1. What are the best practices that can be adopted by nations for amending their arbitration laws?
I think what India has done is the best practice, which is to start by looking at the model law, tracking the model law and then thinking about— Are there things that we’ve learned from practice that maybe we want to modify or adapt a little bit differently?
India has a very strong arbitration law by actually not trying to be different and too creative, but following the model law and then taking some measures to make it a bit more reflective of local practice. I think that’s the best approach, and other countries should take that approach as well — Start with the model law and then think about whether you need to change it.
2. What are the key points to be considered while drafting a dispute resolution clause?
You have to start by asking the question— Do I want to do arbitration or litigation? And you need to think about the pros and cons of each. And then if you do arbitration, you need to decide whether you’re going to do institutional or ad hoc.
We just spend a lot of time talking about the benefits of institutional arbitration. You also need to think about which institution, and then you need to use its clause. The clause is going to be three or four sentences. That’s all you need. So you keep it simple. You follow the model clause, and you have a simple, effective, and efficient way to get to a predictable mechanism for resolving your disputes by doing it this way.
3. What is that one key takeaway from today’s panel discussion?
It is an amazing jurisdiction that has been asking itself very hard questions and challenging itself, and has become one of the leading arbitration jurisdictions in the world by thinking very hard about what what do we face, where we want to be and then putting that into action.
I think the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have been a real leader internationally and thinking about how do we make arbitration work properly and that filters down through the rest of the system. We talked about that.
We talked about not just the good parts but the challenges that are still to come. I’m really confident that this is a place where people are going to take on those challenges and keep progressing.
4. What are your views on the cutting-edge themes for discussion at DAW, and how relevant are they for the future of arbitration?
Everything that’s been discussed is relevant for the future of arbitration. I think this is the future of arbitration. But one of the things that I would take away from DAW is the vibrancy of the Indian legal community and the younger lawyers.
So there are challenges, but also the promise to figure out ways to make the young lawyers have a real role in this and to make sure that we’re continuing to progress to bring their energy, their enthusiasm, and give them the opportunity to thrive. I think that really has come through. We have the most senior judges, the most senior arbitrators from around the world here, but we have this really vibrant and energetic group of younger lawyers. And that’s really exciting. I don’t know if it’s a theme, but a reflection of what DAW is, this energy, and this promise, is very exciting.
5. Is this your first time at DAW?
It’s the first time I’ve been here in person. I did a hybrid event the first year, where I was sitting at home on video, which is not remotely the right experience. So, this is my first time here in person, and I will be back.
6. How was your experience?
It’s been wonderful. Really happy to be here, and I really look forward to having the chance to be here next year.
7. If you have to define Delhi Arbitration Weekend in one word, what would that be?
Energy!