No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 March 2019
Japan has been lagging far behind other jurisdictions in Asia such as Hong Kong and Singapore, which have been widely recognized as international arbitration hubs. However, efforts have been made to transform Japanese cities into new arbitration hubs.
1 A Registered Foreign Lawyer is defined as a lawyer who is qualified in a foreign jurisdiction and obtains approval from the Minister of Justice and gets registered in accordance with the relevant rules of the Foreign Lawyers Act. Foreign Lawyers Act, Art. 2(iii).
2 Foreign Lawyers Act, Art. 5-3. An international arbitration case is defined as “a civil arbitration case which is conducted in Japan and in which all or some of the parties are persons who have an address or a principal office or head office in a Foreign Jurisdiction.” Foreign Lawyers Act, Art. 2(xi).
3 Statistics in this paragraph are based on the materials provided by the JCAA, on file with the author.
4 Id.
5 See, e.g., Ragan, Charles R., Arbitration in Japan: Caveat Foreign Drafter and Other Lessons, 7 Arb. Int'l 93 (1991)Google Scholar.
6 Arbitration Act, Art. 38(4).
7 Supreme Court Judgment (December 12, 2017), available at http://www.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_jp/306/087306_hanrei.pdf. [Japanese]. For a brief analysis in English of the judgment, see Morrison & Foerster Tokyo Litigation Client Alert (March 20, 2018), Japanese Supreme Court Issues Precedent-Setting Decision Interpreting the Japan Arbitration Act, available at http://www.mofo.jp/topics/JapaneseSupremeCourtIssuesPrecedentSettingDecision.pdf.
8 JCAA materials, supra note 3.
9 Cf. Luke Nottage & James Claxton, “Japan is Back” – For International Dispute Resolution Services?, Kluwer Arb. Blog (Jan. 29, 2018), at http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/01/29/japan-back-international-dispute-resolution-services.
10 Nikkei, Morning Edition (Mar. 17, 2018).
11 Basic Policy on Economic and Fiscal Management and Reform 2017 – Increasing Productivity Through Investment in Human Resources (June 9, 2017), available at http://www5.cao.go.jp/keizai-shimon/kaigi/cabinet/2017/2017_basicpolicies_en.pdf.
12 See, e.g., Keidanren, Calling for Accelerated Conclusion of Investment Agreements – Toward Establishment of 21st-Century International Investment Rules (Dec. 15, 2015), at http://www.keidanren.or.jp/en/policy/2015/119.html.
13 JGC Corporation v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/27; Eurus Energy Holdings Corporation and Eurus Energy Europe B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/4.
14 Lacey Yong, Treaty Claims Against India Get Under Way, Glob. Arb. Rev. (Feb. 22, 2018).
15 Yuka Fukunaga, ISDS Under the CPTPP and Beyond: Japanese Perspectives, Kluwer Arb. Blog (June 13, 2018).
16 European Commission Press Release, European Commission Proposes Signature and Conclusion of Japan and Singapore Agreements (Apr. 18, 2018), at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1826.
17 Nikkei, Morning Edition (Mar. 1, 2018). Fukunaga, ISDS, supra note 15.
18 See, e.g., Luke Eric Peterson, UNCITRAL Meetings on ISDS Reform Get off to Bumpy Start, as Delegations Can't Come to Consensus on Who Should Chair Sensitive Process – Entailing a Rare Vote, IA Rep. (Dec. 9, 2017).