An important issue in the context of enforcing arbitral awards is the role of the national court of the seat and the finality of its decisions to set aside or enforce an award. This is a subject which is not only thorny in practice (and may have significant financial repercussions for parties depending which way it falls), but is also conceptually complex. The Chief Justice of Singapore, Sundaresh Menon, has provided an exceptionally incisive perspective on the subject in an article titled “The Role of National Courts of the Seat in International Arbitration”, which follows on from a keynote address delivered by the Chief Justice in Delhi earlier this year.

In his article, Chief Justice Menon addresses the subject of the role of the seat court, drawing on the dichotomy between the doctrines of delocalisation and territorialism. The Chief Justice provides his perspective on the continuing doctrinal debate, and proposes solutions for achieving consistency and finality in decisions on enforcement. Noting the inherent problems in both delocalisation and territorialism, he suggests the ideal approach is one that lies between the two extremes. This recommendation calls for the implementation of a consistent common law approach, charting a course through the uncertain waters of Article V of the New York Convention. The article’s in depth analysis extends upon the principles provided by Lord Mance in his Freshfields lecture, suggesting that in the absence of treaty-based reform, courts should rely on an amalgamation of doctrines including the recognition of foreign judgments, issue estoppel, and where appropriate, extensions of the res judicata doctrine. The article concludes with a discussion acknowledging the recent developments undertaken by India to create a pro-arbitration landscape. The Chief Justice’s contribution is a tour de force that will deeply enrich the understanding of readers.

Next, in “The New Arbitration Rules of the German Institution of Arbitration (DIS),” Andreas Roquette and Dr Tom Prostler analyse the recent revision of the Rules of the German Institution of Arbitration (DIS), which came into force in March 2018. To address the growing demand for greater cost efficiency and expedition within construction arbitration, the 2018 DIS-Rules focus on increasing procedural efficiency through case administration mechanisms and procedures that encourage amicable settlement at an earlier stage. In contrast to the 1998 predecessor, the 2018 DIS-Rules have increased the role of the DIS in case administration, through the newly created vehicle of the “Arbitration Council” which acts as a key decision-making body. The new Rules contain a range of tools for ensuring