BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Maxwell Chambers - ECPv6.2.8.1//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Maxwell Chambers
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.maxwellchambers.com
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Maxwell Chambers
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Asia/Singapore
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
TZNAME:+08
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:Europe/London
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20240331T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20241027T010000
END:STANDARD
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:Asia/Shanghai
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:Asia/Ho_Chi_Minh
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0700
TZOFFSETTO:+0700
TZNAME:+07
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240222T140000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240222T153000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051409
CREATED:20240115T052836Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240129T014934Z
UID:10000186-1708610400-1708615800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:ICC Panel Discussion
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://2go.iccwbo.org/ethics-roulette-placing-bets-on-integrity-in-arbitration.html#programme#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/ICC-Dispute-Resolution-Services.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20240222T103000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20240222T123000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051410
CREATED:20240213T083921Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240214T013754Z
UID:10000101-1708597800-1708605000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:AAA-ICDR event
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://americanarb.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_cN-txYEaQZeSMODPHBahsQ#/registration#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Events-Featured-Image.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240222T090000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240222T140000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051410
CREATED:20231226T033427Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240808T024829Z
UID:10000074-1708592400-1708610400@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:IBA Arb40 Symposium
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.ibanet.org/conference-details/CONF2483#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/IBA.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240222T090000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240222T110000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051410
CREATED:20240208T005137Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240208T005137Z
UID:10000211-1708592400-1708599600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Asian and German Perspectives on Post M&A Disputes
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.disarb.org/en/events/dissingapore-asian-and-german-perspectives-on-post-ma-disputes#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/DIS-German-Arbitration-Institute.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20240221T173000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20240221T200000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051410
CREATED:20240125T065744Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T084007Z
UID:10000204-1708536600-1708545600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:An evening with ACICA in Singapore
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.linkedin.com/posts/australian-centre-for-international-commercial-arbitration_acica-internationalarbitration-arbitration-activity-7156129978298912769-yCtM#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Networking,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/ACICA.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240221T173000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240221T190000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051410
CREATED:20240206T095537Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240206T095537Z
UID:10000209-1708536600-1708542000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:YSIAC Event: Enforcement Trends in Investment Treaty Arbitration
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://siac.org.sg/event/ysiac-event-enforcement-trends-in-investment-treaty-arbitration#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SIAC-Feature-Image.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20240221T153000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20240221T170000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051410
CREATED:20240208T010053Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240208T010122Z
UID:10000212-1708529400-1708534800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:ICCA 2024 Hong Kong Roadshow in Singapore
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://sites-rpc.vuturevx.com/16/5167/landing-pages/rsvp-blank.asp#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ICCA.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240221T093000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240221T120000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051410
CREATED:20240215T070508Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240215T070508Z
UID:10000106-1708507800-1708516800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:ERA Pledge Training Event
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://hkiac.glueup.com/event/99026/#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Singapore Events,Workshop
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ERA-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240221T091500
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240221T180000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051410
CREATED:20240125T064211Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240808T024851Z
UID:10000203-1708506900-1708538400@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:CIArb YMG Arbitration Conference
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://forms.gle/gVjQogLrzfHtCuat7#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Conference,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ciarb.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240221T090000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240221T100000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051410
CREATED:20240213T011605Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240215T065048Z
UID:10000099-1708506000-1708509600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:SG VYAP-COLVYAP collaboration event
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.tickettailor.com/events/singaporevyap/1150488##new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/SG-VYAP-Featured-Image.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240208T173000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240208T203000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051410
CREATED:20240102T013520Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240119T075910Z
UID:10000076-1707413400-1707424200@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:SIArb Annual Seminar
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/event/siarb-annual-seminar-2024-developments-in-singapore-arbitration/
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Seminar,Singapore Events,Supported Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SIArb.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240208
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240209
DTSTAMP:20260910T051410
CREATED:20240208T003228Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240307T005245Z
