Maritime Arbitration Centre (CMAC). It seems that the MAC was more experienced than that the maritime courts in China in terms of handling maritime disputes. Also, maritime disputes in China are predominantly settled by conciliation and mediation. The attitude of the maritime court towards this organization is somewhat hostile exemplifying unfriendliness and competition. CMAC had revised its Rules in late 2014. The new CMAC Rules came into effect on 1 January 2015. CMAC’s Revised Rules allows an arbitrator much freedom in choosing the appropriate procedure. It also stresses that the parties are to be given reasonable opportunity to make submissions and arguments.
International arbitration is on the rise in all these regions, generating an increasing interest in the practice. Thus, there is an increasing trend towards convergence of arbitral institutional rules and rise in the number of arbitral seats where parties can expect a modern and pro-arbitration approach from the judiciary.