Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
GEORGIOS PETROCHILOS* The revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, which came into effect in August 2010 (the 2010 Rules or, where the context permits, simply the Rules), regulate interim measures in greater detail than most other sets of arbitration rules.1 In part, this is due to having the benefit of UNCITRAL's extensive prior work on an even more detailed regulation of the matter, in Articles 17-17J of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law). This work had been completed just before the revision of the UNCITRAL Rules started.2 A further reason was the recognition that more specific guidance will help parties and arbitrators in respect of several issues, in particular the circumstances in which interim measures may be granted and revoked. Such guidance is perhaps particularly useful in the context of ad hoc proceedings under arbitration rules with a vocation to apply in conjunction with any domestic arbitration law (or even international law) and with the imprimatur of the United Nations. The 2010 Rules, just like the 1976 Rules before them, regard the concept of interim measures as comprising both provisional and conservatory measures.3 And in the literature, too, the notion of interim measures is broadly
ASA Bulletin – Kluwer Law International
Published: Jan 2, 2010
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.