The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the international arbitration community on an unprecedented level.  Our community, however, has proven itself to be resilient and quick to adapt to the ever-changing dynamics.  Whereas the Queen Mary, University of London 2018 International Arbitration Survey found 64% of respondents had never used “virtual hearing rooms” with only 8% having done so frequently or always, international travel restrictions and lockdowns have made remote hearings the new norm.

Despite the now regular use of remote hearings, the issue of whether a tribunal has the authority to order a remote hearing remains a hot topic of discussion. Indeed, the 28th Willem C Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot (2021) has posed this question as one of the procedural issues to be addressed by the participants.  In addition to being frequently addressed by tribunals, it is certainly poised to be a common issue raised in set-aside proceedings. 

Having faced the issue ourselves in mid-2020, we found many publications concerning procedural best practices, but a lack of comprehensive analysis under the UNCITRAL Model Law. 

We are proud to announce the publication of our analysis entitled: “Authority to Order a Remote Hearing Over a Party Objection: A Model Law Perspective”, in World Arbitration and Mediation Review (WAMR).