The members of the Singapore International Commercial Court (‘SICC’) include both Singaporean and non-Singaporean ‘international’ judges. The SICC is domestic, in that it is established under Singaporean law as a division of the Singapore Court system, and international in the sense that it hears international commercial disputes, including cases which have no connection with Singapore apart from a choice of court agreement designating the SICC as the forum for dispute resolution. This chapter identifies the rationales for the appointment of international judges to the SICC, contrasting the SICC with domestic courts which use foreign judges and with nine other international commercial courts around the world. It shows how the different objectives and target markets of international commercial courts, as well as the constitutional laws and traditions of the host state, influence the decision whether or not to appoint foreign judges. The chapter suggests that international commercial dispute resolution today favours the appointment of specialist foreign judges to commercial courts having similar aspirations as the SICC.

This entry examines whether the existing transparency gap between the investment treaty arbitration and international commercial arbitration regimes should be maintained, considering three factors: (i) the nature of the public interest, (ii) the role of confidentiality, and (iii) the role of party autonomy. The author concludes that the transparency gap should - as a general matter - be maintained. Although the public interest in particular international commercial arbitration cases can be significant - most notably in cases involving state entities or statutory claims - on a systemic level the public interest in internationalcommercial arbitration contrasts sharply with investment treaty arbitration, where cases consistently involve state entities and challenges to government measures. Equally important, two cornerstones of international commercial arbitration also support the existing transparency gap: (i) the availability of discreet and dispassionate dispute resolution, made possible by confidential proceedings, and (ii) the primacy of party autonomy. But with respect to the public availability of arbitral awards, the author concludes that the transparency gap should be narrowed significantly, given larger developments regarding international commercial dispute resolution and public access to decision-making.

The recent emergence of international commercial courts as a distinct species of court raises numerous legal issues as to the relationship and interaction between those courts and pre-existing national courts. In some jurisdictions, such as Singapore, the relationship between the courts has been harmonious. Yet in others the creation of new, international commercial courts has fomented conflicts or 'turf wars' between the courts. This potential behavioural aspect of courts is not new, and one may find examples from English legal history of rivalries between courts. On occasion those rivalries are evident in the modern world, including in relation to the international commercial courts of Dubai. This chapter considers historical examples of conflicts within the English court system and the nature of international commercial courts, and discusses instances from Dubai of where the DIFC and Dubai courts have clashed.

In a world of cross-border transactions, parties could not find until recently recourse to international courts for cases involving exclusively private parties from different jurisdictions. International commercial arbitration instead assumed the role of default jurisdiction for the resolution of disputes of such cross-border transactions. The identified gap in international adjudication has eventually given rise to a new species of courts: international commercial courts (ICommCs). ICommCs are domestic courts as they are established under a domestic legal order, but are different from the ordinary courts of the host jurisdiction in a number of ways. At the same time, they have an international character due to their institutional design as well as the cross-border nature of their caseload. ICommCs are a novel addition to the international dispute settlement system as they represent an effort to globalise dispute resolution using a bottom-up approach. Overall, they are part of a new form of transnational adjudication that blurs traditional dichotomies between domestic and international, and public and private.

International commercial courts (ICommCs) are an ideal breeding ground for new technologies: delicate cross-border disputes cannot be adequately managed and resolved, if courts do not harness the potential of information and communications technologies. Mindful of this, ICommCs tend to infuse their procedures with technology, with a view to maximising efficiency and enhancing their attractiveness on the market for dispute resolution services. This chapter provides a comparative overview of the different uses of technology at ICommCs, following the typical chronological development of an international dispute: from the conclusion of the choice-of-court agreement, throughout the key stages of the proceedings (e.g. case-management conference, written submissions, taking of oral evidence), until the enforcement of the resulting judgment. The chapter assesses the impact of different technologies on ICommC litigation, not only in terms of efficiency, but also with regard to due process, and the enforceability of the resulting judgment.

Despite divergencies, international commercial courts have in common the claim to be different from the ordinary courts. This chapter examines the differences in procedure between international commercial and ordinary courts by focusing on three distinctive features: namely, the cross-border character of the disputes they handle, the voluntary establishment of their jurisdiction and their arbitration features. It starts by exploring the notion of an international dispute across various international commercial courts and identifies broad internationality criteria. Then, this chapter turns to the voluntary jurisdiction of international commercial courts. It illustrates that in order to attract disputes, international commercial courts had to ease the establishment of their jurisdiction and loosen their jurisdictional requirements. Lastly, it is demonstrated how international commercial courts and their arbitration features attempt to beat the allegedly ‘unbeatable’ virtues of arbitration. In conclusion, this chapter assesses the procedural differences between international commercial and ordinary courts and their potential to enhance the attractiveness of the former over the latter.

