Singapore and London: Global Leaders in Maritime Arbitration Case Study

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Background of Maritime Disputes

Singapore and London both are often regarded as the highest worldwide Centre’s for resolving maritime legal issues, with each having specific preferences regarding the legal processes and arbitration phases.[1] With organizations like the "Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)" to provide support, Singapore's strategic location within Southeast Asia combined with its strong legal system puts it in an improved position to deal with several maritime arbitration challenge proposals. On the other hand it has a seaborne tradition of long heritage and its legal system for arbitration and trial both is well supported by the English court and by London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA).

1.1.1 Nature of Maritime Disputes and Types

Maritime disputes range from different activities centered on the utilization of the high sea as a medium of vessels in areas of charter parties, bills of lading, ship construction, and marine insurance and collision cases. These factors there are many substantive issues are noticed such as, collisions and contract.[2] Charter party’s disputes normally involve fitness of the vessel, loading and offloading of cargoes, and demurrage among others.

1.1.2 Charter parties and Bills of Lading

Charter parties may be defined as agreements that are entered into between a ship-owner and a charterer for avail of a ship or for the use of space on the ship. They describe conditions, for example, how long the vessel is hired, the rate for carriage for the freight and the conditions that both the hirer and the owner of the vessel agree about with regard to the physical condition of the vessel and the cargo. The following are the general category of chartering: time charter, voyage charter, and demise charter; each of them falling under different legal framework.

It is worth mentioning that it can be categorized into several types according to the business individualities, including time charter, and demise charter which are not like each other in terms of legal treatment and specific issues that may cause a scandal.[3] One particular area of concern will be the charter party clause that relates to interest taken on account in the charter party, disputes may arise over Condition of the vessel, delay and payment, shipping and causes relevant to lay time and demurrage. Bill of lading are very significant legal documents in the import export business, they are receipts for the goods shipped, documents of title and a contract of carriage. Some of the issues that could give rise to a bill of lading dispute include claims on alleged misplacement or destruction of cargo, the freight terms and conditions, inappropriate delivery, and fraud.[4] The settlement of such issues involves the examination of the contract referred to as the bill of lading and national legislation can be consolidated with international conventions such as the Hamburg Rules, or the Rotterdam Rules.[5]

The main reason to writing about Singapore and London disputes as centers to focus on Global leadership in Maritime Arbitration, analyses the strategic importance in global trade and focus on other legal certainty and enforcement to emphasize some advantages of both the places to properly handle all the complex maritime disputes.

1.2 Research Problem and Rationale

1.2.1 Identification of issues in dispute resolution practices, particularly in London

London is observed to be one of the appropriate factors for maritime negotiation and process, and their problems rise though addressing maritime disputes. The problems are cost and time required for the proceeding which may turn out to be a hindrance considering the nature of the issues under dispute.[6] Moreover, the topic of marine law bears features that make it quite delicate, and the prolonging the process. Some are related to the stability and other relevant results, due to the variability of the situation and multiple possibilities of the interpretation of the rules.

1.2.2 Rationale for comparing Singapore’s practices, focusing on its efficiency and institutional support

The rationale which forms the basis of this research is therefore to ascertain why Singapore is increasingly being preferred to London based on the geopolitical, legal cultural as well as the cost implications.[7] The examination of actual cases of charter parties and bills of lading is the response to essential questions of the present investigation related to the strengths of arbitration in Singapore, its cost, and the recognition of awards.

1.3 Hypothesis

Maritime parties operating in Asia should resolve their disputes in Singapore rather than in London because of the geopolitical, cultural, legal, and cost effectiveness of Singapore as the seat of arbitration.

1.4 Research Questions

In this study the main research questions for each chapter are as follows

Chapter 2:  Legal Framework and Practices in Singapore - What are the main key legal principles as well as practices are governing all the commercial law in Singapore and how do these are reflect Singapore’s regulatory environment?

Chapter 3: Legal Framework and Practices in London - what are the primary differences in the implementation of arbitration awards as well as litigation processes among the Singapore and London as well as how do these differences affect all kinds of effectiveness of dispute resolution in this entire maritime cases?

Chapter 4: Transnational issues in the Singaporean and English Jurisdictions - How do the transnational maritime legal frameworks and arbitration practices in Singapore and England compare in addressing jurisdictional challenges, procedural efficiency, and cost-effectiveness in resolving international maritime disputes?

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion - Should maritime parties operating in Asia submit their maritime disputes to arbitration seated in Singapore in preference to London because of the geopolitical, cultural, cost advantages as well as legal of Singapore as the seat?

1.5 Chapter Synopsis

This study examines strategic analysis and similarities of the Singapore and London maritime dispute resolution systems for the international maritime industry. It defines maritime disputes especially those regarding charter parties as well as bills of lading and offer an outline of the legal and contractual aspects. International conventions in relation to these issues including, the Hamburg Rules, and the Rotterdam Rules are also analyzed in the paper.

The research then examines various concerns that relate to London’s dispute resolution practices, such as those to do with cost and time. A comparative analysis ensues with emphasis on legal, geopolitical and culture choice between Singapore and London. Charter parties and bills of lading are illustrated through case studies to evaluate the aspects of arbitration costs and distinct enforcement between the two cities.

Chapter 2 and 3 is primarily focus on the legal framework of Singapore and London and cover all kinds of international common laws which is help to enhance the Marine law to analyses the legal tradition founded on the basis of colonization by Britain and assimilation with English legal principles.

The chapter 4 is arise essential questions like Singapore or London: which place is better for maritime parties in Asia to resolve their disputes taking into consideration factors like; cost, effectiveness of laws, and geopolitics. The goal of the study is to present results on the comparative analysis of the two centers in the perspective of the efficiency when it comes to solving maritime disputes. This entire chapter are going to discusses all the key conventions like “UNCLOS as well as Hague-Visby Rules”, to maintain all kinds of standardization processes based on maritime regulation. These entire chapter are highlights all kinds of jurisdictional conflicts to maintain all the potential differences the other enforcement judgements.

Chapter 2: Legal Framework and Practices in Singapore

2.1 Marine law in Singapore

In this is Chapter 2, are demonstrates the Singapore's commercial law, in particular marine law, being both analyzed in both English common law and international conventions. The regulatory regime is oriented to compliance with global laws and practical efficiency. Through these judicial structures that have been put in place by the Admiralty Division of the High Court as well as arbitration mechanisms such as SIAC, Singapore really comes out as a country that truly epitomizes fairness and flexibility.

2.1.1 Overview of marine law influenced by English common law and international

Conventions

The legal systems in Singapore, its Marine law is sourced from the UK common regulation, which is a legal tradition founded on the basis of colonization by Britain and assimilation with English legal principles. Major enactments that concern the maritime legal framework include the Merchant Shipping Act,[8] the Bills of Lading Act, and the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.[9] These laws are in tandem with the inter-governmental conventions like the “Hague-Visby Rules”, the Hamburg Rules, and the Rotterdam Rules due to which Singapore marine laws are international laws. Singapore also signed a number of other very significant IMO conventions; some of these include: the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, the Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[10] These conventions set out the principles of Singapore's regulation of the marine industry pertaining to matters like safety, control of pollution, and sharing of responsibilities for states in using the oceans of the world.

2.1.2 Role of the Singapore High Court and Admiralty division

The Singapore High Court which essentially comes under the Admiralty Division, which indeed contributes to a pronounced role in the process of addressing various marine-related conflicts.[11] The Admiralty of the High Court articulates much defined jurisdiction, which is outlined by the High Court under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, giving the court powers related to different maritime claims.[12] Such areas include claims to the physical possession or legal ownership of a ship, claims for loss or damage by a ship, and issues relating to the carriage of goods, charter parties, and bills of lading. The admiralty division of the Singapore High Court is especially renowned for the professional and quant services it affords in the resolution of complex maritime legal matters. It has its own set of practical measures established under the Rules of Court for the arrest of the ships and dealing with maritime claims. The in rem as well as in persona proceedings make it easier for the court to provide remedies for the maritime claims.

