Arbitration Developments in the Middle East and Asia 2010

Arbitration Developments in the Middle East and Asia 2010 Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. (BST) Web Seminar When You Think INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION, Think Fulbright. TM

Administrative Today's program will be conducted in a listen-only mode. To ask an online question anytime throughout the program simply click on the question mark icon located on the tool bar in the bottom right side of your screen. We will try to answer your question during the Q&A session at the end of the program. Everything we say today is opinion. We are not dispensing legal advice, and listening does not establish an attorney/client relationship. This discussion is off the record. Anything we say cannot be quoted without our express written permission. If the press is listening, you may contact us and we may be able to speak on the record. 2

Speakers David Howell Partner, Co-Head of firm's International Arbitration practice dhowell@fulbright.com +44(0)20-7832 3605 Jonathan Sutcliffe Partner jsutcliffe@fulbright.com +971 4 293 2107 Richard Hill Partner rhill@fulbright.com +852 2283-1088 3

Asia Richard Hill Partner Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, Hong Kong When You Think INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION, Think Fulbright. TM

Asian Arbitration Venues: Adoption in Asia of New York Convention Australia 1975 Malaysia 1985(R+C) Bangladesh 1992 New Zealand 1983(R) Brunei 1996 South Korea 1973(R+C) Cambodia 1960 Pakistan 2005(R) China 1987(R+C) Philippines 1967(R+C) Hong Kong* 1977 Singapore 1986(R) India 1960 Sri Lanka 1962 Indonesia 1981(R+C) Thailand 1959 Japan 1961(R+C) Vietnam 1995 (R+C) Principal exception: Taiwan, though the PRC s Supreme People s Court has issued provisions giving recognised Taiwan judgments and arbitral awards the same effect as PRC judgments * New York Convention does not apply to enforcement of HK awards in Mainland China as it is part of the same country, but HK awards are enforceable in Mainland China as outlined below 5

Asian Arbitration Venues: Adoption in Asia of UNCITRAL Model Law Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994 Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 341) 1990 and draft unified revised law Australia International Arbitration Act 1974 New Zealand Arbitration Act 1996 India Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Taiwan Arbitration Law 1998 South Korea Arbitration Law 1999 Thailand Arbitration Act 2002 Japan Arbitration Law 2003 Malaysia Arbitration Law 2005 Not Model Law Indonesia Arbitration and Conciliation Law 1999 PRC Arbitration Law 1995 6

7 Institutional Caseloads Increasing caseloads at major arbitration institutions: 836 215 285 817 160 649 1,482 2009 703 74 215 663 85 602 1,230 2008 621 81 137 599 86 448 1,118 2007 586 64 130 593 88 394 981 2006 580 53 118 521 74 281 979 2005 614 45 87 561 78 280 850 2004 646 77 104 580 64 287 709 2003 672 50 88 593 64 320 688 2002 649 68 71 566 64 307 431 2001 510 66 81 541 58 298 543 2000 AAA/ICDR SCC LCIA ICC SIAC HKIAC CIETAC

Can You Arbitrate China-Related Disputes Outside of China? Restrictions on place of arbitration Domestic parties to a contract with no foreign element cannot validly agree to arbitrate in a foreign country under PRC law Article 128 Contract Law 1999 - only parties to a foreign related contract can choose Chinese or other arbitration body Foreign related : one or both parties are foreign; subject matter or act which creates, modifies or extinguishes rights or obligations is outside PRC Chinese subsidiaries of foreign companies treated as domestic. So consider structure of investment for this reason, as well as BITs? Even if you can agree to arbitrate outside of China, you may prefer to arbitrate in China on the grounds that the Chinese courts will only grant interim measures in support of Chinese arbitrations 8

So if you have to (or agree to) arbitrate in China Ad hoc arbitration not permitted within China Article 16: a valid arbitration agreement under PRC law requires arbitration commission to be stated Article 10 of Arbitration Law 1995 provides for establishment of Arbitration Commissions Does Article 16 mean a Chinese commission? What about international institutions such as ICC? Traditional view is that commission must be Chinese Zublin case SPC refused to enforce award rendered in Shanghai under ICC Rules as no commission named Duferco case April 2009 PRC Court ordered enforcement of ICC Award Seat of arbitration was Beijing Arbitration agreement had not been challenged in time SPC not consulted on enforcement China will enforce foreign awards rendered by ad hoc tribunals and non-chinese institutions 9

Options when you need / choose to arbitrate in China CIETAC is often first choice 210 PRC arbitration commissions The leading arbitration institution in China is the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission ( CIETAC ), established in 1956. Headquartered in Beijing with sub-commissions in Shanghai, Shenzhen, Tianjin, and Chongqing. Developments at CIETAC 2005 Rules Parties may agree seat outside PRC (Article 31) Clearly only for foreign-related arbitrations So parties can obtain a CIETAC award enforceable under the New York Convention in China May agree rules of procedure (Article 4(2)) May agree non-cietac panellists Optional list system for sole or presiding arbitrator 10

Chinese features of CIETAC arbitration Features of CIETAC arbitration that may concern foreign parties: Limitations on the selection of arbitrators from the official Panel unless otherwise agreed by the Chinese party and approved by CIETAC Mechanism for the appointment of the chairman does not require neutral nationality so chairman usually a CIETAC-appointed Chinese arbitrator Very low remuneration of arbitrators discourages foreign arbitrators from accepting appointments Ad valorem fee scale which results in high costs in large disputes Rule that Chinese language is the official language of proceedings unless otherwise agreed Over-simplified fast-track procedures and very short hearings rarely lasting above a day Heavy reliance is on formal documentary evidence and lack of reliance on informal documents such as emails Limited information exchange / document production before the hearing (the rules do not expressly give the power to order production) Lack of reliance on oral evidence, with witness examination seldom allowed Inquisitorial approach CIETAC Rules Article 37: Tribunal may gather evidence Article 38: Tribunal may appoint expert, who will not necessarily attend the hearing for questioning / explanation An emphasis on fairness and equity in making awards Restrictions on the right of foreign lawyers to interpret Chinese laws Tendency of arbitrators to want to conciliate the dispute 11

So, drafting suggestions if you choose to (or have to) agree to arbitrate in China Have a Chinese institution don t (for now) risk foreign (e.g. ICC) arbitration with a China seat Probably go for CIETAC, but Include in your clause: Neutral nationality of sole arbitrator / Chairman Right to appoint outside CIETAC panel IBA Rules of Evidence, to ensure some degree of document production, witness evidence etc. English as an official language (with Chinese translation) Adversarial rather than inquisitorial approach Decision to be according to the governing law (not on the basis of equity or fairness) 12

Hong Kong Hong Kong, Singapore, Stockholm the most popular seats outside Mainland China for China-related arbitrations Growing caseload in Hong Kong especially for China/foreign cases A compromise seat in China-related contracts Cultural and linguistic ties with China But legal independence and respected judiciary English-based legal system Basic law guaranteed for 50 years from 1997 Availability of international arbitrators and counsel Location, facilities and infrastructure Chinese get their country, Westerners get their system 13

Hong Kong Enforcement of Hong Kong awards in China (and vice versa) New York Convention does not apply Arrangements Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between Mainland and Hong Kong SAR 2000 2007 confirmation of enforcement of Hong Kong ad hoc awards in PRC HKIAC administered arbitration rules (2008) designed for China-foreign disputes (about 80 a year). Clause must refer to administered arbitration Alternative to UNCITRAL Rules traditionally used by HKIAC Designed to increase use of HKIAC by Chinese parties Still more lightly administered than ICC or SIAC Costs choice of ad valorem or hourly rates 14

Hong Kong New ICC secretariat in Hong Kong September 2008, now administering over 100 Asian cases out of Hong Kong Reforms to the arbitration law of Hong Kong summer 2010 Unitary regime for international and domestic arbitrations New UNCITRAL Model Law Articles 17A to 17G regulating tribunal ordered interim measures Opt-in right of appeal on points of law Arbitrator may act as mediator if parties consent after arbitration commenced Enforcement of awards from non- NYC states where there is reciprocity 15

Maxwell Chambers New home for SIAC ICDR, ICC and PCA offices Hearing facilities Government support and tax measures Singapore Recent amendments to Arbitration Act Singapore courts can now grant interim orders in support of arbitrations held outside Singapore Email / online agreements can be used to conclude an arbitration agreement Provision for authentication of Singapore awards to facilitate enforcement overseas 16

Singapore Singapore International Arbitration Centre revised rules effective from 1 July 2010. Key changes include: A new rule providing for expedited procedure where the amount in dispute does not exceed S$5 million, where the parties agree or in cases of exceptional urgency. Award to be issued within six months of the constitution of the tribunal with reasons given in summary form A new rule dealing with multi-party appointment of arbitrators. The claimant and respondent jointly nominate the sole arbitrator or entire panel, failing which the SIAC chairman will appoint Explicit statement that ex parte communications with the presiding arbitrator are not permitted New provisions clarifying what written statements the parties should submit and their contents The deletion of the requirement that parties should submit a memorandum of issues New provision for joinder of third parties that are party to the arbitration agreement and consent A power granted to a committee of the SIAC board to determine any objection to jurisdiction raised before the tribunal is appointed, if its is satisfied that an arbitration agreement may exist A new rule 16 on interim emergency relief from the tribunal or an emergency arbitrator (if the tribunal is not yet constituted). The rule clarifies that the emergency arbitrator cannot subsequently act as an arbitrator in the dispute unless the parties agree otherwise Provision for arbitrators to order a party to provide security in connection with interim relief; A new rule 27 on applicable law. Amiable composition and ex aequo et bono principles are only to be applied if expressly authorised by the parties, and the tribunal should take into account trade usage applicable to the transaction; A revision allowing for the removal of arbitrators if they delay the case unnecessarily. Controversial Court of Appeal decision upholding hybrid SIAC-ICC arbitration clause (Insigma v Alstom): a route to cut-price ICC arbitration? 17

Korea and Japan Korea KCAB rising caseload (47 cases in 2008, 78 in 2009) 2007 International Rules aimed at encouraging foreign parties to select Korea: modelled on ICC. Clause must state International Rules, or regular KCAB rules apply Japan JCAA traditionally very low caseload (never >16 cases) Rarely selected as an international arbitration venue: cultural aversion to adjudicative process limitations on foreign lawyers appearing until recently 100-year old arbitration law not replaced until UNCITRAL Model Law adopted in 2004 18

India LCIA India launched in April 2009 First independent LCIA centre outside London (the LCIA also has a joint venture with the DIFC in Dubai) Confidence in the Indian arbitral process jeopardized in 2008 by the Venture Global decision of the Supreme Court of India, holding that foreign awards may be challenged under Part 1 of the Indian Arbitration Act 1996 unless the parties have agreed otherwise This allows the Indian courts to set aside foreign awards on the grounds of public policy if they contravene any provisions of Indian law However in the more recent decision by the Delhi High Court in Max India v General Binding the court refused to grant an injunction since the parties had agreed to arbitrate in Singapore and held that Part 1 of the Act was therefore excluded When investing in India, however, it remains advisable to provide for arbitration outside India and expressly to exclude the application of Part 1 of the Indian Arbitration Act. 19

Enforcement of awards in China: the concerns Increasing number of contracts between Chinese and foreign parties, giving rise to potential enforcement of awards in China Traditional concerns about enforcement against Chinese parties in China include: Local protectionism and connections Competence of judiciary in regions, low status of courts and lack of independence of judiciary from local government Inexperience of judiciary with international law, arbitration and enforcement Delay / inefficiency: Revpower case Corruption in court system Apprehension of courts using public policy to protect Chinese Earlier cases of non-enforcement for violation of social and public interest : Heavy Metal and Dong Feng v. Henan cases 20

Enforcement of awards in China: Positive Developments Some increasing international confidence in PRC courts record of enforcing foreign arbitral awards 2002 SPC Notice establishes centralised jurisdiction for enforcement Review of proposed non-enforcement by Supreme People s Court (1995 Notice) Only 11 recorded refusals of enforcement of foreign awards in the years from 2000 to 2007, including 5 cases where it was found that there was no (or no valid) arbitration agreement 4 cases where limitation had expired 2 due process cases (proceedings not served, or tribunal not appointed in accordance with agreement) 21

Enforcement of Awards in China: Recent Cases of Non-Enforcement Hemofarm First refusal to enforce foreign award on grounds of public policy PepsiCo v. Sichuan PepsiCo; PepsiCo (China) v. Sichuan Yunlv Industrial Co. Ltd First cases approved by the SPC for non-enforcement on the basis of a failure to conduct pre-arbitration negotiation as required by the arbitration clauses First Investment Corp. (Marshall Island) v. Fujian Mawei Ship Making Co., Ltd SPC approved non-enforcement on the basis that one-party appointed arbitrator did not participate in the whole course of the arbitration, nor attend the full deliberations 22

Potential Investment Claims under Chinese BITs China is party to BITs with 126 countries, of which over 90 are in force Second only to Germany Includes 40 out of 44 states in Asia 25 out of 27 EU states, and 76% of Europe 31 out of 53 African states 13 Latin American states Australia and New Zealand China is also a party to ICSID Convention MIGA Convention WTO Agreements FTA with ASEAN FTA with New Zealand (China s first FTA with an OECD country) 23

Potential Claims under Chinese BITs China does not have a BIT with USA, Canada or Brazil. As to the USA: U.S.-China Joint Statement, November 17, 2009: The two sides recognize the importance of open trade and investment to their domestic economies and to the global economy, and are committed to jointly fight protectionism in all its manifestations. The two sides agreed to work proactively to resolve bilateral trade and investment disputes in a constructive, cooperative, and mutually beneficial manner. Both sides will expedite negotiation on a bilateral investment treaty. 24

The Protection afforded by China BITs Protection offered Protection against expropriation Fair and equitable treatment of investments National treatment Repatriation of investments and returns Additional protection (more recent BITs) Full protection and security Umbrella clause (observation of contractual obligations) 25

China as a Capital Importer and Exporter China has been among the world s leading FDI recipients for several years (and is the leading recipient among developing nations) but also A rapidly growing role as a capital exporter.. Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Amount (USD 1 billion) 2.85 5.5 12.2 7 21.1 6 26.5 1 52.1 5 Source: Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") 26

Arbitration under Chinese BITs There is no public record of the international arbitration provisions in a China BIT ever having been officially invoked against China to date. Why? There are pending BIT claims by Chinese investors against other states, but not many 27

China BITs Two Generations 2 main periods of evolution: 1982 to 2001 First Generation China signed ICSID Convention in 1990 subject to an Article 25(4) Notification: The Chinese government would only consider submitting to the jurisdiction of ICSID disputes over compensation resulting from expropriation or nationalisation First Generation BITs generally provide limited recourse to international arbitration: often only available for disputes concerning the amount of compensation in cases of expropriation 28

Second Generation BITs 2001 onwards Second Generation China acceded to WTO in 2001 43 Second Generation BITs providing for arbitration of all disputes, including Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Korea, Spain, India, Russia, Mexico Six months negotiations, then ICSID or UNCITRAL arbitration Full right to submit any investment disputes to international arbitration (including fact of expropriation, and breaches of other protections) Effect of China s ICSID Notification that it would only submit to ICSID disputes of compensation resulting from expropriation? Consider structuring investment in China via a state with a second generation BIT providing full right to arbitration China has entered into BITs with 126 countries, but over 80 still have narrow arbitration clauses 29

Arguments Available to Investors from First Generation BIT States Seeking Arbitration Argument 1: the clause enabling arbitration of disputes concerning the amount of compensation for expropriation permits the tribunal to determine the fact of expropriation RosInvestCo UK v The Russian Federation Stockholm Chamber of commerce October 2007 NO Czech Republic v European Media Ventures SA English High Court December 2007 YES Renta 4 SVSA v The Russian Federation Stockholm Chamber of Commerce March 2009 YES Tza Yap Shum v The Republic of Peru ICSID June 2009 YES (First claim under a Chinese BIT) Even if this argument succeeds, it does not permit the Tribunal to deal with anything beyond expropriation 30

Arguments Available to Investors from First Generation Treaty States Seeking Arbitration Argument 2: Since investors from states with second generation BITs can arbitrate all investment disputes, investors from first generation states should be entitled to invoke those arbitral provisions by virtue of the Most Favored Nation clauses in the first generation BITs Neutral arbitration is perhaps the investor s most important right Conflicting decisions under international law as to whether the MFN clause extends to arbitration agreement: Maffezini v Spain ICSID 1997 and line of further decisions YES Plama v Bulgaria ICSID 2005 and a line of further decisions NO 31

Arguments Available to Investors from First Generation Treaty States Seeking Arbitration Recent ICSID decision under China Peru BIT: Tza Yap Shum v Republic of Peru ICSID June 2009 A Chinese investor in Peru sought to rely on the MFN clause in the Peru-China BIT to incorporate broad arbitration clause from the Peru-Columbia BIT. Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over expropriation claim but not other claims (fair and equitable treatment etc.) So it accepted the first argument (ability to decide fact as well as quantum of expropriation) but rejected the second argument (reliance on MFN clause to found tribunal s jurisdiction to deal with other breaches) 32

So, if you are investing in China Watch this space for US-China BIT Where possible, invest via a state with which China has a Second Generation BIT allowing arbitration of all investment disputes If you invest via a First Generation state, there may be a good argument for arbitral jurisdiction in the event of expropriation There is a possible, but more controversial, argument for arbitration of other disputes 33

Middle East Jonathan Sutcliffe Partner Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, Dubai When You Think INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION, Think Fulbright. TM

Seat general Seat of arbitration = legal place of arbitration A good seat is a necessity the law of the seat (lex arbitri) will affect numerous aspects of the arbitration A good seat has: Acceded to the New York Convention 1958 Permissive and supportive arbitration legislation (ideally based on the UNCITRAL Model Law) Expert judges and an efficient court system 35

Seat general (cont) A neutral and/or extra-regional seat of arbitration cannot always be agreed and may not always be appropriate When enforcing locally (within the Middle East region), in practice local awards (rendered in a seat in the Middle East) often face fewer obstacles to enforcement than other foreign arbitral awards 36

Some Middle East seats Historically Cairo has been the leading regional seat UAE Dubai and the DIFC Qatar Bahrain Saudi Arabia 37

Seat Cairo Law Concerning Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Matters (1994) Based on UNCITRAL Model Law 1985 Enforcement: New York Convention (since 1959) Riyadh Arab League Convention (since 1983) Note: Ministry of Justice Decree 8310/2008 requiring Ministry consent to deposit awards for enforcement in Egypt 38

Seat UAE Federal Civil Procedure Law (1992) contains only 15 Articles relating to arbitration New Federal arbitration law planned drafts published in 2006, 2008 and 2010 Enforcement: New York Convention (since 2006) Riyadh Arab League Convention (since 1985) GCC Convention (since 1985) 39

Seat DIFC Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) is a financial free zone and offshore jurisdiction within Dubai The DIFC has its own common law based legal system and English language courts whose rules are based on the English Commercial Court DIFC Arbitration Law 2008 (based on both the UNCITRAL Model Law 1985 and 2006) No link with DIFC required to agree DIFC as seat of arbitration Enforcement: NYC, Riyadh Convention, GCC Convention 40

Seat Qatar Civil & Commercial Procedure Code 1990 (Qatar) Qatar Financial Centre Arbitration Regulations (2005) based on UNCITRAL Model Law 1985 (QFC seat only) Enforcement: New York Convention (since 2003) Riyadh Arab League Convention (since 1999) GCC Convention (since 1996) 41

Seat Bahrain Civil & Commercial Procedure Code (1971) (domestic arbitration) International Commercial Arbitration Law 1994 (based on UNCITRAL Model Law 1985) New legislation planned (to up date to UNCITRAL Model Law 2006) Enforcement: New York Convention (since 1988) Riyadh Arab League Convention (since 1999) GCC Convention (since 1996) Bahrain Arbitration Free Zone 42

Seat Saudi Arabia Arbitration Law Decree M46 of 1983 Arbitration Procedure Rules Council of Ministers Resolution 7/2021/M of 27 May 1985 Close court control of arbitration Arbitration awards may be appealed, including consideration of the merits Enforcement: New York Convention (1994) Riyadh Arab Convention GCC Convention 43

Regional arbitration institutions Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) Seat of arbitration need not be Dubai Modern arbitration rules 2007 Executive Committee and Board of Trustees Large recent increase in caseload with downturn in Dubai Administration is currently overwhelmed by its caseload 44

Regional arbitration institutions (cont) DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre Set up in 2008 Modern arbitration rules based on the tried and tested LCIA Rules (London Court of International Arbitration) Seat need not be in DIFC Has its own Secretariat but can draw on LCIA resources Access to LCIA s arbitrator data base Modest case load so far 45

Regional arbitration institutions (cont) BCDR-AAA Tie up between Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution and the American Arbitration Association Launched in January 2010 Modern arbitration rules based on the AAA international arbitration rules (ICDR rules) 46

Enforcement New York Convention 1958 Most Middle East countries are NYC signatory states In theory, such Middle East signatory states have an obligation to enforce foreign arbitral awards except if one of the limited NYC grounds for refusal exists Gap between theory and practice for some countries 47

Enforcement Riyadh Convention 1983 Arab Convention on Judicial Cooperation, Riyadh 1983 Convention countries obliged to recognize and enforce court judgments and arbitral awards of other Convention countries The Convention sets out limited grounds on which enforcement of an arbitral award can be refused Art 37(e): enforcement can be refused if the award is contrary to the Shari a 48

Riyadh Convention 1983 (cont) Regional convention with which enforcing courts in the region may feel more comfortable (compared to NYC)? In countries which ratified the Riyadh Convention earlier than the NYC (e.g., UAE 1985 vs. 2006), courts may be more familiar with and have (more of) a track record of enforcement cases 49

Enforcement GCC Convention Arab Gulf Cooperation Council Convention for the Execution of Judgments, Delegations [Letters Rogatory] and Judicial Notifications GCC countries: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE GCC countries obliged to execute final court judgments and arbitral awards of other GCC member states Convention sets out limited grounds on which enforcement can be refused 50

Grounds include: GCC Convention (cont) If the award is in violation of the provisions of the Shari a If the award is issued against the Government of the State where the award is to be enforced or against Government officials (for acts in the performance of their duties) Courts of GCC countries have higher comfort level with enforcement cases where the awards were rendered in other GCC countries as opposed to enforcement under other conventions? 51

Enforcement of foreign award UAE Common past reasons for denial of enforcement: Art 235(2)(a) Civil Procedure Law ( CPL ) requires court to determine that original dispute was not subject to jurisdiction of UAE courts + Arts 20 and 24 CPL give UAE courts non-waivable jurisdiction over claims involving UAE parties and foreigners with sufficient nexus to the UAE Reciprocity: requirement that country in which award rendered enforces awards rendered in UAE 52

Enforcement of foreign award UAE (cont) Now, UAE is a New York Convention party (since 2006) No track record yet under NYC In theory, Articles 235-238 CPL (enforcement) should no longer apply In practice, party seeking enforcement may still need to comply with CPL (grounds for refusal to enforce: due process/procedural; public policy; plus reciprocity and Art 235(2)(a)) Also Riyadh Convention, GCC Convention and bilateral treaties (France, India, Egypt) 53

Enforcement of foreign award Saudi Arabia Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in KSA very difficult, despite KSA being a party to the New York Convention, Riyadh Convention and GCC Convention Board of Grievances oversees enforcement Threshold requirements: Reciprocity Foreign award complies with the Shari a as enforced in KSA Effectively re-trial on the merits 54

Investment treaty protection Bahrain: 14 in force BITs (incl. France, UK, US, China, Singapore) Egypt: over 70 in force BITs Iraq: only one in force BIT (Kuwait, from 1966) Jordan: over 30 in force BITs (many with European countries, other Middle East countries, US, Korea) 55

Investment treaty protection (cont) Kuwait: over 35 in force BITs (China, but not UK or US) Oman: 19 in force BITs (China, Korea, UK, but not US) Qatar: 13 in force BITs (Switzerland, Italy, Germany, France, China, Korea) Saudi Arabia: nine in force BITs (China, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Korea) 56

Questions? David Howell Partner, Co-Head of firm's International Arbitration practice dhowell@fulbright.com +44(0)20-7832 3605 Jonathan Sutcliffe Partner jsutcliffe@fulbright.com +971 4 293 2107 Richard Hill Partner rhill@fulbright.com +852 2283-1088 57

When You Think INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION, Think Fulbright. TM AUSTIN BEIJING DALLAS DENVER DUBAI HONG KONG HOUSTON LONDON LOS ANGELES MINNEAPOLIS MUNICH NEW YORK RIYADH SAN ANTONIO ST. LOUIS WASHINGTON, D.C. www.fulbright.com 866-FULBRIGHT [866-385-2744] 58