Preface

This project arises out of our experiences, initially, as Legal Assistants at the IranUS Claims Tribunal and, subsequently, as arbitration counsel, as scholars, as life-long students of international dispute resolution, and as a governmental representative to UNCITRAL. Our careers have witnessed the emergence of the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules through the work of the IranUS Claims Tribunals practice, its widespread designation as a basis for arbitration in bilateral investment treaties and its subsequent use in arbitrations brought under those treaties, and the global influence the Rules have played on the Rules adopted by Arbitration Centers in cities around the world and by global institutions offering arbitration services. For us, it has always been clear that the practice regarding the UNCITRAL Rules of Arbitral Procedure, if analyzed and accessible, would be very significant.

This commentary takes a unique approach. In addition to a commentary on the Rules based on their drafting history, the corpus of IranUS Claims Tribunal practice, and the ever-growing practice of investorstate arbitrations constituted in accordance with the UNCITRAL Rules, this work reproduces the extracts from the procedural decisions of these various sources. Our experiences have repeatedly shown that new issues, issues of first impression, continue to arise in arbitration. For this reason, we believe access to the procedural decisions themselves is essential. Some of these decisions have been reprinted in various sources, but many have not. In preparing this study, thousands of procedural orders and decisions have been reviewed and many of those orders are easily available only in this volume. It is our hope that this studys dual function of analysis and access will lead to a more refined system of arbitral procedure, provide a sounding board for parties and arbitrators who seek to understand the issues before them, and promote further the arbitration regime we both feel is essential to more complex systems of order and interdependence.

The authors have greatly benefited from the assistance of many throughout their work on the second edition of this Commentary. We particularly wish to thank three research assistants for their outstanding and dedicated assistance in completing this revision: Preeti Khanna (LLM 2012 Berkeley), Rebecca Callaway (JD 2010 Berkeley) and Brittney Lovato (JD 2013 Berkeley). Many other students have assisted since the first edition of this Commentary: Anderson Berry, Hugh Carlson, Stephan Pages, Alexandra Widman, Luke Hagelberg, Shaina Johnson, Louise Balsan, Elliot Schackleford, Felix Mormann and Rodrigo Gil. Their interest and energy have been a constant source of inspiration.

David D. Caron, Berkeley
Lee M. Caplan , Washington DC
March 2013