2.2 Litigation Practices

2.2.1 Procedures: Filing claims, pre-trial procedures, trial, and appeals

Maritime disputes in Singapore are taken to the “court of law”, and hence the following is a step-by-step process on how the cases are handled. The procedures begin with filing a claim and this is accompanied by abiding by the rules of the court.[13] Depending on the approached court and the service type, the claimant benefits from a writ of summons containing information of the bases of the dispute and such supporting documents.

As for the Singapore courts, there is very effective judicial supervision accompanied by quite a formal observance of rules and procedures which also serve to ensure discipline and concentration during the trial.[14] Once a judgement has been given, the other party may appeal to the Court of Appeal, which is Singapore’s High Court. The appeal process is difficult, and one has to show strong grounds for the appeal.

2.2.2 Case Studies

Analysis of how these cases reflect the procedural practices and effectiveness

Of litigation in Singapore

There are various standard cases explaining procedural practice and efficiency of litigation in Singapore. One such case is The “Star Quest [2016] SGHC 100”, a case where the parties' disagreement was with respect to the meaning of a charter party agreement. The case went through the usual process where the writ was filed and then, there was a period of discovery and pre-trial conferences that was supposed to narrow the dispute down into manageable issues.[15] Another particularized case is the one that got the name Pacific Vigorous [2018] SGCA 20 regarding the issues, connected with bills of lading.

[16] The procedural stringency ensures that cases are rigorously prepared before they move into the trial phase of proceedings, reducing any vulnerable instances when they come up against the court. The cases illustrate the way in which the pre-trial processes in Singapore work to clarify the issues for purposes of settlement.

2.3 Arbitration Practices

2.3.1 Procedures: Commencing arbitration, selecting arbitrators, hearings, and awards

The legal government of arbitration in Singapore embraces foremost the Arbitration Act that refers to the domestic process of arbitration and the International Arbitration Act for international arbitrations.[17] The commencement of an arbitration proceedings is usually provided for in the contract by means of an arbitration clause as in charter parties or bills of lading. In most cases, it is people who have a certain level of experience in matters concerning maritime that the parties prepare. In the case where they fail to, there are specialized institutions whose role is to appoint such arbitrators such as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.[18] The SIAC is known for its excellent procedure and the support it provides. This flexibility may mean that the existing disputes are solved early.[19] Most of the other factors carry the prize money as final and conclusive, and there are very few reasons that can be used to appeal the prize.

2.3.2 Case Studies

Analysis of case outcomes and their implications for arbitration efficiency

Pacific King Shipping Pte Ltd vs Long Fei Shipping Ltd

The actual arbitration was conducted per the rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC, and the panel consisted of three arbitrators who were more conversant with marine laws.[20] This case brings into focus Singapore's efficient method for arbitration where the final award was given in six months. Some of the hearings were conducted through video conference and this depicted a high level of flexibility from the arbitrators.[21] It was an award of contract recognized and implemented without any controversy in a manner which evidenced the efficiency of Singapore's arbitration framework.

It can be seen from the case studies that there are major advantages of the arbitration system in Singapore. These arrangements, such as a hearing through video link or consideration of writing submissions only, will save much precious time and money.[22] Based on this, the high agreement rate of the “Singapore arbitration awards”, accompanied by the backing of international conventions, is a guarantee to the party that they can sort any dispute with a definite understanding of the finality of the awards. Such practices helped to promote Singapore's position as a popular place for conducting maritime arbitration, and such a model may be followed by other jurisdictions, including London, in order to improve their systems of dispute resolution.[23]

Chapter 3: Legal Framework and Practices in London

3.1 Marine law in London

Chapter 3 are primarily define features of marine law and arbitration procedures in London, taking into consideration the practices between litigation and arbitration. In this comparison are found with the Singapore arbitration, the trend now is quite far apart regarding the flexibility with the process as well as the award-enforcing measures. The arbitration system in London, for example, is characterized by flexibilities and governed by organizations such as the LMAA, while Singapore emphasizes streamlined arbitration systems under the SIAC. The litigation procedures and processes are, however, relatively formal and time-consuming in London. These differences affect the efficiency and costs involved with maritime dispute resolution as the approach in London has been towards being highly specialized, though lengthier, forms of maritime arbitration and litigation.

3.1.1 Overview of marine law with historical influences and international conventions

Overview of Marine law

London's legal structure is represented by marine law, dating back to ancient times and having a great impact on the regulation of the international shipping industry.[24]

Historical Influences 

In the time of analyzing the historical aspect of London and how “marine law” developed in the city an inference can be made that the developments of the legal system is highly influenced by the historical setting. United Kingdom’s marine law has its roots in the mediaeval age or even earlier and the “Admiralty Court” was set up in the 14th century.[25] This court was dealing exclusively with litigation related to sea issues and contributed much to the formulation of existing principles of marine law. UK’s seamen's rights changed in the course of time, leaning on concepts borrowed from Roman law and the locally existing customs and obtained from other European maritime systems. The British Empire also supported marine law during the times of 18th and 19th century dominance in world trade out of London. English law acted as a framework to many law systems in the former British colonies and thereby it spread to the entire world. 

International Conventions 

London also has other sources of marine law that comprises various international conventions that aim at standardizing the practices of different jurisdictions. Key international conventions influencing marine law in London include:

1. Hague-Visby Rules: The former raises to the contract for the carriage of goods by sea and matters concerned with bills of lading.[26] This includes the extent of the liability of the carrier toward the shipper and that of the latter toward the carrier, setting up the legal standards in international shipping business.
2. The Hamburg Rules: The scope of application of the Hamburg Rules is not as wide as that of the Hague-Visby Rules, since they also establish the legal government of the carriage of goods by sea, but they are more influenced towards the strengthening of the shippers' and consignees' rights.
3. The Rotterdam Rules: The main aim and purport of these rules are to modify and combine the laws relating to international carriage of goods by sea in view of the challenge thrown up by the problems interlinked with multimodal transport and electronic commerce. 
4. International Convention on Recover: This is a Convention that stipulates the law on the salvage operation that delineates the rem and responsibility of both the barrage and the ship owner in the practice of marine salvage.[27]

Litigation and Arbitration Practices

Maritime disputes litigation in “London Commercial Court”, which is part of the High Court dealing in commercial cases, including the maritime ones.[28] The court is well recognized for its proficiency, well-experienced bench, and the procedural rules governing the court, which have made the court quite popular among the maritime business people for handling complicated cases.

Another popular method of securing the maritime-related interests in London is through arbitration. Arbitration is defined, and one of the most well-known arbitration organisations that focuses mainly on solving maritime-related disputes is the “London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA)”.[29] The reason because of which LMAA arbitration is preferred is that the parties can choose the arbitration procedure; the proceedings are confidential, and usually, the arbitrators are the experts in the field and are also well-versed in the law of the maritime field.

Procedural Differences and Challenges

The litigation and negotiation in regard to the London process differ significantly in procedural approaches. Legal proceedings encompass legal action and lawsuit, which undergo an articulated process bound by strict rules, a fixed timetable, and often open hearings.[30] While this formality is aimed at doing away with “Museveni's Style”, it allows appeal, which means that it takes time and a lot of money to achieve.[31]

3.2 Litigation Practices

3.2.2 Procedures: Claim filing, pre-trial procedures, trial, and appeals

The main steps to be dispatched under this include the steps of claim filing, pre-trial procedures, trial, and appeals. 

Claim Filing 

From the perspective of law in London, the procedure for litigation begins with filing a claim. The claimant shall execute a claim form and file it in the proper tribunal, which in most cases is the Admiralty Court in case of a marine crisis. [32]

Pre-Trial Procedures

When a claim is filed, the case is subjected to various processes, which are deemed indispensable for the pre-trial phase of the case 

1. Service of Documents: The claimant has to serve the claim form together with the other documents on the defendant he or she has to be informed of the lawsuit.[33]
2. Acknowledgment of Service: The defendant has a given time, usually 14 days, within which to enter an appearance and acknowledge the receipt of the form of claim and the defendant's intention to defend the claim.
3. Case Management Conference: The parties hold a case management conference to determine the case program, make preliminary decisions, and indicate the timetable for disclosure of evidence, statements of sources, and expert statements.[34]

Trial 

At the trial, the two parties open their cases right from a bench of a judge or jury. The process of trial includes: 

1. Opening Statements: The parties include arguments and evidence which they anticipate to present or which forms the basis of their case.
2. Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination of Witnesses: The witnesses make statements in the court orally, and the parties of the case are allowed to question them.[35] It is more imperative in the maritime cases since the expert evidence on the business norms and the technical issues tends to be crucial.

3.3.3 Case Studies 

Case Study 1: “The Erika Case” 

The “Erika case” involved an inquiry that is of a type of conflict between C-Transport, owners of the oil tanker Erika which sank off the French coast and caused extensive pollution.[36] The chief common aspect of the litigation related to the issues of the charterer, Total and the ship-owner, related to the meaning of the charter party terms, and as to who should burden the risk regarding the sea-worthiness of the ship.[37]

Strengths 

Comprehensive Legal Framework: It was evident through the case that England's legal system is developed and that the system takes a firm stand on solving such intense maritime-related legal issues. The absence of specific provisions in the charter party is compensated by the court's analytical work in delivering clauses to strictly denote responsibilities and risks. 

In-depth Scrutiny of the Evidence: The trials led to very lengthy examinations of the documentary and expert evidence and allowed for in-depth consideration and careful judgement of the case. 

Limitations: 

Prolonged and Expensive Procedure: It extended over a number of years as it was linked to a number of procedures and appeals that had a major role in increasing the general costs of the trial.

Complexity of Legal Procedures: The peculiarities of the legal procedures and a great number of documents caused some difficulties for the parties, especially regarding the question of how all the evidence should be treated.[38]

Case Study 2: “The Achilleas Case” 

The case of “Achilleas deals” with a time charter that repudiated and redelivery procrastinated, giving rise to a claim for lost profits.[39] The legal issue mainly concerned the measure of the charterer's liability in relation to the actual redelivery.

Precedent-Setting Decision: This court's decision offered judicial guidance in the cases pertinent to the assessment of damages for breach of charter party terms. 

Judicial Expertise: Therefore, due to the background of the judges in the Admiralty Court, the judgement passed in admiralty cases can be termed well-founded and astute to every factor of the maritime business.[40] 

Limitations:

Uncertainty of Legal Standards: This case seems to have left certain ambiguities in the law relating to the measurement of damages in marine law, and this was followed by different decisions of the courts.

Protracted Appeals Process: Appeal process caused delays in the entire process of litigation thus took more time as well as costs.

Discussion on how these cases illustrate the strengths and limitations of the litigation system in London 

1. Experience and Expertise: Admiralty Court in London the court specialized in marine issues and had specialized judges with good experience in the handling of the various complicated marine cases.[41] Specialization allows cases to be handled by persons with a deep understanding about the cases, hence good judgement s.
2. Precedent and Predictability: Describing the nature of the English legal system, it would be necessary to start with mentioning that the system used in the country is based on the principle of legal precedent.[42] This comes especially in handy in the case of a dispute of the oil and gas contracts where commercial parties need sound legal principles to regulate their dealings.

Limitations

1. High Costs: The litigation process in London could be very expensive, the costs including those of the lawyer, court costs, and costs of the expert witnesses.[43] This financial cost might be discouraging to the parties, especially to those that are not very established; consequently avoiding the court process.
2. Complexity and Accessibility: The legal measures involved in the process and the essential documentation can be complicated for the parties, more so where one party lacks legal muscle. [44] This may also make it somewhat difficult for some of the parties to easily access justice.

3.4 Arbitration Practices

Procedures: Notice of arbitration, appointment of arbitrators, hearings, and awards

This step opens up the process to arbitration and also prepares the parties and the tribunal for the appointment of arbitrators. [45] The notice has to meet the requirements of the “Arbitration Act 1996” relating to the arbitration procedures in the entire England and Wales.[46]

All the parties may agree that an only arbitrator is to be appointed or three arbitrators are to be appointed to an equal likelihood of the appointment of marine law specialists. If the parties fail in the appointment of an arbitrator then the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators or the London Maritime Arbitrators Association can be approached. [47] The LMAA is mainly used in maritime issues because it has a panel of experienced arbitrators specializing in the area of maritime arbitration.

Hearings

• Arbitration proceedings initiated in London are fairly quite flexible, and may either be oral, or written as may be required by any particular case, and the parties.
• The hearings are relatively less formal than the courts as it allows for a more efficient manner of resolving disputes.
• The parties may provide evidence, call witnesses and raise legal arguments which would be heard in a court.
• The arbitrators are empowered to direct the conduct of the hearings as a means of eliminating unnecessary procedures in the process.

Awards 

It entails a sound conclusion on the case based on the merits and any matters on the award of money or other relief.[48] This award carries with it, the force and effect of United States public policy and executable under the New York Convention 1958 on International Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitration Awards.

3.4.1 Case Studies 

Case Study 1: “The Blue Ocean Case”

In the case of "Blue Ocean" there was a claim for breach of charter party and the other counterclaim for return of hire stated that, a dispute arising out of the terms of the charter party and the interpretation of certain provisions of the charter went to arbitration. The charterer started the procedure and since the matter was described as contentious the three arbitrators were awarded.[49]

Efficiency and Procedural Aspects: 

It also furnished the claims in elaboration including the evidence to support those claims in a notice of arbitration. The process of selection of the arbitrators got delayed due to the failure of the parties to reach consensus regarding the chair and members of the panel, which was finally sorted out by the intervention of the LMAA’s.

Case Study 2: “The Global Trader Case”

The case of Global Trader was a contractual relationship relating to carrying of goods through a bill of lading. The shipper also sought compensation for an ordeal of misdelivery of consignment, as was alleged.[50] This arbitration was called by the shipper and the LMAA helped in nominating the sole arbitrator. 

Efficiency and Procedural Aspects:

The notice of arbitration provided was adequate, while the formation of the arbitrator was efficient. The hearings thus took a rather written form with one oral hearing to argue specific issues of controversy.[51]

Examination of the efficiency and procedural aspects based on case outcomes

The process of notice of arbitration helps in making the disputes, which rise through the official channels.[52]

The arbitration has strength due to broad flexibility, anonymity, and subject-specific expertise, owing to the usage of various institutions such as the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA). This enables parties to shape the process to their needs, often speeding up the resolution compared to formal litigation. One can choose arbitrators with deep expertise in marine law; one of the factors that contributes to effective dispute resolution.

Chapter 4: Transnational issues in the Singapore and English jurisdiction

4.1 Introduction

Maritime legal and business problems encompass various transactional interests that appear in the course of an international business transaction especially where the transaction involves shipping. Such questions can cover questions of contract and tort, the collection of debt and the conflict of laws. Such issues are relevant in maritime disputes largely because shipping is the international business and parties to a transaction often come from different jurisdictions. Solving these problems is essential for facilitating the trade processes and for the legal defense of the parties. In particular, Singapore and London are targeted here since both of these cities are famous maritime centers with highly developed practices in arbitration sessions. In both cities participants will find specific legal systems as well as professionals experienced in the resolution of disputes in maritime law. Singapore can guarantee neutrality and fast outcomes while London remains an important reference for this kind of business rooted in tradition. This is crucial since the common law transactional issues will be the subject of this analysis, thereby becoming valuable in rendering a comparative assessment of the performance of the two arbitration systems in handling intricate maritime claims.[53]

The first area is Marine law and Admiralty Jurisdiction.

Marine law or Admiralty law deals with conflict resolution as well as activities that take place at seas. It helps to deal with problems arising from carriage of goods by sea, merchants, marine’s business, and contracts. Though coordinate guidelines of operation by putting in place safety measures on pollution and shipping, they do not have jurisdiction to offer decisions for the concerted parties. However, where such disputes arise, they are settled under the national laws or under arbitration conducted in accordance with these conventions. In contemporary marine law, the IMO conventions also work in connection with international systems such as the Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam Rules. These instruments regulate and prescribe certain practices and ways of handling maritime disputes and do not however, compel compliance with their determinations.