UID:10000210-1707350400-1707436799@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:[Ep 2] Maxwell En-Route: David Teece\, Co-Founder\, Berkeley Research Group
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/maxwell-enroute/#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Happenings by Maxwell Chambers
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Maxwell-Chambers-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240202T090000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240202T100000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051410
CREATED:20240119T082912Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240125T071645Z
UID:10000187-1706864400-1706868000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Reflections on International Justice
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.eventbrite.com/e/reflections-on-international-justice-tickets-804909775807?aff=oddtdtcreator#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/SG-VYAP-Featured-Image.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240202
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240203
DTSTAMP:20260910T051410
CREATED:20240202T094329Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240205T005953Z
UID:10000208-1706832000-1706918399@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:10 Questions With Maxwell Interview Series: Hon Paul Heath KC\, Bankside Chambers
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/2024/02/02/10questionswithmaxwell-interview-series-hon-paul-heath-kc-bankside-chambers/#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Happenings by Maxwell Chambers
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/QA-Issue-59-Hon-Paul-Heath-KC-Banner-01-scaled.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240201T090000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240202T173000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051410
CREATED:20240104T061731Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240808T024934Z
UID:10000169-1706778000-1706895000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Investment Arbitration 101: A Primer (Virtual Edition)
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://siac.org.sg/event/investment-arbitration-101-a-primer-2#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SIAC-Feature-Image.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240131T160000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240131T190000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051410
CREATED:20240115T052235Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240115T052235Z
UID:10000185-1706716800-1706727600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Award enforcement in Hong Kong and Singapore\, and hurdles in the arbitration process
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://2go.iccwbo.org/award-enforcement-in-hong-kong-and-singapore-and-hurdles-in-the-arbitration-process.html#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/ICC-Dispute-Resolution-Services.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240130T170000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240130T203000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051411
CREATED:20240112T040852Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240112T040852Z
UID:10000183-1706634000-1706646600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:SCL Annual Construction Law Update 2024
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://scl.org.sg/events-main/upcoming-events/icalrepeat.detail/2024/01/30/362/-/in-person-annual-construction-law-update-2024-30-january-2024-5pm-8-30pm-gmt-8.html#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Society-of-Construction-Law.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20240125T140000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20240125T180000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051411
CREATED:20240108T074630Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240109T011343Z
UID:10000177-1706191200-1706205600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:SIAC-NYU School of Law Seminar
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/event/siac-nyu-school-of-law-seminar-25-january-2024/
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SIAC-Feature-Image-1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240125T094500
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240125T120000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051411
CREATED:20240110T070109Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240110T070341Z
UID:10000179-1706175900-1706184000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:SCMA Perspectives Seminar 2/2024
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.scma.org.sg/events#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SCMA.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240125
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240126
DTSTAMP:20260910T051411
CREATED:20240125T023738Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240125T024052Z
UID:10000191-1706140800-1706227199@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:[Ep 1] Maxwell Unplugged: Noppramart Thammateeradaycho\, Partner\, Tilleke & Gibbins
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/maxwell-unplugged/#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Happenings by Maxwell Chambers
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Maxwell-Chambers-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240124T163000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240124T200000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051411
CREATED:20240104T053330Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240104T053556Z
UID:10000166-1706113800-1706126400@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Let’s Bank on Arbitration … Why Not?
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://2go.iccwbo.org/let-s-bank-on-arbitration-why-not.html#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/ICC-Dispute-Resolution-Services.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240124T150000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240124T180000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051411
CREATED:20231204T063423Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231226T032118Z
UID:10000058-1706108400-1706119200@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Review of Key Arbitration Developments and Decisions in 2023 (SIAC Academy)
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://siac.org.sg/event/review-of-key-arbitration-developments-and-decisions-in-2023-singapore-and-united-kingdom#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Singapore Events,Supported Events,Workshop
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SIAC-Feature-Image.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240123T171500
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240123T201500
DTSTAMP:20260910T051411
CREATED:20231205T062348Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231227T094328Z
UID:10000060-1706030100-1706040900@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Drafting Winning Interest Submissions (SIArb Masterclass Series)
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/event/siarb-drafting-winning-interest-sbumissions/
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Singapore Events,Supported Events,Workshop
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SIArb.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Ho_Chi_Minh:20240123T163000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Ho_Chi_Minh:20240123T180000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051411
CREATED:20240110T073755Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240110T073755Z
UID:10000181-1706027400-1706032800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:SIMC Webinar: Innovative Approaches in Mediation for Cross-Border IP Disputes
