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:Asia/Ho_Chi_Minh
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0700
TZOFFSETTO:+0700
TZNAME:+07
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:Asia/Tokyo
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0900
TZOFFSETTO:+0900
TZNAME:JST
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:Asia/Kolkata
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0530
TZOFFSETTO:+0530
TZNAME:IST
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:Europe/Istanbul
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0300
TZOFFSETTO:+0300
TZNAME:+03
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:Asia/Taipei
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:Asia/Bangkok
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0700
TZOFFSETTO:+0700
TZNAME:+07
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:Africa/Johannesburg
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:SAST
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240505T130000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240505T143000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223645
CREATED:20240415T093206Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240422T061813Z
UID:10000249-1714914000-1714919400@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://dis-hongkong-5-2024.rsvpify.com/?securityToken=DlThT1Czxd85kZFj1Q7eLX9JRDEfYYYQ#new_tab
LOCATION:Hong Kong\, Hong Kong
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ICCA-2024-Hong-Kong.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240505T120000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240505T130000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223645
CREATED:20240422T060519Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240422T060519Z
UID:10000266-1714910400-1714914000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Arbitration & Beyond: Recent Developments at UNCITRAL
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://resources.aarnalaw.com/arbitration-and-beyond#new_tab
LOCATION:Hong Kong\, Hong Kong
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ICCA-2024-Hong-Kong.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240505T090000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240508T180000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223646
CREATED:20231204T013617Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240808T024355Z
UID:10000164-1714899600-1715191200@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:ICCA 2024 Hong Kong
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://icca2024.hk/#new_tab
LOCATION:Hong Kong\, Hong Kong
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ICCA-2024-Hong-Kong.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240505T090000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240505T160000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223646
CREATED:20240422T041310Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240808T024359Z
UID:10000264-1714899600-1714924800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:The 2nd Global Innovation & Technology Summit
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://app.glueup.cn/event/the-2nd-global-innovation-technology-summit-43145/#new_tab
LOCATION:Hong Kong\, Hong Kong
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ICCA-2024-Hong-Kong.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240505T090000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240505T143000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223646
CREATED:20240227T025016Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240422T061924Z
UID:10000108-1714899600-1714919400@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:LCIA Tylney in Town Symposium in Hong Kong
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.lcia.org/events/2024-lcia-symposium-in-hong-kong-292.aspx#new_tab
LOCATION:Hong Kong\, Hong Kong
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ICCA-2024-Hong-Kong.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240504T160000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240504T200000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223646
CREATED:20240415T085132Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240422T062010Z
UID:10000246-1714838400-1714852800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:HK45-Young ICCA Harbour Cruise Social
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/hk45-young-icca-harbour-cruise-social-106288/#new_tab
LOCATION:Hong Kong\, Hong Kong
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Networking
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ICCA-2024-Hong-Kong.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240504T153000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240504T190000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223646
CREATED:20240503T005215Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240503T005215Z
UID:10000270-1714836600-1714849200@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Colloquium on 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://hkiac.glueup.com/event/106888/register/#new_tab
LOCATION:Hong Kong\, Hong Kong
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ICCA-2024-Hong-Kong.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240504T140000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240504T180000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223647
CREATED:20240415T092141Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240415T092141Z
UID:10000247-1714831200-1714845600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Construction Dispute Resolution: International Horizons and Chinese Development
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://icca2024.hk/side-events#new_tab
LOCATION:Hong Kong\, Hong Kong
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ICCA-2024-Hong-Kong.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240503T133000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240503T170000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223647
CREATED:20240425T062226Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240808T024406Z
UID:10000155-1714743000-1714755600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:ODR Conference 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://ebram.prizmmall.com/en/event/#new_tab
LOCATION:Hong Kong\, Hong Kong
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ICCA-2024-Hong-Kong.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240430T190000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240430T203000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223647
CREATED:20240419T055933Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240419T055938Z
UID:10000262-1714503600-1714509000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Raising the Bar: Building a Personal Brand for Junior Lawyers
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/1229285#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Events-Featured-Image-1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240430T170000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240430T183000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223647
CREATED:20240306T073717Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240531T053632Z
UID:10000227-1714496400-1714501800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Maxwell Lectures: Impartiality and the Construction of Trust in Investor State Dispute Settlement
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/maxwell-lectures-impartiality-and-the-construction-of-trust-in-investor-state-dispute-settlement/
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Happenings by Maxwell Chambers,Seminar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Maxwell-Lectures-Stavros-Brekoulakis.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240429T180000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240429T203000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223647
CREATED:20240301T051206Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240301T051219Z
UID:10000220-1714413600-1714422600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:SIAC Annual Appreciation Event 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://siac.org.sg/event/siac-annual-appreciation-event-2024#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SIAC-Feature-Image.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240429
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240430
DTSTAMP:20260909T223647
CREATED:20240517T072146Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240802T063618Z
UID:10000304-1714348800-1714435199@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:5 Questions With Maxwell Interview Series: Peter Chow\, Independent Arbitrator
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/2024/04/29/5questionswithmaxwell-green-edition-peter-chow/#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Happenings by Maxwell Chambers
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/QA-5-Peter-Chow-0424-Banner-01-scaled.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240426T083000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240426T104500
DTSTAMP:20260909T223647
CREATED:20240327T080335Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240327T080335Z
UID:10000239-1714120200-1714128300@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Leadership Networking Breakfast: Entrepreneurial Work Culture
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://sharmini5.wixsite.com/beinclarity-02/leadership-networking-breakfast-registration#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Happenings by Maxwell Chambers
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/BeInClarity.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Ho_Chi_Minh:20240425T080000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Ho_Chi_Minh:20240426T180000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223647
CREATED:20240322T033055Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240808T024425Z
UID:10000132-1714032000-1714154400@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Ho Chi Minh city International Construction Arbitration Conference 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.vn/en/events/ho-chi-minh-city-international-construction-arbitration-conference-hicac2024/#new_tab
LOCATION:Vietnam\, Viet Nam
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Society-of-Construction-Law-Viet-Nam.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240425
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240426
DTSTAMP:20260909T223647
CREATED:20240426T081813Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240426T081813Z
UID:10000268-1714003200-1714089599@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:[Ep 4] Maxwell Unplugged: Shobna Chandran
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/Tokyo:20240424T093000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Tokyo:20240427T170000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223648
CREATED:20240104T085701Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240808T024437Z
UID:10000175-1713951000-1714237200@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:IPBA Annual Meeting and Conference 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://ipba.org/events/ipba-annual-meeting-conference/11/521/ipba-annual-meeting-and-conference-in-tokyo.html#new_tab
LOCATION:Japan\, Japan
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/IPBA-website.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Tokyo:20240423T090000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Tokyo:20240423T193000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223648
CREATED:20240319T040456Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240808T024441Z
UID:10000232-1713862800-1713900600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:2nd ICC Tokyo Arbitration Day
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/2nd-icc-tokyo-arbitration.htm#new_tab
LOCATION:Japan\, Japan
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference
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:20240423T083000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240424T173000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223648
CREATED:20240104T083148Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240808T024446Z
UID:10000174-1713861000-1713979800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Asia Pacific (APAC) Legal Congress 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://scca.glueup.com/event/asia-pacific-apac-legal-congress-2024-91989/#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/SCCA-Featured-Image.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20240419T160000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20240419T210000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223648
CREATED:20240320T020301Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240808T024449Z
UID:10000124-1713542400-1713560400@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:SIAC Bengaluru Conference 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://siac.org.sg/event/siac-bengaluru-conference-2024#new_tab
LOCATION:India\, India
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SIAC-Feature-Image.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Istanbul:20240418T090000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Istanbul:20240420T180000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223648