Exigencies of hyper-globalized, invariably transnational, trade have exerted immense pressure on the global legal infrastructure to produce a dispute resolution mechanism that attends to the needs of international commerce. In this chapter, it is argued that international commercial courts (ICommCs) possess structural features that allow them to fill in that lacuna. Furthermore, it is argued that ICommCs are predisposed to implement a new wave of harmonization of international commercial law, with English common law at the forefront of this effort. Harmonization of international commercial law is argued to be desirable both theoretically, but more importantly, from a practical standpoint of increasing efficiency. Through the perusal of the most recent and prominent examples of ICommCs, it is further posited that these courts, thanks to their jurisdictional reach, procedural laws, bench composition and judgment enforcement are substantially better positioned than domestic courts or arbitral tribunals to effect such harmonization.

How international are international commercial courts (ICommCs)? Among lawyers, the notion of international courts (ICs) comes with a strong public international law connotation. This chapter traces examples of hybridity in international adjudication, focusing particularly on the admixing of domestic and international judicial forms, practices and legal cultures. More specifically, we focus on three core forms of hybridity in relation to ICs and ICommCs: professional, institutional and legal. After surveying a number of past and current ICs, we argue that hybridity is not a phenomenon only found in domestic international courts, but also a feature of many ‘proper’ ICs. We find that all three forms of hybridity are found at both ICs and ICommCs, which suggests that these – at first glance distinct forms of transnational adjudication – are in fact converging on a number of levels.

This chapter looks at the current relationship between international commercial courts (ICommCs) and international commercial arbitration (ICA). It first covers the historical background and current drivers for international dispute resolution. It finds ICommCs are of complex identity whose utility will be tested by market choice. The chapter then discusses what is meant by autonomy in the present context, and continues by looking at the needs and requirements of international dispute resolution (‘imperatives’) from a number of perspectives: those of the consumer (the ‘business imperative’), of governments (the ‘political imperative’) and of non-arbitral decision-makers (the ‘jurisprudential imperative’). From that review, a measure of interdependence between ICA and ICommCs emerges. The chapter ends with the conclusion that ICA and ICommCs will enjoy a competitive and collaborative, but not hybrid, relationship.

This chapter discusses the jurisdiction provisions of various international commercial courts (ICommCs). The aim is to show, on the basis of examples from Europe and Asia, under which circumstances these courts can be solicited. This contribution does not endeavour to systematically address all existing ICommCs. It puts less emphasis on ICommCs created for special economic zones which are stand-alone courts but focuses instead on the European ICommCs, the SICC and the CICC, which remain international chambers within the ordinary court system, albeit being subject to specific rules or protocols. The latter are more interesting for the purpose of this chapter, as the choice of a particular court division with certain special features is not a common choice of court under private international law rules. The main issues this chapter addresses are choice-of-court agreements, specific agreements on proceedings in English before an ICommC as well as rules permitting a transfer of cases to an ICommC.

Depending upon how one defines the term ‘international commercial court’, the twenty-first century has witnessed a growth, particularly in the Middle East and Asia, of specialist courts which appear to have been established with the resolution of international commercial disputes in mind. This chapter considers the role these new courts are fulfilling in the field of international commercial dispute resolution, with a particular emphasis on the role and character of the judiciary and the development of jurisprudence, as well as broader issues relating to access to justice more generally. There also features a short case study in relation to the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre.

This chapter examines the regulation of counsel within international commercial courts, with particular attention given to such courts in Qatar, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Singapore. The chapter begins by assessing debate on counsel ethics within international arbitration. Because debate within international arbitration is more developed, it offers a background for identifying challenges endemic to the ethical regulation of transnational lawyering in international commercial courts. The chapter then identifies three regulatory approaches to regulating counsel practising before these courts. It is argued that this diversity affords due space to the distinct institutional structures and needs of the various courts and that it would be imprudent and unnecessary to pursue greater harmonization.

The rise of international commercial courts in the past fifteen years or so is a game changer for dispute resolution. The thriving success of the Commercial Court of England and Wales may be the source of inspiration for the design and operation of a number of the existing international commercial Courts. notably, it is often said that the international commercial courts compete for lucrative judicial business but this so-called competition has never been properly analysed. Are these courts competing for the same kinds of judicial business? Are their frameworks strategically designed to advance their ambition? This chapter examines the jurisdictional frameworks of three notable international commercial courts: the Chinese International Commercial Court, the Commercial Court of England and Wales and the Singapore International Commercial Court. The discussion shows that a careful scrutiny of the jurisdictional rules of the aforesaid courts will tell us a lot about their respective strategic interests and competitive advantages.