As with any other contract, general rules of interpretation are crucial to ascertain the scope and reach of arbitration agreements. The Supreme Court recently missed the chance to provide a sharper and more sophisticated decision concerning the applicable legal rules of interpretation of arbitration agreements, which is a crucial matter for the uniform enforcement of international commercial arbitration agreements.
The autonomy of parties to agree on an arbitral procedure is a basic principle of international commercial arbitration. However, parties occasionally try to deny the recognition of awards issued according to agreed rules, claiming that they are unfair or contrary to due process. A recent Supreme Court case on this matter helps to circumscribe the concept of 'proper notice' and protects parties' procedural autonomy, which will ensure the continuing development of international commercial arbitration.
In international commercial arbitration, parties sometimes try to apply domestic civil procedural rules and argue that arbitral awards made in violation of these rules should be vacated for being contrary to public policy. However, a recent court decision shows that public policy cannot be assimilated with every procedural rule and requirement applicable to domestic litigation, and should thus deter future parties from trying to vacate arbitral awards by invoking possible conflict with the Civil Procedure Code.