Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. The Possibility of the Consideration of Investment Disputes by International Commercial Arbitration. – 3. The Correlation of the ‘Place of Dispute’ ICA with the Theory of Delocalisation. – 4. The Procedure for Establishing Institutional Arbitration Courts. – 5. Changing the Procedure for Appointing Arbitrators. – 6. Conclusions.
International commercial arbitration (ICA) is an alternative way to resolve foreign economic disputes. Initially, arbitration itself was seen as a neutral court in which the parties to the dispute were independent of national courts. Arbitration agreements and decisions must be recognised by national courts without any
complications or review procedures.
Although granting commercial parties some independence to agree that their dispute will be considered by independent arbitrators is a key principle in ICA, the struggle for supremacy between national laws and national courts on the one hand and the autonomy of the parties and the independence of the international arbitration system on the other continue. Over the years, national laws have sought to control, regulate, interfere with, or support ICA in various ways. To counter attempts to ‘localise’ ICA and promote equality in this area, private, professional institutions and international and intergovernmental organisations have developed a significant body of law designed to ensure self-government and dispute settlement procedures in ICA.
Nevertheless, international commercial arbitration cannot exist independently of national jurisdictions. Examining the activities of ICA, it can be seen that the importance and impact of national arbitration laws and national judicial supervision are significantly reduced, but the lex fori still plays an important role in arbitration. Thus, the reform of the normative regulation of international arbitration also affected Ukraine. The note analyses the radical changes proposed by the legislator regarding the procedure for establishing institutional arbitrations, expanding the arbitrability of disputes