I need the compare the status of the arbitration between different region. Below

I need the compare the status of the arbitration between different region. Below I have some drafting for the Latin America,, but I also need the way to improve the status of the arbitration law – from the experience of the Russian Federation and the USA
In the 1980s, international arbitration was virtually unknown in most Latin American countries. The restraint in its application was also due to the hostility to arbitration in the field of foreign investment, which was supported by the so-called Calvo doctrine.
But after a dozen years, against the background of the general economic liberalization of the region, the gradual adoption of this method of dispute resolution begins. At the beginning of the 21st century, it was stated: “It is no longer possible to say that there is hostility towards international arbitration in Latin America.” As a reminder, today the percentage of disputes involving parties from Latin American countries in the International Chamber of Commerce has grown to 15.8%.
To integrate this mechanism, most countries have taken as a basis the proposed Model Law on Arbitration of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Various legislative techniques were used. In some countries, the Model Law applied to both international and domestic arbitration, a situation known as monism. In other countries, the Model Law served only to regulate international commercial arbitration, a situation commonly referred to as dualism. The big picture can be summarized as follows.
Some countries have chosen the so-called tacit monism path: in these cases, the rules governing arbitration are based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, without mentioning or defining the difference between national and international arbitration. As a result, more liberal rules of international arbitration are applied at the national level (for example, parties can choose substantive law also in domestic arbitration, see Law No. 9.307 of Brazil).
At the same time, the stricter rules of domestic arbitration affect the international sphere (for example, special requirements for the form of the arbitration agreement in consumer disputes, see Law No. 36.430 of Venezuela and Law No. 708 of Bolivia). One of the varieties of this model is found in Mexico, the provision of which can be described as “unfinished monism”: the regulation of arbitration in Part IV of the Commercial Code, based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, includes the concept of international arbitration, but there are no rules for its application.
The situation in Peru (Decree No. 1071) and Honduras (Decree No. 161) can be described as “pivotal monism”. Thus, there is one legislative act that regulates arbitration in a single form, but includes several provisions that apply only to international arbitration.
Finally, in Colombia (Law No. 1.536) and Panama (Law No. 131), a situation of “differentiated monism” has developed, when monism is close to dualism. In particular, one piece of legislation has been adopted, which contains two separate chapters in relation to national and international arbitration. Both chapters follow the norms of the UNCITRAL Model Law, but there is a clear separation between the two types of arbitration, usually due to the more traditional and formal approach to domestic arbitration.
Finally, at least four Latin American countries (Chile, Costa Rica, Argentina and Uruguay) follow the model of “explicit dualism”. In the first issue of Arbitration.ru I already wrote that Argentina and Uruguay joined this model only in the middle of this year, and previously did not have special rules regarding international arbitration.
A number of countries have made great strides in their positioning in the field of international commercial arbitration. For example, in Brazil there are many decisions of national courts in relation to arbitration. A study of 11 decisions of higher courts for 2008-2016 allows us to conclude that the courts speak in favor of arbitration: only in 2 out of 11 cases higher courts confirmed the cancellation of the arbitral award.
According to statistics from the ICC International Court of Arbitration, in 2017 Brazil was ranked seventh in the world as a country of arbitration: 51 cases were considered there (compared to 36 cases in the previous year). Also in 2017, the Brazilian sides were ranked fourth in the world rankings. It remains an open question whether this growth was solely due to the size of the Brazilian economy, or whether it is the result of efforts to promote arbitration in Brazil and whether this process includes both national and international arbitration.
In turn, in Mexico, there are numerous signs of government support for arbitration. Perhaps the most difficult exception in this regard was the PEMEX v. COMMISA case. In the described case, the arbitral award was canceled due to non-arbitrability, which caused a wave of criticism against the Supreme Court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *