Lorsqu’un arbitrage international a lieu sous les auspices de la CCI, et lorsque le
siège est à Paris, à moins que les parties prévoient expressément un droit pour régir
spécifiquement la procédure, c’est le droit du siège, c’est-à-dire celui de la France, qui sera
en principe retenu pour régir les questions de procédure, et ce, que les Arbitres ou les
parties soient français ou non.

Les règles françaises de la procédure d’arbitrage sont prévues dans le Code de Procédure
Civile français. Cependant le 1er Mai 2011, le nouveau Décret n°2011-48 de Janvier 2011
entre en vigueur, modifiant certaines règles de procédure ayant été antérieurement adoptées
par le Décret N°81-500 de 1981.

S’agissant des recours contre les sentences arbitrales, la nouvelle loi de 2011 prévoit
certaines nouveautés dans les domaines de l’arbitrage national et international.

I. Dans l’arbitrage national

D’après l’ancienne loi de 1981, l’appel direct d’une sentence arbitrale était la règle et il revenait aux parties d’en prévoir autrement par convention (1). Cela a été complètement inversé dans la nouvelle loi de 2011 : une sentence ne peut faire l’objet d’un appel sauf accord contraire des parties (2).

Un tel appel peut être interjeté dès que la sentence CCI est rendue. Cependant, le délai pour déclencher l’action a été écourté avec la nouvelle loi : le recours n’est maintenant admissible que s’il est engagé dans le mois de la notification de la sentence (3), alors que les parties avaient, sous l’ancienne loi, jusqu’à un mois de la signification de la sentence apposée de l’exéquatur (4) pour ce faire.

Sous l’ancienne loi et sous la nouvelle, l’appel engagé dans les délais suspend l’exécution de la sentence arbitrale (5).

II. Dans l’arbitrage international

La loi de 2011 prévoit de manière non équivoque que le recours en annulation est maintenant la seule action possible contre les sentences arbitrales, lorsque celles-ci sont rendues en France (6). La loi de 1981 prévoyait aussi cette action mais elle n’excluait pas explicitement les autres recours, tel que l’appel (7).

Il est important de distinguer entre l’appel direct d’une sentence arbitrale, qui autorise la Cour d’Appel à modifier la sentence arbitrale qui peut alors demeurer exécutoire, et un recours en annulation qui annule la sentence, ne la permettant donc plus d’être exécutée, et qui ne peut s’engager que sur l’une des bases légales de l’article 1520 du Code de Procédure Civil (8) :

• 1° Le tribunal arbitral s’est déclaré à tort compétent ou incompétent ; ou
• 2° Le tribunal arbitral a été irrégulièrement constitué ; ou
• 3° Le tribunal arbitral a statué sans se conformer à la mission qui lui avait été confiée ; ou
• 4° Le principe de la contradiction n’a pas été respecté ; ou
• 5° La reconnaissance ou l’exécution de la sentence est contraire à l’ordre public international.»

Bien qu’un appel soit toujours possible contre la décision d’une cour accordant ou refusant
l’exéquatur d’une sentence arbitrale, l’appel direct d’une sentence arbitrale est maintenant
expressément prohibé dans le cadre de l’arbitrage international.

Sous l’ancienne loi et sous la nouvelle, le recours peut être engagé dès le prononcé de la sentence (9) cependant, encore une fois, le délai est écourté avec la nouvelle loi : les parties ont maintenant jusqu’à un mois de la notification de la sentence pour interjeter appel (10), alors qu’ils avaient jusqu’au mois de la signification d’une sentence apposée de l’exéquatur auparavant (11). Dans l’arbitrage international, une sentence doit être dûment signifiée selon la procédure française, et notamment par l’entremise d’un huissier français.

Une nouveauté importante qu’apporte la nouvelle loi est que ni le délai, ni l’introduction d’un recours en annulation ne suspendent l’exécution de la sentence (12), ce qui était jadis le cas sous la loi de 1981 (13). Ceci est tempéré par l’autorité du juge d’appui (14) à suspendre ou fixer des conditions d’exécution s’il considère que les droits de l’une des parties risquent d’être sérieusement lésés.

Deux remarques additionnelles concernant l’appel / le recours en annulation :

Règles transitoires

Sur la question de laquelle de l’ancienne ou la nouvelle loi détermine les recours disponibles contre une sentence arbitrale, l’Article 3 du Décret de 2011 prévoit que :

1. Dans le cadre de l’arbitrage national, la nouvelle règle qui inverse la précédente prévoyant l’appel de droit et le recours en annulation en exception, ne s’applique que si la convention d’arbitrage date d’après le 1er Mai 2011 (date d’entrée en vigueur du Décret) ; En conséquence, si la convention date d’après le 1er Mai 2011 un appel direct de la sentence arbitrale n’est possible que si les parties en convienne, mais si elle date d’avant le 1er Mai 2011, l’appel sera permis, sauf accord contraire des parties.
2. La nouvelle règle prévoyant qu’un appel ou un recours en annulation ne puisse suspendre l’exécution d’une sentence dans le cadre d’un arbitrage international s’applique que si la sentence arbitrale a été rendue après le 1er Mai 2011. Ainsi, si une sentence arbitrale est rendue après le 1er Mai 2011, le délai pour engager un recours en annulation, ou l’appel (d’une décision accordant ou refusant l’exéquatur et non de la sentence elle-même) ne suspendra pas l’exécution, mais cela sera le cas si elle est rendue postérieurement à cette date.
3. Mis à part quelques exceptions dans les règles transitoires, toutes les dispositions de la loi de 2011 s’appliquent dès le 1er Mai 2011. En conséquence, les nouveaux délais écourtés pour engager les recours, i.e. venant à terme le mois suivant la notification de la sentence, s’applique dès le 1er Mai 2011 dans le cadre de l’arbitrage national et international. Ainsi, indépendamment de quand la convention d’arbitrage a été conclue, de la date de la sentence arbitrale, ou de la date de constitution du tribunal, les parties n’ont maintenant que jusqu’au mois de la notification de, non plus d’une sentence exéquaturée (qui prendrait plus de temps à obtenir), mais d’une simple sentence arbitrale, pour engager leur recours.

Notification et signification de la sentence arbitrale

Quand est-ce qu’une sentence arbitrale est-elle dûment notifiée : la signification (par
huissier) est-elle requise ou est-ce qu’une simple notification peut suffire ? La question est
importante pour établir le point de départ du délai d’un moi pour intenter un recours.

