Настоящая публикация представляет статистику дел, связанных с международным морским арбитражем, за несколько последних лет. Анализ этой статистики показывает, что Лондон продолжает доминировать как самый надежный арбитражный центр для разрешения споров в области международного судоходства.
Сингапур и Гонконг являются самыми сильными конкурентами Лондона на мировом рынке разрешения споров. 2019 год в Сингапуре был рекордным. Сингапурским международным арбитражным центром (SIAC), Сингапурской морской арбитражной палатой (SCMA), LMAA и ICC было проведено 229 новых международных морских арбитражей. Статистика была аналогичной в 2018 году, когда в Сингапуре было проведено 14% судебных разбирательств по морскому арбитражу от количества разбирательств в Лондоне в 2018 году. В Гонконге Международный арбитражный центр Гонконга (HKIAC) рассмотрел примерно 44 новых международных морских арбитража в 2019 году по сравнению с 38 в 2018 году. Гонконгская группа по морскому арбитражу (HKMAG) получила 63 назначения в морские арбитражи в 2018 году, и, как известно, в 2019 году количество ее дел несколько увеличилось. Соответственно, Гонконг обработал эквивалент примерно 6% разбирательств по морскому арбитражу от Лондона в 2018 году и 7% – в 2019 году.
Париж, с его давней репутацией в Европе по разрешению морских споров, продолжает оставаться форумом, достойным упоминания как региональный морской центр. Арбитражные учреждения Парижа: ICC и Морская арбитражная палата Парижа (CAMP), провели около 43 морских арбитражей в 2019 и 2018 годах. Это составляет примерно 2,5% от загруженности Лондона в 2019 году и 3% в 2018 году, хотя следует отметить, что Париж имеет значительный объем специальных арбитражных дел, которые сюда не включены. ОАЭ, стремясь стать глобальным морским центром, за которым следует наблюдать, продолжают создавать свой первый специализированный морской арбитражный центр на Ближнем Востоке – Emirates Maritime Arbitration Center (EMAC). Несмотря на то, что статистические данные по этому молодому учреждению еще не доступны (уже четвертый год), оно работает над созданием репутации в отрасли. Североевропейская ассоциация морского и офшорного арбитража (NOMA), созданная только в 2017 году, была создана по инициативе ассоциаций морского права стран Северной Европы в качестве альтернативы (после Брексита) Лондону для разрешения как морских, так и других международных споров. Статистические данные еще не доступны для общественности, однако NOMA вполне может стать будущей силой в международном морском арбитраже. Наконец, следует упомянуть об арбитражных учреждениях в Соединенных Штатах и Китае, которые, как известно, рассматривают значительное количество морских споров. Общество морских арбитров (SMA), Морская арбитражная ассоциация (MAA) и Хьюстонская ассоциация морских арбитров (HMAA) не публикуют свою статистику арбитража и не смогли предоставить свои данные за 2018 или 2019 год. Морская арбитражная комиссия Китая (CMAC) – это процветающее арбитражное учреждение, занимающееся в основном региональными морскими спорами. Международные морские компании, не связанные с Китаем, редко выбирают эту юрисдикцию для разрешения споров, и по этой причине данные по Китаю в эту публикацию не включены.
Сравнение статистики по арбитражным делам Лондона за 2018 и 2019 годы со статистикой крупных морских арбитражных центров за пределами Лондона показывает степень нынешнего доминирования Лондона в индустрии международного морского арбитража. Авторитет и доверие к лондонским арбитражным центрам среди международных сторон остаются высокими: на долю города приходилось около 83% всех арбитражей, касающихся международных морских споров в 2019 году. Великобритания продолжает переходный период после выхода из ЕС, а мир борется с пандемией Covid-19 и ее экономическими последствиями, поэтому трудно с абсолютной уверенностью предсказать будущее международного морского арбитража. Однако по мере того, как компании отрасли начинают сталкиваться с экономическими проблемами и вытекающими из них спорами в результате глобального финансового спада, гибкость, быстрое разрешение и потенциально более низкие издержки, предлагаемые арбитражем, могут сделать его все более популярным выбором для разрешения морских споров.
Лондон по-прежнему пользуется прочной репутацией в области разрешения международных споров, и ожидается, что в 2020 году и в последующий период он продолжит процветать как центр морского арбитража. LMAA, рассматривающая 95% своих дел в Лондоне, недавно заверила своих членов, что, поскольку примерно 80% их лондонских морских арбитражных дел проводится только с использованием документов, большая часть их текущей деятельности осуществляется в обычном режиме и не зависит от ограничений, связанных с пандемией. LMAA также не новичок в проведении удаленных слушаний с использованием программного обеспечения для видеоконференций (в соответствии с их правилами). Именно способность к адаптации может стать ключом к тому, что арбитражные учреждения продолжат привлекать стороны морских споров в 2020 году.
For the third consecutive year, our
analysis of global maritime arbitration
case statistics shows that London
continues to dominate as the most
trusted arbitration centre for resolving
international shipping disputes.
Many arbitral bodies make their annual arbitration
statistics publically available in the spring of the
subsequent year. Arbitral institutions that do not formally
publish their annual data will often provide caseload
statistics on request. This year HFW has been able to
obtain statistics from over 10 leading arbitral bodies. Our
analysis of the numbers indicates that in 2018 and 2019
London remained at the centre of global maritime dispute
resolution.
A recap of last year’s results
Our analysis in early 2019 showed that London continued
to remain at the forefront of global maritime dispute
resolution. The statistics demonstrated that London
was the preferred jurisdiction for international maritime
arbitration with an 80% share of maritime arbitrations in
2017.
We were able to confirm that over 1,500 maritime
arbitrations of an international nature were held in
London in 2017, compared to just over 140 international
maritime arbitrations in Singapore, approximately 100 in
Hong Kong, and about 20 in Dubai and Paris.
These statistics suggested that, although there was a
slight reduction in international maritime arbitration in
London in 2017, following the Brexit vote, London retained
its position as the dominant international maritime
arbitration centre despite increased global competition.
The latest maritime arbitration numbers
The London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA)
handled approximately 1,668 new, individual maritime
arbitrations in London in 2019, up from 1,483 in 2018.1
When combined with the 2019 figures for the London
Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) and The
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), London
handled approximately 1,730 new international maritime
arbitrations last year.2
When the LMAA’s 2018 caseload
statistics are combined with those from the LCIA and ICC,
the total number of new maritime arbitrations in London
in 2018 was approximately 1,523.3
Therefore in 2019,
London saw an almost 14% increase in its international
maritime arbitration caseload.
Our research over the last three years has consistently
indicated that Singapore and Hong Kong are London’s
strongest competitors in the global dispute resolution
market. The 2018 and 2019 figures continue to support
this. Singapore had a bumper year in 2019, seeing the
equivalent of approximately 13% of London’s maritime
arbitration caseload, with 229 new international
arbitrations shared between the Singapore International
Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the Singapore Chamber of
Maritime Arbitration (SCMA), the LMAA, and ICC.4 The
statistics were similar in 2018, when Singapore saw
the equivalent of 14% of London’s maritime arbitration
caseload in 2018, with approximately 215 SIAC, SCMA,
LMAA and ICC cases.5
In Hong Kong, the Hong Kong International Arbitration
Centre (HKIAC) dealt with approximately 44 new
international maritime arbitrations in 2019, up from 38
JULY 2020
SHIPPING INSIGHT: WHO RULES THE WAVES?
THE MARITIME ARBITRATION UNIVERSE
IN NUMBERS: LONDON REMAINS EVER
DOMINANT
2016 2017 2018 2019
NUMBER OF ARBITRATIONS HANDLED
1700
1476 1483
1668
LMAA London Caseload Statistics
International Maritime Arbitrations in 2019
1737
229
124
43
LONDON SINGAPORE HONG KONG PARIS
NUMBER OF ARBITRATIONS HANDLED
in 2018. The Hong Kong Maritime Arbitration Group
(HKMAG) received 63 maritime arbitral appointments in
2018, and we are informed saw a modest increase in its
caseload in 2019. Accordingly, Hong Kong handled the
equivalent of approximately 6% of London’s maritime
arbitration caseload in 2018, increasing to 7% in 2019.6
Paris, with its long-standing reputation in Europe for
maritime dispute resolution, continues to be a forum
worthy of note as a regional maritime centre. Paris arbitral
institutions, the ICC and the Chambre Arbitrale Maritime
de Paris (CAMP), hosted approximately 43 maritime
arbitrations in 2019 and 2018. This represents approximately
2.5% of London’s caseload for 2019 and 3% for 2018,
although it should be noted that Paris has a significant ad
hoc arbitration caseload that has not been included here.7
The UAE, with ambitions of becoming a global maritime
hub to watch, continues to establish its first dedicated
maritime arbitration centre in the Middle East – the
Emirates Maritime Arbitration Centre (EMAC). Although
caseload statistics are not yet available for this young
institution (now entering its fourth year), it is working to
build a reputation in the industry, although has some way
to go before it may be considered a challenger to London.8
In our previous publications, we advised that the
Scandinavian maritime clusters were seeking to promote
a new Nordic shipping arbitration centre. Established in
only 2017, the Nordic Offshore and Maritime Arbitration
Association (NOMA) was established at the initiative of
the Nordic countries’ Maritime Law Associations as an
alternative to (post-Brexit) London for both maritime and
non-maritime international disputes. Statistics are not yet
publically available, however NOMA may well emerge as
a future force in international maritime arbitration.9 Time
will tell.
Lastly, mention should be made of arbitration institutions
in the United States and China known to handle
significant numbers of maritime disputes. The Society
of Maritime Arbitrators (SMA), the Maritime Arbitration
Association (MAA) and the Houston Maritime Arbitrators
Association (HMAA) do not make their arbitration
statistics public and have not been able to provide
their 2018 or 2019 data to us this year. China’s Maritime
Arbitration Commission (CMAC) is a thriving arbitral
institution handling mostly regional maritime disputes.
International maritime companies with no connections to
China rarely choose the jurisdiction for dispute resolution
and, for this reason, we have not included figures for
China in this publication.
Comparing London’s arbitration caseload statistics for 2018
and 2019 with statistics from major maritime arbitration
centres outside London shows the extent of London’s
current dominance in the international maritime arbitration
industry. Credibility and trust in London’s arbitration
centres remain high amongst international parties, with
the city handling in the region of 83% of all arbitrations
concerning international maritime disputes in 2019.
The future
As the UK continues through its post-EU transition
period, and the world grapples with the Covid-19
pandemic and its economic aftershocks, it is difficult
to predict with absolute certainty the future maritime
arbitral landscape. However, as companies within the
industry start to face economic challenges and ensuing
disputes as a result of the post-pandemic global financial
downturn, we expect the use of arbitration to increase. In
these challenging times, the flexibility, faster resolution
and potentially lower costs offered by arbitration may
make it an increasingly popular choice for resolving
maritime disputes.
London continues to enjoy a solid reputation for
international dispute resolution, and we anticipate will
continue to prosper as a maritime arbitration hub in 2020
and beyond. The LMAA (which sees 95% of its caseload
in London) has recently reassured its members that, with
approximately 80% of their London maritime arbitration
cases conducted using documents only, much of their
current activity is business as usual and remains unaffected
by Covid-19 restrictions. The LMAA is also no stranger to
conducting remote hearings using video conferencing
software (as permitted by their rules), and as such has
been able to adapt quickly to the new reality. It will be this
ability to adapt that could be key to arbitration institutions
continuing to attract maritime dispute cases in 2020.
The statistics above are our best estimates produced
from the figures for maritime arbitrations both published
and provided to us upon request. They cannot completely
capture all maritime arbitrations as not all institutions
provide full breakdowns by jurisdiction and sector and ad
hoc arbitrations are difficult to track. Different arbitration
institutions also record their arbitrations slightly
differently, which makes comparative analysis of figures
more difficult. Please find a comprehensive explanation
of the statistics here.10
Footnotes:
1 In total, 1,756 individual arbitrations were handled by the LMAA in 2019, and 1,561
in 2018, with 95% of those references handled in London.
2 In 2019, the number of arbitrations under LCIA Rules categorised in the transport
and commodities sector was approximately 61, with England chosen as the
arbitral seat in approximately 89% of cases (approximately 54 cases). In 2019, the
ICC registered a total of 869 new cases and we estimate approximately 10% of the
ICC’s new arbitrations relating to the transportation sector (approximately 8.6%)
were handled in London based on 2018’s data.
3 In 2018, the number of arbitrations under LCIA Rules categorised in the transport
and commodities sector was in the region of 33. In 2018, approximately 10% of the
ICC’s new 72 arbitrations relating to the transportation sector were handled in
London.
4 The LMAA handled 88 new maritime arbitrations in 2019 in Singapore, and the
SCMA oversaw 41 new maritime case references in 2019. We estimate the SIAC
received approximately 95 new maritime references and the ICC received 5 new
maritime cases in 2019.
5 The SIAC have confirmed they handled approximately 80 maritime cases in 2018.
The SCMA confirmed that it oversaw 56 maritime references in 2018. The ICC
handled 4 transportation references in Singapore in 2018 and the LMAA handled
approximately 78 maritime arbitrations in 2018.
6 The ICC handled approximately 2 new transportation cases in Hong Kong in 2018,
and the LMAA have not provided any statistics for Hong Kong.
7 The ICC handled approximately 13 new transportation sector arbitrations in Paris
in 2018 and 2019, and CAMP saw 30 maritime arbitrations in Paris in 2018 and
2019. It should be noted that Paris has a significant ad hoc maritime arbitration
caseload which cannot be easily tracked, and for which statistics have not been
included in our publication.
8 The EMAC and DIFC-LICA have declined to make their maritime arbitration
statistics publically available. The DIAC have confirmed that they handle very few
maritime arbitration cases.
9 NOMA have not provided their 2018 or 2019 arbitration statistics to us, nor
provided projected figures for 2020.
10 https://www.hfw.com/downloads/002203-HFW-Maritime-arbitration-innumbers-More-on-the-statistics-July-2020.pdf
Авторы: CRAIG NEAME, HOLLY COLAÇO
Источник: https://www.hfw.com/downloads/002203-HFW-Maritime-Arbitration-in-Numbers-July-2020.pdf