The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By Sandeep Suresh
Sandeep Suresh is a fifth-year law student at the National Law University in Jodhpur, India. Justice Robert H. Jackson stated in the case of Shaughnessy v. Mezei (1953) that “Procedural fairness and regularity are the indispensable essence of liberty.” [1] Jackson’s commentary captures the great significance of procedural fairness and natural justice. In particular, the impartiality and integrity of arbitrators, although ostensibly simple characteristics, are integral features of arbitration. The right to challenge an arbitrator who does not demonstrate those features, therefore, is essential in assuring the client’s confidence if he or she chooses arbitration as the means of resolving the dispute. The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Model Law) recognizes this right. [2] However, what is the result if the challenge procedure itself is unfair and against the principles of natural justice? Article 13 of the Model Law lays down the challenge procedure. [3] The controversial part of the provision is found in Article 13(2): Failing such agreement, a party who intends to challenge an arbitrator shall, within fifteen days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or after becoming aware of any circumstance referred to in article 12(2), send a written statement of the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal. Unless the challenged arbitrator withdraws from his office or the other party agrees to the challenge, the arbitral tribunal shall decide on the challenge.
0 Comments
 By Tanner Bowen
Tanner Bowen is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. In November, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the trend in American international policy to respect the rulings of foreign courts in matters that originated in foreign countries. Although this policy of deference has not always been at the forefront of American politics, this was definitely the case in a recent court decision involving two American companies and an air raid in Colombia. In 1998, the companies Occidental Petroleum Corp. and AirScan, Inc. had taken up base in Colombia. With Colombia’s richness in natural resources, the Colombian government had hired Occidental to build a petroleum pipeline. This building project, however, was often interrupted and attacked by left-wing insurgents, requiring AirScan to provide security for Occidental’s pipeline. On December 13, 1998, AirScan helped supply the Colombian Air Force with the finances necessary to engage in an air strike against the radical insurgents. This strike ultimately killed seventeen and injured twenty-five individuals.  By Sebastian Bates Sebastian Bates is a first-year law student at Keble College, Oxford University. Toward the end of last year, the eyes of the British population were focused on Clacton, a parliamentary constituency named for the town of Clacton-on-Sea. The reason this inconspicuous municipality nestled on the coast of Essex made national and international headlines was made clear on October 13th, when the winner of the Clacton by-election, Douglas Carswell, took his seat as the United Kingdom Independence Party’s first member in the House of Commons. [1] The rise of this Eurosceptic party has shifted the UK’s politics – particularly those of the Conservative Party, which currently rules in coalition with the Liberal Democrats – significantly to the right, and its success in the Clacton by-election has many concerned. While it is hardly surprising that another parliamentary election has largely escaped public notice, yet another one concluded in the early evening of October 22nd, when it was announced that Raymond Asquith, the great-grandson of former UK Prime Minister H.H. Asquith would be taking a recently-vacated seat in Parliament. [2] However, sixty-two-year-old Raymond Asquith will not be sitting on the green benches of the House of Commons as his ancestor did; instead, the third Earl of Asquith and Oxford, as he is formally known, will be enshrined in the red-and-gold splendour of the House of Lords.  By Sandeep Suresh
Sandeep Suresh is a fifth-year law student at the National Law University in Jodhpur, India. Globalization cannot only be seen through the lens of commercial trade between the nations and corporations. The Internet has created a scenario of online globalization of which online gaming occupies a significant part. India has also been lately witnessing the waves of online gaming among the youth who play games like Rummy, Poker, and Bridge. The significant legal question accompanying such this occurrence was whether games like Rummy or Poker played online amount to gambling. This issue has been to the the doorsteps of Indian constitutional courts several times. There are mainly two aspects of this issue that will be discussed in the coming paragraphs. Firstly, the pertinent question is whether such games are mere games of chance or whether they involve substantial skill. On that point, the Indian law is considerably clear. Primarily, the Public Gambling Act, 1867 and corresponding gambling laws enacted by the individual states which regulate gambling exempt games that involve skill from the ambit of gambling. Based on the concept of ‘involvement of skill’ as dictated by the legislation, the Supreme Court of India (SCI) held in State of Bombay v. R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala (1957 SCR 874) that competitions where success depends predominantly on skill than luck, cannot be categorized as gambling. Further, this position was affirmed with respect to the game of Rummy in State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana (1967 AIR 825) (Satyanarayana). The SCI had categorically held that Rummy is not a game of sheer chance, but involved predominant quotient of skill as well. The court held that Rummy requires a certain amount of skill because the fall of the cards has to be memorized and considerable skill is required in holding and discarding cards. The latest SCI decision confirming this position of law came in 1996. In Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996 AIR 1153), the apex court ruled that even though the probability of luck cannot be wholly removed, games like Rummy “is one in which success depends principally upon the superior knowledge, training, attention, experience and adroitness of the player”.  By Graham Reynolds
Graham Reynolds is a student at Trinity College Dublin obtaining his Bachelor in Laws (L.L.B.). On the September 27th, Indian prime minister Narendra Modi used his first speech to the United Nations to advocate an issue that has burdened the international legal order from the latter half of the 20th century to date: the institutionalized inequalities found at the heart of the UN. The international legal system purports to be a scheme at the center of diplomatic relations, which acts as a mechanism to mediate conflicts, dissuade violence, and uphold the values of international peace and the rule of law. The adoption of the UN Charter in 1945 [1] heralded a very significant change in the international legal order, for the draftsmen laid in Articles 1 and 2 a set of fundamental principles by which all the members of the organization were to abide, attempting to crystallize these constructive principles into enforceable norms. |
|
|