La distinction a aussi une grande importance au vue du fait que la signification à une partie résidant à l’étranger augmente nécessairement le délai pour intenter un recours de 2 mois (15), accordant ainsi à la partie adverse 3 mois pour engager l’action en annulation dans le cas de l’arbitrage.

La simple notification, cependant, n’impose pas ce «délai de distance». De plus, il revient encore à la jurisprudence d’en spécifier la forme et le contenu. Cette procédure est donc moins contraignante.

La loi antérieure de 1981 ne permettait qu’une seule forme de notification dans le cadre des arbitrages nationaux et internationaux : la signification par voie d’huissier (16). La simple notification n’était pas une option.
Les règles de 2011 sont quelque peu plus souples, permettant aux parties d’opter pour la notification simple dans certains cas :

a/ L’arbitrage International

Dans l’arbitrage international, la notification doit se faire par voie de signification par huissier, sauf convention contraire des parties (17).

La question qui se pose alors est : quand peut-on considérer que les parties ont convenues
de procéder par simple notification ? Dans le cadre d’un arbitrage institutionnel, est-ce que le
fait d’adopter des règles d’arbitrage prévoyant une notification par l’institution constitue un
l’accord de procéder par simple notification de la sentence ?

Une décision récente de la Cour d’Appel (18) qualifie de garantie procédurale la notification par voie d’huissier et prévoit que les parties doivent manifester leur volonté d’y renoncer de façon non-équivoque.

En conséquence, bien que le règlement d’arbitrage de la CCI ne prévoie qu’une simple notification de la sentence aux parties par le Secrétaire, le fait d’adhérer à un tel règlement ne constitue pas une renonciation non-équivoque et manifeste à la signification par voie d’huissier et ne peut suffire à constituer la notification requise légalement (19). Tout au plus, une telle notification ne fait que décharger la CCI de son obligation de notifier et ne supplée pas à celle qui pèse sur les parties (20).

En d’autres termes, dans le cadre d’un arbitrage international CCI une sentence rendue en France doit être dûment signifiée suivant la procédure française, sauf accord contraire des parties, faute de quoi aucun délai de recours en annulation devant la Cour d’Appel française ne sera déterminé (21).

b/ L’arbitrage national

Bien que le Décret prévoie que la notification de sentence issue d’un arbitrage national doit en principe se faire par voie de signification par huissier à moins que les parties n’en conviennent autrement (22), ses dispositions spécifiques aux recours ne prévoient, contrairement aux dispositions sur l’arbitrage international (vu au par. a./), la même distinction.

© Weissberg & Weissberg, 2015

***

(1) Article 1482 du Code de Procédure Civil tel qu’adopté par le Décret N°81-500 de 1981

(2) Article 1489 du Décret N°2011-48 du 13 Janvier 2011

(3) Article 1494 du Décret N°2011-48 du 13 Janvier 2011

(4) D’après la jurisprudence constante nationale ; Article 1486 du Code de Procédure Civile tel qu’adopté par le Décret N°81-500 de 1981

(5) Article 1496 du Décret N°2011-48 du 13 Janvier 2011, Article 1486 du Code de Procédure Civil tel qu’adopté par le Décret N°81-500 de 1981

(6) Article 1518 du Décret N°2011-48 du 13 Janvier 2011

(7) Article 1504 du Code de Procédure Civil tel qu’adopté par le Décret N°81-500 de 1981

(8) Article 1520 du Décret N°2011-48 du 13 Janvier 2011, et 1502 du Code de Procédure Civil tel qu’adopté par le Décret N°81-500 de 1981

(9) Article 1519 du Décret N°2011-48 du 13 Janvier 2011, et 1505 du Code de Procédure Civil tel qu’adopté par le Décret N°81-500 de 1981

(10) Article 1519 du Décret N°2011-48 du 13 Janvier 2011

(11) Article 1505 du Code de Procédure Civil tel qu’adopté par le Décret N°81-500 de 1981

(12) Article 1526 du Décret N°2011-48 du 13 Janvier 2011

(13) Article 1506 du Code de Procédure Civil tel qu’adopté par le Décret N°81-500 de 1981

(14) Le « sitting judge » en anglais.

(15) Article 643 et 680 du Code de Procédure Civile

(16) Articles 1486 et 1503 du Code de Procédure Civil tel qu’adopté par le Décret N°81-500 de 1981

(17) Article 1519 du Décret N°2011-48 du 13 Janvier 2011

(18) CA Paris, pôle 1, ch. 1, 4 juill. 2013, n°12/08215

(19) Antoine KIRRY et Geoffroy GOUBIN, Un progrès en trompe l’œil : le nouveau texte sur la notification des sentences rendues en France en matière d’arbitrage international : Procédure 2014, étude 5, par. 4.

(20) CA Paris, pôle 1, Ch. 1, 6mars 2014

(21) Article 651 et ss. du Code de Procédure Civile

(22) Article 1484 du Code de Procédure Civile

When international arbitration takes place under the auspice of the ICC and where
the seat is Paris, unless the parties expressly provide for a specific law to regulate
proceedings, the laws of the seat, i.e. of France, are generally held to govern procedural
issues, and this, whether the Arbitrator(s) or parties are French or not.

French procedural rules for arbitration are provided in the French Civil Code of Procedure. On May 1st 2011 however, a new Decree n°2011-48 of January 2011 came into effect, changing certain procedural rules that had been enacted by the previous Decree N°81-500 of 1981.

When it comes to means of recourses against arbitral awards, the new law of 2011 provides for certain novelties in the areas of national and international arbitration:

I. In a national arbitration

Under the old law of 1981, direct appeal of an arbitral sentence was the general rule and it was up to the parties to provide otherwise in their arbitration agreement (1). This has been completely reversed in the new 2011 law: awards shall not be subject to appeal unless otherwise agreed by the parties (2).

Such an appeal can be brought as soon as the ICC award is rendered. However, the deadline to bring the action has shortened with the new law: the recourse is no longer admissible if not filed within a month from notification of the award (3), whereas parties had until one month from service of an award that had been opposed with the enforcement formula (4) (domesticated) under the prior law.

Under both the old and the new law, the appeal filed within the legal deadline suspends enforcement of the arbitral award (5).

II. In international arbitration

The 2011 law unambiguously sets that an action to set aside is now the only possible recourse against arbitral sentences, where they’ve been rendered in France (6). The law of 1981 also provided for this possibility but did not explicitly exclude other recourses, such as an appeal (7).

It is important to distinguish between a direct appeal of an arbitral award, which allows the Court of Appeals to amend the arbitral award, which may still be enforced, and an action to set aside which annuls an award that could therefore no longer be enforced, and which may only be brought on one of the listed legal grounds of article 1520 the Civil Code of Procedure (8):

1. the arbitral tribunal was wrongfully retained or denied jurisdiction,
2. the arbitral tribunal was improperly constituted,
3. the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mission conferred upon it,
4. the principle of due process was not complied with, or
5. recognition or enforcement of the award is contrary to international public policy.”

Though an appeal is always possible against a court decision granting or refusing
enforcement of an arbitral award, a direct appeal of the arbitral award is now expressly
prohibited in the context of international arbitration.

Under both the old and new law, the recourse may be brought as from the rendering of the award (9), but again, the deadline has been shortened with the new law: parties now have until a month from notification of the award to commence the appeal (10), whereas they previously had until a month of service of an award declared enforceable (11).In an international arbitration an award rendered in France must be properly served in compliance with French procedures, namely by a French process server.

An important novelty of the new law is that the deadline and the filing of actions to set aside no longer suspend enforcement of the award (12), which was the case under the previous 1981 text (13). This is however tempered by the sitting judge’s (14) power to suspend or set conditions for enforcement, if it considers it may seriously harm a party’s rights.

Two additional issues regarding appeal/setting aside recourses:

Transitional rules

In asking which law to follow, the old or the new, in determining recourse rights against an
arbitral award, Article 3 of the 2011 Decree explains that:

1. The new national arbitration rule reversing the prior rule, which granted an of right possibility of direct appeal and made actions to set aside the exception, only applies if the agreement to arbitrate dates after May 1st 2011(date of entry into force of the Decree); As a consequence, if the agreement dates after May 1st 2011 direct appeal of the award is not possible unless parties agree otherwise, but if it dated before May 1st 2011, the appeal is possible, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
2. The new rule stating that an appeal or action to set aside may not suspend enforcement of awards in international arbitration applies only if the arbitral award is rendered after May 1st 2011.
   So, if the arbitral award is dated after May 1st 2011 the deadline or the filing of an action to set aside, or an appeal (of a decision granting or refusing enforcement and not of the award itself) will not suspend enforcement, but if the award is rendered after May 1st, it will.
3. Other than a few other exceptions in the transitional rules, other dispositions of the 2011 law apply as of May 1st 2011. As a consequence, the new shortened deadline to commence recourses, i.e. ending a month from notification of award, applies as of May 1st in both national and international arbitration. So, regardless of when the agreement to arbitrate was signed, the award rendered or the arbitral tribunal constituted, parties now only have until one month from notification of, no longer an exequatured award (which takes longer to obtain), but of a simple arbitral award, to commence their recourse, .

Notification and Service of arbitral award

When is an arbitral award successfully notified: is service (by bailiff) required or is simple
notification enough? The question is important in assessing the starting point of the month-
long deadline to commence a recourse.

The difference is also of high importance since service to a party living abroad will necessarily increase the delay to commence a recourse by 2 months (15), therefore granting opposing party 3 months to commence setting aside action in the case of arbitration.

Simple notification, on the other hand, does not impose this additional “distance delay”. In
fact, its content and form has yet to be defined by courts. The procedure is therefore less
constraining.

The prior 1981 law allowed only one notification method in both national and international arbitration: service by way of bailiff (16). Simple notification was not an option.

The 2011 rules are slightly more lenient, allowing parties to opt for simple notification in
some cases:

a/ International arbitration

In international arbitration, notification must be done by way of service through bailiff, unless otherwise agreed by the parties (17).

The question therefore becomes: when could we consider that parties have agreed to simple
notification? In institutional arbitration, does adopting arbitration rules that provide for
notification by the institution constitute agreement to simple notification of the award?

A recent Court of Appeals case (18) qualified notification by way of service as a procedural guarantee and set that parties must unequivocally manifest their will to renounce this guaranty.

As a consequence, though ICC Rules of Arbitration provide that the Secretariat shall notify arbitration awards to the parties, an agreement to adhere to such rules does not constitute unequivocal and manifest renunciation to service by bailiff and is not enough to count as notification (19). At the most, such notification by the Secretariat only releases ICC’s duty of notification and does not replace the parties’ obligations (20).

In other words, in an international ICC arbitration an award rendered in France must be properly served in compliance with French procedures, unless parties expressly renounce to this, or else there will be no fixed deadline for bringing setting aside proceedings in front of the French court of appeals (21).

b/ National arbitration

Though the new Decree states that notification of national arbitration awards must be generally done through service process unless parties agree otherwise (22), its specific dispositions on recourses do not impose such a distinction23, unlike the dispositions on international arbitration (as seen in par. a)).

This is confirmed by a recent Court of Appeals decision where the only reasons stated by the
judge for not retaining the date of notification by way of registered letter with
acknowledgement of receipt was the fact that the photocopy of the receipt was illegible and
did not allow to affirm what exactly was sent and by whom24. It was solely on grounds off
evidentiary difficulties that the court retained the later date of service by bailiff as the starting
date of the month-long period to commence action.

In national arbitration therefore, it seems that the rule is less strict and parties need not
expressly renounce to notification by way of service in order to use simple notification
methods.

© Copyright Weissberg & Weissberg – 2015

***

(1) Article 1482 of Code of Civil Procedure, as enacted by Decree N°81-500 of 1981

(2) Article 1489 of Decree N° 2011-48 of 13 January 2011

(3) Article 1494 of Decree N° 2011-48 of 13 January 2011

(4) Enforced by a national court decision; Article 1486 of Code of Civil Procedure, as enacted by Decree N°81-500 of 1981

(5) Article 1496 of Decree N° 2011-48 of 13 January 2011, Article 1486 of Code of Civil Procedure, as enacted by Decree N°81-500 of 1981

(6) Article 1518 of Decree N° 2011-48 of 13 January 2011

(7) Article 1504 of Code of Civil Procedure, as enacted by Decree N°81-500 of 1981

(8) Article 1520 of Decree N° 2011-48 of 13 January 2011, and 1502 of of Code of Civil Procedure, as enacted by Decree N°81-500 of 1981

(9) Article 1519 of Decree N° 2011-48 of 13 January 2011, and 1505 of Code of Civil Procedure, as enacted by Decree N°81-500 of 1981

(10) Article 1519 of Decree N° 2011-48 of 13 January 2011

(11) Article 1505 of Code of Civil Procedure, as enacted by Decree N°81-500 of 1981

(12) Article 1526 of Decree N° 2011-48 of 13 January 2011

(13) Article 1506 of Code of Civil Procedure, as enacted by Decree N°81-500 of 1981

(14) “Juge d’appui” in French

(15) Article 643 and 680 Code of Civil Procedure

(16) Articles 1486 and 1503 of Code of Civil Procedure, as enacted by Decree N°81-500 of 1981

(17) Article 1519 of Decree N° 2011-48 of 13 January 2011

(18) CA Paris, pôle 1, ch. 1, 4 juill. 2013, n°12/08215

(19) Antoine KIRRY et Geoffroy GOUBIN, Un progrès en trompe l’oeil : le nouveau texte sur la notification des sentences rendues en France en matière d’arbitrage international : Procédures 2014, étude 5, par.4

(20) CA Paris, pôle 1, Ch.1, 6 mars 2014

(21) Articles 651 and onward of the Civil Code of Procedure

(22) Article 1484 of Code of Civil Procedure

(23) Article 1494 of Code of Civil Procedure

(24) CA Lyon, Ch.8, 14 Octobre 2014, N°13/03727

La pratique de l’arbitrage en Chine a connu depuis quelques années un
développement très rapide. L’objet du présent article est de présenter les
principales innovations de ce Règlement notamment en matière de nomination
des arbitres.

I – Le nouveau règlement de la CIETAC

L’institution principale arbitrale chinoise – la CIETAC (China international economic and trade arbitration commission) – a adopté le 11 janvier 2005 un nouveau règlement d’arbitrage qui est entré en vigueur le 1er mai de la même année. L’innovation essentielle de ce Nouveau Règlement est de permettre aux parties de choisir des arbitres en dehors de la liste officielle ou “panel” publié par la CIETAC. Sous l’emprise de l’ancien règlement, le choix des parties était restreint à quelque sept cents noms inscrits sur la liste de la CIETAC. Cette limitation était l’une des principales critiques portées à l’encontre de l’institution arbitrale chinoise. Selon le nouveau règlement, la désignation des arbitres en dehors de la liste officielle peut s’applique à tout arbitre composant un tribunal arbitral : à un arbitre statuant seuls ou aux deux co-arbitres choisis par chacune des parties ainsi qu’à l’arbitre président du tribunal arbitral, désigné par commun accord des parties ou, à défaut, par le président de la CIETAC.

Par conséquent, les parties ont désormais la possibilité de désigner des arbitres
en dehors du panel, sous réserve de confirmation par le président de la
CIETAC. Bien que les critères de la confirmation ne soient pas énoncés, cette
procédure semble justifiable dans la mesure où elle permet de vérifier
l’aptitude de l’arbitre ainsi désigné. Il convient de noter qu’une procédure de
confirmation des arbitres est aussi prévue par le règlement d’arbitrage de la
CCI. En revanche, le Nouveau Règlement ne précise pas les modalités par
lesquelles les parties peuvent s’entendre pour choisir des arbitres en dehors de
la liste CIETAC. En l’absence de dispositions contraires, il semble donc
permis de prévoir cette possibilité dès la clause d’arbitrage avant la naissance
d’un litige.

Un point qui mérite d’être soulevé est que la CIETAC est très ouverte pour les arbitres étrangers, puisque sur la liste des arbitres, on trouve qu’un tiers des arbitres sont de nationalité autre que chinoise. L’article 13 de la loi chinoise sur l’arbitrage prévoit que les arbitres devront satisfaire à l’une des qualifications suivantes:
(1) avoir pratiqué l’arbitrage pour une période minimum de huit ans;
(2) avoir été avocat pendant une période minimum de huit ans;
(3) avoir été juge pendant une période minimum de huit ans;
(4) avoir eu une activité d’enseignement ou de recherche juridique à un niveau très élevé;
(5) disposer de connaissances juridiques, d’une pratique professionnelle dans le domaine des relations économico-commerciales, d’une activité professionnelle à un niveau très élevé et être considéré comme tel dans les milieux professionnels.

II – Les arbitrages portant devant la CCI

Le droit chinois autorise le recours à des institutions arbitrales étrangères pour
des litiges ayant un élément d’extranéité. Lorsque le lieu d’un tel arbitrage se
situe à l’étranger, la clause d’arbitrage et les sentences correspondantes sont
protégées par la Convention de New York, à laquelle la Chine est partie, qui
limite strictement les cas de leur remise en cause par les tribunaux judiciaires.
En revanche, lorsque le lieu de l’arbitrage est la Chine, la clause d’arbitrage et
la sentence correspondante ne sont pas couvertes par la Convention de New
York et leur validité s’apprécie alors exclusivement au regard du droit interne
chinois.

L’article 161 de la Loi chinoise sur l’arbitrage dispose que la mention d’une “commission d’arbitrage choisie par les parties” dans une clause d’arbitrage est une condition de sa validité. A cet égard, afin d’atténuer le risque de la voir “annulée au motif d’une référence insuffisamment explicite à l’institution d’arbitrage choisie” la CCI a décidé d’adapter sa clause type pour les arbitrages ayant lieu en Chine. Cette nouvelle formulation est la suivante : “Tous différends découlant du présent contrat ou en relation avec celui-ci seront soumis à la Cour internationale d’arbitrage de la Chambre de commerce internationale et seront tranchés suivant le Règlement d’arbitrage de la Chambre de commerce internationale par un ou plusieurs arbitres nommés conformément à ce règlement.” Néanmoins il semble que l’article 16 de la loi chinoise sur l’arbitrage est souvent interprété comme exigeant la mention d’une commission d’arbitrage enregistrée en Chine, ce qui n’est le cas d’aucune institution arbitrale étrangère. Il en découle qu’un risque d’annulation par les juridictions chinoises pèse sur les clauses prévoyant un arbitrage en Chine conformément au règlement d’une institution arbitrale étrangère. Quand à la CCI, il n’est pas clair jusqu’à maintenant si une clause prévoyant un arbitrage en Chine selon le règlement d’arbitrage de la CCI et désignant la Cour Internationale d’arbitrage de la CCI comme la commission d’arbitrage compétente serait valable en droit chinois. Cette incertitude peut poser des problèmes en pratique dans la négociation d’une clause d’arbitrage dans un contrat entre une partie chinoise et une partie non-chinoise, si la partie chinoise exige que le siège de l’arbitrage soit en Chine et l’autre partie refuse de se soumettre à une commission d’arbitrage chinoise.

Une solution a été proposée dans une conférence consacrée à l’arbitrage en
Chine, organisée par L’AIA (Association for International Arbitration) au
mois de mars 2009 à Bruxelles, il consiste à désigner Hong Kong comme lieu
de l’arbitrage en raison de son statut de Région Administrative Spéciale et la
loi chinoise sur l’arbitrage n’y étant pas applicable. Les sentences arbitrales
rendues à Hong Kong ne sont pas considérées comme des sentences
étrangères en Chine. Il existe un accord, qui fonctionne bien en pratique, entre
la Chine et Hong Kong du 2 février 2000 qui prévoit l’exécution en Chine des
sentences rendues à Hong Kong et réciproquement selon des conditions très
semblables à celles de la Convention de New York.

CONCLUSION

Ces dernières années, les litiges impliquant une partie chinoise portant devant
la CCI ont considérablement augmentés, bien que la proportion ne soit pas
très importante par rapport aux arbitrages administrés par la CCI, mais
l’évolution est remarquable.

D’après les statistiques de la CCI, à peut près 60% des sentences d’arbitrage de la CCI qui doivent s’exécuter en Chine sont exécutées spontanément par la partie chinoise. Le problème de l’exécution n’est plus un problème majeur en Chine .

***

1. Article 16 de la loi chinoise sur l’arbitrage:
An arbitration agreement shall include the arbitration clauses provided in the contract and any other written form of agreement concluded before or after the disputes providing for submission to arbitration. The following contents shall be included in an arbitration agreement: the expression of the parties’ wish to submit to arbitration; the matters to be arbitrated; and the Arbitration Commission selected by the parties.
– the expression of the parties’ wish to submit to arbitration;
– the matters to be arbitrated; and
– the Arbitration Commission selected by the parties.

by Dr. Roland Amoussou-Guenou (Avocat at the Paris Bar, Assistant Secretary of the Pan-African Council of the LCIA).
An Advisory Paper Presented by the International Law Firm SCP Weissberg

This paper was prepared for the Conference on the Arbitration of International Trade and
Investment Disputes in Africa held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 5-7 March 1997.

INTRODUCTION

A lot of preconceived ideas have been propagated concerning arbitration in Africa. Indeed, for
many practitioners and arbitrators from Western Countries, arbitration in this continent is
more or less, terra incognita.

It is true that while arbitration was developing and expanding fast all over the world, Africa
was being left behind in this race. In addition, the notable dearth of literature on arbitration in
this area cannot be denied (1).

Currently, significant steps are being taken regarding the laws and practice of arbitration in
Africa. On this basis, one must certainly admit that now the time is ripe for arbitration to
expand in this part of the world.

The purpose of this paper is to present the evolution of the arbitration laws and practices in
francophone Africa since anglophone Africa has already been very well covered (2) .

African laws relating to arbitration comprise two main sets of rules. The first relates to the
general rules of law and the second to investment law. Both have domestic and international
sources.

Investment law contains a whole range of legal guarantees intended to attract investments. Included among these legal guarantees is arbitration. Thus “arbitration under the general rules of law” means arbitration not involving matters of investment law(3) , which is itself an important but different issue that will not be considered here.

In order to locate ourselves within the evolution of arbitration under the “general rules of law”
in francophone Africa, it may be useful to consider the early sixties as the focal point.

The early sixties coincided with the accession to political independence of most of Africa’s
sub- Saharan states. This time is also considered as the starting point of expansion of
international commercial arbitration (4) .

I – The past : the background of francophone Africa’s legal systems with regards to the
“Process of legislative extension”

This rule is particular to the French colonial system. It is established by the principle of
“legislative speciality” (a), which needs to be illustrated here with some examples (b). After
which we will see that some of the difficulties with which francophone African countries have
been confronted to date, especially in the matter of arbitration legislation, originate from that
principle (c).

a) The definition of the principle “legislative speciality”

The principle of “legislative speciality” has a history that goes back a long way. Following
the Revolution of 1789, the French authorities established that “the status of the colonies are
determined by special orders” (5) .

From this time onwards, the laws applicable in France’s overseas territories were those
enacted in the Metropole and extended to these territories by a special enactment of the
colonial legislator (6) .

b) The application of the principle of “legislative speciality” in the matter of arbitration: some examples.

The impact of this principle in the matter of arbitration, can be examined in the light of the
Civil Procedure (i), the Commercial Law (ii) and the Administrative Law (iii).

i) The Civil Procedure

As far as arbitration was concerned, although the French Code of Civil Procedure was
extended to francophone Africa (7) , surprisingly, the provisions related to arbitration in this
Code were not applicable.

This contrasts with the English African colonies, where the Arbitration Act of England was
deemed applicable (8) . The example of Kenya is a good illustration of the difference between
the legal policies of the French and English colonial authorities.

As pointed out by Mr. Justice Coudrey OBE (9) , the Order in Council of 1897 which established the Protectorate of Kenya provided that the Common Law, Doctrines of Equity, and Statutes of General Application in force in England on the 12th August 1897 should apply in Kenya (meant that from the beginning, The Arbitration Act of 1889 applied in this country).

This raises the important issue of why the French colonial authorities did not extend the
arbitration legislation to their colonies? Of course such a question is not easy to answer. One
acceptable hypothesis is that during the nineteenth century, arbitration as a judicial means of
settlement of disputes on the legal basis of the parties’s agreement, did not fit in with the
French colonial policy known as “direct rule”, as opposed to the “indirect rule” of the English
colonial system(10)

The French authorities were more dictatorial in administrating their territories. Their
preoccupation at that time was to keep tight control on the resolution of disputes in their
territories (11) .

The lower judicial power was delegated to the indigenous authorities but at the same time,
any powers of arbitration which might interfere with the judicial organization mentioned
above were removed from the potential users of the Code of Civil Procedure (12) .

Therefore, the absence of law concerning arbitration within the legal system of the French
colonies soon after independence originates from this French colonial policy.

ii) The Commercial Law

The French Code of Commerce was extended to the former French territories of Western
(FWA) in 1907 and Equatorial Africa (FEA) in 1910 13 . Also applicable to the former
territories was the law of 31st December 1925 which completed the provisions of the Code of
Commerce and declares arbitration agreement valid in commercial matters (14).

It is noteworthy that this law of December 31st 1925, was enacted after the Geneva
Convention of 1923 on arbitration agreement (15), to which France was party in the context
of what may be considered as a certain “openness” to arbitration. This “openness”, benefited
the French colonies because this law was declared applicable to them.

But paradoxically, this extension of the law of 31st December 1925 created an abnormal
situation in the legal sphere in that it produced the existence of a law admitting the validity of
arbitration agreements in commercial matters on the one hand, while on the other hand, the
rules of procedure enabling the arbitration process to work were absent.

iii) The Administrative Law

The Administrative Law represents one important particular of the French legal system
compared to the English Common Law. The French Administrative Law’s prohibition of
arbitration as a means of settlement of disputes for administrative bodies was extended to the
colonies.

To the best of our knowledge, the only exception concerns Burkina Faso (ex Upper Volta),
where a law of 17th April 1906 authorises arbitration for settlement of disputes in the matter
of public delivery or construction (16) .

c) The limitations of “legislative speciality” with regards to the difficulties raised
The legislation in the Metropole was not extended systematically to all the territories.

Furthermore, when it occurred (which was not always the case as in the matter of arbitration
in the Code of Civil Procedure), the extension of the French law in the colonies, was only
effective from a precise date, sometimes after the original legislation was enacted. These
extensions became the starting point of the evolution of the African legal system.

Any modification made in the law of the Metropole was only extended to the African law if
the modification was anticipated, which was rarely the case. This is the reason why African
countries lived, and are still living in a state of law that is out of date in the “exporting
country”.

This situation added to the above mentioned legal vacuum in arbitration, results in a damaging
legal insecurity for business and trade transactions, which African judges and legislators are
trying to deal with.

II- The Present : current situation of arbitration laws in francophone Africa

The current state of arbitration of “general nature” (as opposed to arbitration of “investment
nature”) concerns two main sources, domestic (a) and international (b).

a) Domestic sources of arbitration

Following independence in the 1960’s, the majority of the new francophone African states
kept the status quo of their legal inheritance. As a result, no arbitration laws exist in their legal
systems to date (i). On the other hand, among the new African states which filled the vacuum
concerning arbitration legislation, some enacted laws related to domestic arbitration (ii) while
very few of them have promulgated laws on domestic and international arbitration (iii). In all
cases, arbitration laws in force in francophone Africa whether domestic or international, show
that “the basic connection with the parent legal system remains” (17) .

(i) African states with no arbitration laws

These are Benin (18), Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Gabon, Guinea, Mali,
Mauritania and Niger (19). The former French law on arbitration not having been extended
to these countries, means that there is a total legislative vacuum.

However, as already mentioned above, the Law of December 31st 1925 which authorises
arbitration clauses in commercial matters is applicable.

(ii) African states with domestic arbitration laws

Contrary to what happened in the countries where the status quo was maintained, soon after
their independence, many French speaking countries enacted legislation related to domestic
arbitration. It would be interesting to review the situation in some of the countries concerned.

– Cameroon

The legal system of this country is influenced both by the French and the English law (20). Arbitration is governed by articles of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (21) which are very close to the former French law on arbitration. It is to be noted that the previously mentioned law of 31st March 1925 is also applicable in Cameroon.

– Congo

The Code of Civil, Commercial, Administrative and Financial Procedure (22) of Congo
includes only one article governing arbitration. Indeed, under article 310 paragraph 2 of said
Code, a foreign award can be granted exequatur and enforced in Congo although the
arbitration agreement and the arbitral proceedings are not regulated.

One can deduce that there is a tacit acceptance of the arbitration agreement in the Congolese
law. Although it seems that Congo is not yet party to the New York Convention on recognition
and enforcement of foreign awards, one can conclude that the solution adopted by the
Congolese legislator is concise and effective as they have not thought it necessary to enact
other provisions to enable international arbitration.

The international validity of the arbitration agreement, derived from the well established
general legal principles of separability and competence-competence on the one hand, and the
domestic recognition of the foreign award on the other hand, seem sufficient to make
arbitration effective in the Congolese legal system.

– Senegal

This country was one of the most important territories in the French colonial policy in Sub- Saharan Africa (23). Arbitration is currently regulated in Senegal, in the Code of Civil Procedure promulgated in 1964 (24). These provisions are quite similar to those of Cameroon and therefore, to the former Code of Civil Procedure of France. The law of December 31st 1925 is still applicable in Senegal.

However a new arbitration bill has already been drafted and submitted to the legislative
authorities. This law will probably be enacted in 1998.

– Chad

In this country, arbitration is governed by Ordinance of 28th July 1967, related to the Code of Civil Procedure (25). It is influenced by former French arbitration rules, like the other former French colonies. One should bear in mind that the law of 31st December 1925 is also applicable there.

– Democratic Republic of Congo (Ex – Zaire)

Although it is a francophone country, the Democratic Republic of Congo (Ex Zaire), is not a typical French colony. This country was a former colony of Belgium, which is also a French speaking country. Arbitration is regulated in The Democratic Republic of Congo (26) by articles 159 to 194 of the judicial Code of 1960 (27).

(iii) African States with international arbitration laws

To date, only three countries are concerned : Djibouti, Ivory Coast and Togo (28).

– Djibouti

The Djiboutian Code of International Commercial arbitration which was the very first African legislation on the matter of international arbitration was enacted in 1984 (29) .

It is influenced by the French decree of May 12th 1981 on international arbitration. The
definition of international commercial arbitration and the arbitral proceedings are organized
on the same legal basis. It is also in accordance with the modern instruments on international
arbitration such as the Geneva Convention of 1961 and the United Nation Commission for

International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law. It is important to note that The Federation
of the Chambers of Commerce of the member states of the Preferential Trade Area for
Eastern and Southern African States (“PTA”) (30) decided in 1987 to create a Regional
Arbitration Center based in Djibouti. As a result, the Djiboutian Code may be of considerable
importance for arbitration in the region during the coming years.

– Ivory Coast

The Code of Civil, Commercial and Administrative Procedure of Ivory Coast of 1972 (31) does not regulate arbitration. Thus, when the tribunals of this country were to decide on the issue of the validity of the arbitration agreement, during the late eighties, they faced a serious obstacle. In the presence of contradictory decisions made by the lower courts, the chambers of the Supreme Court gathered to decide on the issue, which led to a decision of April 4th 1989 (32) . According to this decision, the arbitration agreement is valid in Ivory Coast under the law of December 31st 1925.

In the light of the above the legislative authorities realised that the time had come to fill the
void in the area of arbitration in the country. This is why the law of August 9th 1993 related
to arbitration was passed.

The particular of this law is that it is nearly entirely based on the French decrees of 1980 on
domestic arbitration and 1981 on international arbitration (33) .

– Togo

This country has two sets of rules related to arbitration. The first ones are subject to the decree of March 15th 1982 (34) also influenced by the former French Code of Civil Procedure.

The second are regulated by the law of 28th November 1989 which creates a Court of
International Arbitration on the model of the ICC Court of International Arbitration, in order
to promote international arbitration in Togo (35) . To date, no records on arbitration
proceedings administered in Togo under the auspices of this Center have been brought to my
attention.

b) International sources of arbitration

These concern both bilateral accords (i) and multilateral conventions (ii).

(i) Bilateral accords

Following the independence of the early sixties, France signed a great number of accords
with its former colonies. They relate to co-operation in the field of justice and the enforcement
in one state of judgements handed down in another state. They also contain special provisions
regarding the recognition and enforcement of awards made in one country and “imported”
into the contracting country (36) .

Although very useful in practice, these accords are not specific to arbitration, as they are
generally limited to reference to provisions of the New York Convention.

(ii) Multilateral conventions

It will be sufficient to mention The New York Convention of 10th June 1958 and the European
Convention on International Arbitration of April 21st 1961.

– The New York Convention of 10th June 1958

It has been notable success in Francophone Africa (37). As a consequence, the Geneva
protocols of September 24th 1923 and September 26th 1927, ratified by France and
applicable to its former colonies are now of limited interest.

– The Convention on International Arbitration of 21st April 1961

This Convention was drafted under the auspices of the United Nations Commission for
Europe and concerned European East-West trade. Hence, in principle, the African countries
are not covered. However, I should point out that Burkina Faso adhered to the Geneva
Convention on January 26th 1965 (38).

III – The future : The OHADA Treaty

As a consequence of what has been mentioned above, one can see that the laws in force in
Francophone Africa are not harmonised. This situation causes serious harm to regional
policies for trade and investment in the former French colonies (39) .

Thus in 1963, the Ministers of Justice of the countries concerned aimed to harmonise the legal
systems they had inherited from the colonial period. This would make their legal systems
more coherent in order to facilitate their political and economic co-operation (40). Therefore,
in October 1992 in Libreville, (Gabon), the Heads of States of the Franc Zone approved the
project of a Treaty of Harmonisation of Business Laws. On October 17th 1993, the draft
Treaty for Harmonisation of Business Laws in Africa, was signed by fourteen member states,
and is already in force.

The Treaty is open to membership of other African countries and also to countries outside
Africa (41).

Article 3 of the Treaty creates an Organisation for Harmonisation of Business Laws so called
“OHADA”, composed of a Counsel of Ministers and a “Joint Court of Justice and Arbitration”
(JCJA) which will be in charge of the realization of the goals of the Treaty. The legislative
texts, termed “Uniform Acts” (42), which will be directly applicable and mandatory in the
Member States “notwithstanding any prior or subsequent domestic provision”, are the
principal means of realizing the objectives fixed in the Treaty.

The “OHADA” Treaty, attributes great importance to arbitration (43) and intends to set out
original rules in this matter. But to date, the “Uniform Act” on Arbitration has not yet been
drafted.

It seems important to emphasize the role of the JCJA (44) which has power of adjudication in
the issues of interpretation of the Treaty and also in judicial and arbitration matters.

Concerning this second power, the JCJA does not decide the dispute itself. It nominates or
confirms arbitrators, has an overview on the procedure and reviews the draft awards. The
JCJA also has power to grant exequatur to the final award.

In many aspects concerning arbitration, the organisation and powers the JCJA seem similar to
the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission or “CIETAC”, under
the auspices of which “foreign-related” arbitration is administered in China since 1995 (45).

It is noteworthy that the major concern of the Draftsmen of the OHADA Treaty was to secure
the efficiency of arbitration agreements and awards. In this respect, they found unnecessary to
provide for grounds for vacating arbitral awards, contrary to widespread understanding
elsewhere (46).

This new African System is original and audacious in that it has restricted recourse to the
JCJA against an arbitral award only at the stage of recognition and enforcement.

CONCLUSION

As we can see, arbitration in Africa must not be considered as terra incognita, although
currently, international arbitration is only incorporated into the laws of three Francophone
countries and in the “OHADA” Treaty.

Two other countries, Benin and Senegal are preparing to enact new laws on domestic and
international arbitration.

However, in general, the legislations in force in the region have no “African distinctness”.
They are very similar to the French system that they are based on, and The UNCITRAL
Model Law had no significant impact in francophone Africa, to date.

The expansion of international commercial arbitration in these countries will depend on the
enactment of modern legislations and the adhesion to the New York Convention of 1958.

In addition to this, the creation of efficient Arbitration Centers – the JCJA system still has to
prove itself – and the training of African lawyers must not be neglected.

Footnotes

1 See Tiewul S.A. and Tsegah F. “Arbitration and the settlement of commercial disputes : a
selective survey of African practice”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, July
1975, p. 393.

2 See inter alia, papers presented by Judge Austin NE Amissah (Ghana), Prince Bola Ajibola
(Nigeria), Stephen Kokerai (Namibia/Botswana), Geoffrey WM Kiryabwire (Uganda), Prof
David Butler (South Africa), Ian Donovan (Zimbabwe) at the Resolution of Trade and
Investments Dispute conference held in Johannesburg from 5-7 March 1997. Adde
“Arbitration in Africa”, The LCIA and Kluwer Law International, 1996.

3 On the issue of arbitration involving matters of investment law, see Roland Amoussou-
Guenou “International Commercial Arbitration in Sub-Saharan Africa : Laws and Practice”,
the ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Vol. 7/1 n°1, p. 63, and the footnotes…

4 See Bruno Oppetit “Philosophy of International Commercial Arbitration”, Journal Of
International Law (JDI) 1993, p. 811 and seq…

5 See Claude Lussan, “Législation de sociétés dans les territoires d’Outre-mer et dans les
territoires associés (A.O.F. – A.E.F. – Madagascar – Togo – Cameroun), A.I.D.E., Copyright
by Claude Lussan, 1953, pp. 20 & seq.
This principle was officially established by the Senatus-Consult (which is the denomination of
the decisions of the Senate under the first and second French Empire) of May 3rd 1854. See
also François Luchaire in the “Manuel de droit d’Outre-mer”, Paris, 1949. Adde “Quelles
sont les lois applicables de plein droit ?”, D. 1950, Chr. p. 135.

6 For example, the Former Code of Civil procedure in force in France since 1807 was
extended to The West and Central African colonies by Decree of 15th May 1889 (see L.A
1891, p. 39, J.CL Outre-mer, VI., Proc., Introduction). This rule has been reaffirmed by the
French Supreme Court. See Cass. Ch. Réunies 29th April 1959, Bull. civ. 1959, n° 4p. 3 (P.G.
Yaoundé c/ Fende) ; Bull. Civ. 1959, n° 3, p. 2 (P.G. Yaoundé c/ Malika).

7 See Decree of 15th May 1889.

8 See A. Allot, “Judicial and legal system in Africa”, London-Butterworths, 1962; J.
Vanderlinden, “Les systèmes juridiques africains”, PUF, p.32.

9 Mr. Justice Coudrey OBE, “Arbitation in Kenya”, paper presented at the Inaugural
Conference of the Pan- African Council of the London Court of International Arbitration
(LCIA), Nairobi, Kenya, 7- 8th December 1994, p. 1.

10 See A.J. Van Den Berg “Etude comparative du droit de l’arbitrage commercial
international dans les pays de Common Law”, Doctorate thesis in law, Aix, 1977. Adde T.
Hutchison “Africa and law. Developing legal systems in African Commonwealth nations”,
Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1968.

11 See J.P. Musseron, “Le pouvoir et la justice en Afrique francophone et à Madagascar”,
Paris, Pedone 1966, pp. 23 & seq ; Koffi Amega “Dix ans de droit en Afrique”, Penant 1972,
pp. 285 & seq.

12 See René Degni Segui “Codification et Unification du droit en Afrique francophone”, Rev.
Jur. et Pol. d’ Outre -mer, 1985, p. 285.

13 See decrees of 6th August 1907 and of 15th January 1910, “Legal Encyclopaedia of Black
Africa”, Les Nouvelles Editions africaines; ISTRA, 1982, part I, législation.

14 See Decree n° 54-325 of 16th march 1954, Recueil annoté des textes de procédure civile et
commerciale applicables en Afrique occidentale française de Gaston Jean Bouvenet, Paris,
ed. de l’Union Française, 1954.

15 See Lampue, “L’application des Traités dans les territoires et départments d’Outre mer”,
AFDI., 1960, p. 191.

16 See Alain Bockel “Les contrats administratifs : données générales, le problème de
l’arbitrage”, Encyclopédie juridique de l’Afrique, p. 265.

17 This expression applies also to the African countries of English influence. See A. Allot,
“Judicial and legal system in Africa”, op. cit, p. 54.

18 Information from Benin indicates that the Beninese authorities are preparing to pass a
domestic and international arbitration bill.

19 For more details on these countries, see Roland Amoussou-Guenou the ICC International
Court of Arbitration Bulletin, op. cit p. 64.

20 See Wendy Dorman, “Cameroon”, World Arbitration Reporter Issue 0 (1986) p. 1081.
21 See articles 576 to 601 (Book II part II)
22 Law n° 51/83 of 21st April 1983
23 Dakar was the capital of the French empire in Black Africa.

24 See Book III, title I (arbitrations), articles 795 to 820

25 See articles 370 to 383

26 See articles 159 to 194.

27 See Decree of March 7th 1960, updated on July 30th 1985.

28 Draft arbitration Bills are currently being prepared in Benin and Senegal.

29 See Law of 13 February 1984, Rev. arb. 1984, p. 533 & seq. commented by Yves Derains.

30 The PTA was created on 21st December 1981 and came into force on September 30th
1982.

31 See Law n° 72 833 of 21st December 1972, Official Gazette (J.O.R.C.I) of 5 February
1973.

32 See Talal Massi v/ Omais, April 4th 1989, Rev. arb. 1989, p. 530, commented on by
Laurence Idot

33 Law n° 93-671, Official Gazette (J.O.R.C.I.) of September 14th 1993.
34 See articles 275 to 290 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

35 See Law n° 89-31 of November 28th 1989, instituting an Arbitration Court (J.O.R.T. of
January 10th 1990).

36 See Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Liste des Traités et Accords de la France en Vigueur ….”,
Direction des Archives et de la Documentation , Conservation des Traités.

37 Cf. List of contracting states, Multilateral Treaties, UN Secretariat General, vol 330, p.3

38 Cf. list of signatory states, Multilateral Treaties, UN S ecretariat General, doc. I ONU XX
557, p. 744.

39 See Akimuni, A. M., “A plea for harmonisation of African investment laws”, African Law
Journal 1975, p. 134 & seq.

40 See Mr President Keba Mbaye, in “Harmonisation of Business law in the Franc Zone “. An
experience of judicial integration in Africa. Bulletin of the Institut International de Droit
d’Expression et d’Inspiration Françaises.

41 See article 53 of the Treaty.
42 See article 5 of the Treaty.
43 See articles 21 to 26.

44 See Aboubacar Fall, “Harmonisation of Commercial Law in the Franc Zone”,
International Business Lawyer, February 1995, vol. 23 n° 2 p. 82; Pascal Agboyibor “Recent
Developments in the Planned Harmonization of Business Law in Africa”, International
Business Law Journal, 1996, n° 3, p. 30 ; Roland Amoussou- Guenou “Arbitration Pursuant
to the Treaty For Harmonization For African Business Law”, International Business Law
Journal, 1996, n° 3, p.321.

45 See Sally A. Harpole, “International Arbitration in the People’s Republic of China under
the New Arbitratin Law”, The ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Vol. 6/N°1,
May 1995, p. 19.

46 See inter alia sections 66 and 67 of England Arbitration Act 1996, article 1504 of the
French New Code of Civil Procedure, article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law.