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://simc.glueup.com/event/webinar-innovative-approaches-in-mediation-for-cross-border-ip-disputes-96401/#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Webinar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SIMC.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Ho_Chi_Minh:20240119T140000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Ho_Chi_Minh:20240119T170000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051411
CREATED:20240104T074550Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240104T074550Z
UID:10000173-1705672800-1705683600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:SIMC Seminar in Ho Chi Minh
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://simc.glueup.com/event/94526/#new_tab
LOCATION:Vietnam\, Viet Nam
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SIMC.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Ho_Chi_Minh:20240117T140000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Ho_Chi_Minh:20240117T170000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051411
CREATED:20240104T074327Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240104T074616Z
UID:10000172-1705500000-1705510800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:SIMC Seminar in Hanoi
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://simc.glueup.com/event/94507/#new_tab
LOCATION:Vietnam\, Viet Nam
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SIMC.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240111
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240112
DTSTAMP:20260910T051411
CREATED:20240110T071057Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240125T025451Z
UID:10000180-1704931200-1705017599@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:[Ep 1] Maxwell En-Route: Anu Ambikaipalan\, Associate General Counsel\, APAC\, Uber
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/maxwell-enroute/#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Happenings by Maxwell Chambers
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Maxwell-Chambers-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240110T173000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240110T200000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051411
CREATED:20231205T064017Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231221T070331Z
UID:10000062-1704907800-1704916800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:CIArb Singapore Annual Thought Leadership Lecture
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/event/ciarb-singapore-annual-thought-leadership-lecture/
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Seminar,Singapore Events,Supported Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ciarb.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240110T170000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240110T190000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051412
CREATED:20231204T010131Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240110T070304Z
UID:10000158-1704906000-1704913200@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Conversation with Sir Bernard Eder and Minister Edwin Tong SC
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://store.lawnet.com/conversation-with-sir-bernard-eder-and-minister-edwin-tong-sc.html#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SAL.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240110T140000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240110T170000
DTSTAMP:20260910T051412
CREATED:20240110T065757Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240110T070347Z
UID:10000178-1704895200-1704906000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:SCMA Perspectives Seminar 1/2024
DESCRIPTION:Event Details				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Maxwell Conversations: Managing Public Policy | 29 August 2024				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n				\n				\n									Maxwell Conversations features leading personalities at the top of the international dispute resolution industry. These events seek to challenge assumptions with a deeper examination of the issues. Synposis  Public policy is an important element in determining the arbitrability of a dispute\, and also a ground on which an award may be annulled or refused enforcement. It has often been said that the public policy should be construed narrowly in keeping with the pro-arbitration policy of the New York Convention or the UNCITRAL Model Law. Held as part of Singapore Convention Week\, this session of Maxwell Conversations focused on the crucial role of public policy in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how public policy influences the arbitrability of disputes and serves as grounds for annulling or refusing the enforcement of an award. While it is commonly understood that public policy should be interpreted narrowly\, aligning with the pro-arbitration stance of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law\, the event also shed light on less frequently discussed topics. The panel explored the importance of arbitrator independence and seat court review\, which are considered part of the “international public policy” of arbitration. This was contrasted with how courts may enforce annulled awards if they deem the annulment contrary to their own national public policy\, touching on issues like crime\, corruption\, or sovereignty. The discussion raised important questions about whether international and national public policies are opposing forces or if enforcing courts should consider multiple layers of public policy\, including the public policies of the governing law\, the seat of arbitration\, and how to navigate conflicts between these different frameworks. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n				\n				\n									The books referenced by Michael at the start of the session are: \n\nThe Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention\, Second Edition by Anton G. Maurer\nICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention\, Second Edition\nGuide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\, New York 1958 by the UNCITRAL Secretariat\n\nAdditional reference materials include: \n\nRe-calibration of curial intervention in public policy challenges against arbitral awards” written by Darius Chan and Elias Ngai of the Singapore Management University in the Journal of International Arbitration\n								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Q&A from the Lecture:				\n				\n				\n				\n									Q1: What are the potential challenges in the future for issuing arbitral awards? Are there any changes in environment or technology that may mitigate or worsen these challenges? \nQ2: What aspects of arbitration are ready for AI? \nQ3: What do you think are the key issues that need to be considered when using technology? \nQ4: About diversity\, I notice that the ICC now has an almost 50/50 male/female mix. Is this too fast and too artificial? \nQ5: For operating with ICC arbitration\, since the publishing of the ICC arbitration rules 2021 in the year of 2021\, which part of the arbitration rules 2021 would ICC suggest multi-national companies\, future expert witnesses\, future party representatives and future arbitrators to pay attention to as per ICC’s observation so far? \nQ6: What would ICC like expert witnesses\, party representatives\, and arbitrators to do (and prepare themselves) in order to operate ICC arbitration in line with ICC’s vision?  								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Watch the full recorded session below:				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n					\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										29 August 2024\, Thursday \n									\n								\n											\n													\n										8.00 am – 9:30 am (GMT+8)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n							\n							\n											\n													\n										Singapore\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Organiser: Maxwell Chambers\n									\n								\n											\n													\n										Format: Hybrid (In-person at Maxwell Chambers\, Online over Zoom)\n									\n						\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																\n															\n															\n				\n				\n				\n							\n			\n							\n								\n							\n						\n				\n					CategoryFee (SGD)				\n			\n					\n					\n				\n			YouTube Livestreaming TicketFreeZoom Webinar Ticket$30*		\n					\n		\n						\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Speakers				\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Dr Michael Hwang				\n				\n				\n				\n									Dr Michael Hwang S.C. currently practises as an international arbitrator based in Singapore with a selective practice as Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He served as the Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts from 2010 – 2018.   Dr Hwang’s other past appointments include: Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore; Singapore’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland and Argentina; President of the Law Society of Singapore; Commissioner of the United Nations Compensation Commission; Vice Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration; Vice President of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and a Visiting (and later Adjunct) Professor of the National University of Singapore. He was educated at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Oxford University\, where he won the Gordon Warter Scholarship from Pembroke College by open competitive examination. He has been conferred an Honorary LLD by the University of Sydney. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Jessica Fei				\n				\n				\n				\n									Jessica is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution specialist with close to 30 years’ experience working with international arbitration institutions and leading firms.  Constantly ranked and recommended by leading legal media including Chambers\, WWL\, Legal 500\, and ALB\, Jessica is one of the very few leading international arbitration practitioners (acting as counsel and arbitrator)  with dual qualifications (China and New York) as well as extensive cross-border dispute resolution experience between Chinese/Asian and Western parties. Jessica focuses her practice on international arbitration\, litigation and alternative disputes resolution. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial arbitration cases\, and is listed on the international arbitrator panels of the SIAC\, HKIAC\, CIETAC\, ICDR/AAA\, AIAC\, KCAB\, CEAC etc. Jessica is a court member of SIAC Court of Arbitration\, a member of the International/ Asia Advisory Committee of the AAA/ICDR\, a member of the CEAC Advisory Board\, VP of the UIA Litigation Committee and China Chapter Chair of NYSBA International Section. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Sae Youn Kim				\n				\n				\n				\n									Sae Youn Kim is a partner of the International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice of Kim & Chang. Ms. Kim practices primarily in the areas of international litigation and arbitration with an emphasis on commercial and international law. Before joining Kim & Chang\, she served as a judge at various Korean district courts\, and practiced as a key member in major Korean law firms. Ms. Kim also sits as an arbitrator. Her expertise in international dispute resolution has been recognized by the variety of roles she holds and held in various institutions\, including but not limited to a Commissioner of the Korea Trade Commission\, a Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association\, a Co-Chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association\, and a member of the ICC Court. She is regularly selected as leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers and Partners\, Who’s Who Legal\, Legal 500\, and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Kim received an LL.M. from Duke University Law School in 2007\, and her LL.B. from Seoul National University College of Law in 1991. She graduated the Judicial Training and Research Institute by the Supreme Court of Korea in 1994. She speaks and practices in both Korean and English. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Vijayendra Pratap Singh				\n				\n				\n				\n									With over 20 years of experience\, Vijayendra Pratap Singh heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in Delhi. Vijayendra represents clients in international\, commercial and domestic arbitrations; corporate and commercial litigation; regulatory practices and securities law. He has advised various government departments\, such as the Department of Economic Affairs\, Ministry of Finance; Securities and Exchange Board of India; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs\, etc.\, on the de-criminalisation of various Statutes and has been involved in various policy making initiatives of the Government of India. Vijayendra’s expertise span domestic and international arbitration\, as well as disputes in various fora in India\, ranging from shareholder disputes to corporate actions. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Lawrence Teh (Moderator)				\n				\n				\n				\n									Lawrence Teh is the Global Co-Head of Dentons’ International Arbitration practice and a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group. He is Co-Head of Dentons Rodyk’s International Arbitration and Shipping practice groups. He has particular experience in handling commercial disputes including those of international trade and commodities\, maritime and aviation\, banking and financial services\, onshore and offshore construction\, mergers\, acquisitions\, joint ventures and other investments\, and insurance. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Attendance Policy				\n				\n				\n				\n									Participants who wish to obtain CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. For participants attending the face-to-face activity\, this includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being absent from the activity for more than 15 minutes. For those participating via the webinar\, this includes logging in at the start of the webinar and logging out at the conclusion of the webinar in the manner required by the organiser\, and not being away from the activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to https://www.silecpdcentre.sg for more information. Practice Area: Alternative Dispute Resolution Training Category: General 								\n				\n					\n		\n				\n			\n						\n				\n					Earn 1 Public CPD Point				\n				\n				\n				\n																														\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Terms & Conditions				\n				\n				\n				\n									1) Registration – Limited slots are available on a first-come-first-served basis. 2) Consent to data collection – You consent for Maxwell Chambers and their partners to collect\, use and disclose the personal data that you provide in this form for marketing purposes\, including adding you to their mailing list for industry updates. The Organiser reserves the right to cancel or alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the event that the webinar is cancelled by the Organiser\, the participants will be notified prior to the webinar. 								\n				\n					\n		\n					\n		\n				\n						\n					\n			\n						\n				\n					Share				\n				\n				\n				\n							\n								\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Facebook									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										Twitter									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										LinkedIn									\n																	\n													\n					\n									\n						\n															\n															\n																						\n																			\n										WhatsApp
URL:https://www.scma.org.sg/events#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SCMA.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR