This is my latest article co-authored with Matthew Lee, published on the Kluwer Arbitration Blog.
Here's a sneak peak:
Last Wednesday, the international arbitration community in Australia won a significant victory. Indeed, in TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia  HCA 5 (13 March 2013), S178/2012, the Australian High Court (“Court”) dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (“the Act”), and thus confirmed Australia’s appeal as a hub of international arbitration in the Asia-Pacific. The decision has important implications not only because it confirms the finality of international arbitral awards, but also because it clarifies the demarcation between judicial power and arbitral authority under Australian law. As we argue in this post, this is a welcome move, particularly in light of the Australian Government’s resolution to no longer include investor-state dispute settlement provisions in BITs and FTAs, a decision which sent shockwaves throughout the international arbitration community and placed a question mark on Australia’s commitment to its growing international arbitration industry.
Read the entire article on the Kluwer Arbitration Blog here: