of its home jurisdiction, e.g. the US
AAA-rules
Trade Arbitration Commission
Pragmatic, Neutral Solution
option of choosing the Arbitration Rules
of the CEAC (CEAC Rules)
been specifically designed for such an
occasion for three reasons.
First, they are tailor-made for
the Chinese market. They include a
number of details which are the result
of discussions with Chinese experts
involved in making and controlling the
rules. For example, the CEAC Rules
ensure that any wording of the arbitration
clause referring to arbitration under the
CEAC Rules will always be interpreted
as referring to institutional arbitration
administered by CEAC
in China
The Chinese judge in charge of an
enforcement of a CEAC award under the
New York Convention will thereby relate
to a form of arbitration which is known to
him.
intensified neutrality which is the basis
for their international acceptability, also
in China.
of Germany, is acceptable to Chinese
merchants as Hamburg is the sister
city of Shanghai
by many Chinese as a "gateway to
Europe."
legal dialogue and are based on
the neutral arbitration rules of
International Trade Law of the United
Nations
creating the rules or the administration
of arbitrations, includes members from
China, Europe and the world (e.g.
Brazil, U.S.). This concerns the case
management, the appointing authority
and the advisory boards of CEAC, the
arbitration centre, and its shareholder,
the NGO Chinese European Legal
Association (CELA).
Rules is neutral. It is based on
instruments which the state of China
was involved in making. Even the
German arbitration law (which comes
into play in the worst case scenario
of a legal battle over a CEAC case
Arbitration Law. The CEAC choice of
law clause
of the International Sale of Goods
or the UNIDROIT Principles of
International Commercial Contracts as
a neutral set of rules.
number of pragmatic adaptations to
the underlying UNCITRAL Arbitration
Rules, designed for ad hoc arbitrations,
in order to create a secure ground for
the case administration by CEAC as
an institution. Such adaptations relate,
for example, to communication (filing,
sending of copies to CEAC) or to costs
(e.g. VAT issues).
been accepted by many parties from
around the globe. CEAC Ambassadors
in Algeria, Argentina, Colombia, Hong
Kong, Switzerland and as well as CEAC
and CELA events in over 30 cities and
19 jurisdictions around the globe help
to promote the rules. The Willem C. Vis
Moot has based its 2013 problem on a
case which is to be decided under the
CEAC Rules.
The first cases mainly relate to alleged
contract violations in the energy or, for
example, the shipping industry. Some
of the cases concern disputes between
Chinese and European companies (from
Germany, Italy or Spain). Other cases
are due to disputes between German
companies and companies from Western
Europe, Canada or Israel. In these cases
the relation to the Chinese market is
indirect, e.g. by one of the companies
being a subsidiary of a Chinese company.
The total dollar amount of CEAC
administered disputes already reaches over
80 million USD (ca. 60 mio. euro). For more
information see www.ceac-arbitration.com
and www.cela-hamburg.com.
Kleinheisterkamp, Commentary on the UNIDROIT
Principles of International Commercial Contracts
(PICC), Oxford 2009, Introduction, marginal No. 21;
Brödermann, The impact of the UNIDROIT Principles
on international contract and arbitration practice - The
experience of a German lawyer -, Uniform Law Review
2011, p. 589 et seq.
3 Dated 10 June 1958; and entered into force on 7 June
(2013), p. 119 et seq. (on CIETAC).
Journal of International Arbitration (J.Int.Arb.) 2013,
303-327.
8 Kun Fan, Arbitration in China (op. cit. note 5), p. 40 et seq.
9 For further examples, see Brödermann, op. cit., J.Int.Arb.
Petersburg.
its §§ 1025 et seq., the German arbitration law.