CREATED:20240208T090140Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240808T024453Z
UID:10000093-1713430800-1713636000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Istanbul Arbitration Days
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://istanbularbitrationdays.com/#new_tab
LOCATION:Istanbul\, Turkey
CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Istanbul-Arbitration-Days.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240418T090000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240418T180000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223648
CREATED:20240319T035508Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240319T035508Z
UID:10000231-1713430800-1713463200@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:APIEx Membership Accreditation Course 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://apiex.org/events/events-calendar/eventdetail/46/-/membership-accreditation-course-2024-3rd-run-18-april-2024-9-00am-6-00pm-gmt-8#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Singapore Events,Workshop
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/APIEX.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240417T150000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240417T180000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223649
CREATED:20240304T091129Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240304T091129Z
UID:10000224-1713366000-1713376800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Enforcement of Arbitral Awards: Theory & Practice – Part 1: Singapore (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/enforcement-of-arbitral-awards-theory-practice-part-1-singapore#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:20240417T090000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240423T173000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223649
CREATED:20240401T074658Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240417T065444Z
UID:10000241-1713344400-1713893400@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Maxwell Chambers - Greensquare: Textile Donation Drive\, a #MaxwellGoesGreen initiative
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/maxwell-chambers-greensquare-textile-donation-drive/
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Happenings by Maxwell Chambers
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/For-LinkedIn.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Taipei:20240416T133000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Taipei:20240416T193000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223649
CREATED:20240306T010237Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240808T024504Z
UID:10000226-1713274200-1713295800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:ICC Taipei Arbitration Day
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/icc-taipei-arbitration-day.html#new_tab
LOCATION:Taiwan\, Taiwan
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Conference
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:20240416T123000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240416T133000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223649
CREATED:20240321T031236Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240321T031749Z
UID:10000130-1713270600-1713274200@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:MakanwithMaxwell: The Art of Conversing with Poise and Professionalism with Difficult People
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/makanwithmaxwell-the-art-of-conversing-with-poise-and-professionalism-with-difficult-people/
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Happenings by Maxwell Chambers
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Events-Featured-Image-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240416T083000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240416T093000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223649
CREATED:20240402T083135Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240402T083135Z
UID:10000242-1713256200-1713259800@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Building your arbitration practice - the triumphs\, mistakes\, challenges and changes
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/yawp---young-arbitralwomen-practitioners-_yawp-building-your-arbitration-practice-activity-7180393312003010561-0uf8#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar,Singapore Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Young-ArbitralWomen.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Bangkok:20240410T180000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Bangkok:20240410T203000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223649
CREATED:20240408T061753Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240408T061753Z
UID:10000244-1712772000-1712781000@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:CIArb Fireside Chat
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://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdNUIu1CQz9ybT293r-B-kaNNb4P-p5ftChVGbudLuLGwh_QA/viewform#new_tab
LOCATION:Thailand\, Thailand
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ciarb.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240409T163000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Singapore:20240409T180000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223649
CREATED:20240320T021414Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240320T021414Z
UID:10000126-1712680200-1712685600@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Leading from the Front: Voices for Greater Ethnic Diversity in International 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://acica.org.au/events-2/#!event/2024/4/9/acica45-real-leading-from-the-front-voices-for-greater-ethnic-diversity-in-international-arbitration#new_tab
LOCATION:Singapore
CATEGORIES:Asia Pacific,Seminar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/ACICA.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Africa/Johannesburg:20240409T090000
DTEND;TZID=Africa/Johannesburg:20240411T180000
DTSTAMP:20260909T223649
CREATED:20240209T023859Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240808T024517Z
UID:10000095-1712653200-1712858400@www.maxwellchambers.com
SUMMARY:Johannesburg Arbitration Week 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://johannesburgarbitrationweek.co.za/#new_tab
LOCATION:South Africa\, South Africa
CATEGORIES:Conference,Outside of Asia-Pacific
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.maxwellchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Johannesburg-Arbitration-Week.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR