On November 6, 2024, the French Supreme Court rejected the enforcement of an interim award on jurisdiction in the legal saga opposing Malaysia to the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu and spanning several jurisdictions. The Supreme Court ruled that the arbitration clause in an 1878 agreement – and on the basis of which a US$15 billion award has since been issued against Malaysia – is null and void. This decision will presumably lead the French Supreme Court to annul the US$15 billion award itself next.
Pivot to Arbitration: China Embraces Arbitration to Promote Investment
In the past several months, China has adopted new arbitration rules and unveiled a new arbitration center to help resolve the inevitable international disputes arising from the development of The Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road, commonly referred to as the One Belt One Road Initiative.
Although China is a signatory to the New York Arbitration Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards,[1] China has been considered a difficult jurisdiction for international arbitration because few Chinese judges and lawyers are familiar with the relevant law. Between 1994 and 2004, Chinese courts enforced just 37 percent of foreign arbitral awards.
Venezuela Mines for a Reversal in Federal Appeals Court
Venezuela is taking its fight over a $1.4 billion arbitral award to the District of Columbia’s federal court of appeals.
The award capped a bitter dispute between Venezuela and Crystallex International Corporation, a Canadian mining company. The fight began in 2002, when Crystallex acquired the rights to develop the Las Cristinas gold deposits in Venezuela. Despite the mining company’s years-long efforts to obtain the necessary permit, Venezuela denied Crystallex the permit in 2008. Later that year, the country announced that it would operate and exploit Las Cristinas itself.