England still recognizes admiralty law and the Admiralty Court tackles any issues with relation to maritime contracts, navigation and shipping. [54] While Singapore is maritime arbitration and has used the strategic seaport location and strong legal system as the advantage. Both jurisdictions illustrate the role of national court in the settlement of disputes in accordance with principles of laws under various international conventions.

Significance of Arbitration

The choice of arbitration in maritime disputes is also due to the transnational character of industrial relations. Arbitration provides parties originating from different jurisdictions with a neutral, relatively speedy and legally effective way of resolving disputes. Arbitration is apparent in these jurisdictions, and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) are excellent examples.[55] Their frameworks correlate with international standards to dealing with large flow volumes, but at the same time, provide for the needs of the commercial parties involved.

Singapore and England continue to safeguard their important positions within the world of maritime governance, with the help of such conventions as UNCLOS as well as the IMO, which play the role of unification of standards at the same time but leave the resolution of disputes to national courts or arbitration.[56] Taken together, that legal problems within the maritime industry require a more systematic and standardized analysis from a transnational legal perspective, the issue is approached in a way that is both standardized yet also capable of flexibility at the same time.

In this regard, the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) is perhaps of one the largest international maritime arbitration organizations. LMAA plays a pivotal role in offering an alternative to traditional litigation by providing arbitration services specifically for the maritime industry. The main reason justifying the application of arbitration is defined here, with emphasis on the fact that arbitration is meant to refer to issues to do with shipping like shipping contracts and cargo claims.

The decision for arbitration located in London is quite beneficial mainly because the legal system of that country is quite stable and does not present innumerable, that can complicate the process of resolution of the disputes related to shipping contracts, cargo claims and other matters of a similar nature. Arbitration offers a more flexible, quicker, and cost-effective means of settling disputes, while avoiding the complexities and potential delays of court litigation, which can carry higher risks. This revision is meant to decouple arbitration from litigation and to state that although both forms of ‘resolution’ are inherently dangerous, arbitration is the safer and quicker option.[57]

Judicial redress:

The Admiralty Court in London deals with many different kinds of marine lawsuits which is both a final appellate court for the decisions of arbitral tribunals under “section 69” of the “English Arbitration Act 1996” and a general maritime court dealing with matters such as ship arrests, cargo claims, and maritime contracts. This dual role is not the case in Singapore where the “Singapore International Arbitration Act” limits the judiciary’s involvement and anything as per the appeal. London provides wider opportunity for legal remedies especially on legal issues has become the preferred choice for Maritime litigation and arbitration remaining to the well-developed legal structure based on common law system and adequate legal provisions. There are essential procedural differences between the Singapore and English legal systems, though the root cause of divergence is different. Singaporean courts are guided by their home laws, which are least interventionist and encourage the use of Arbitration is an adjudication process, similar to litigation. On the other hand England’s “Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)” provide for wider judicial intervention with regard to appeals on arbitration decisions. Peculiarities of the English system under the Arbitration Act 1996 allow disputing parties to receive wider opportunities in comparison with Singapore. The jurisdictions of civil litigation may be remedied that comes against a party or “in rem” against a vessel or the cargo. The use of pre-trial conferences in Singapore is also provided for as well as Arbitration is an adjudication process, similar to litigation.in the settlement of disputes. Failing which trials involve consideration of evidence and examination of witnesses. Singapore courts can therefore be said to be pretty much in tune with the common law tradition supplemented by such international conventions.

London’s “Admiralty Court under section 20” of the “Senior Courts Act 1981” allows for Ship Arrest Procedures to secure claims making London a leading maritime jurisdiction. Peculiarly English rules and regularity bias augments the English style arbitration and presents pleading to end dispute amplitude.

The comparative analysis reveals the differences in jurisdiction of Singapore and England in the operation of their laws in influencing the maritime arbitration and litigation in the international market. These variations shape approaches to the settlement of international multimodal disputes.[58]

The courts continue to encourage Arbitration is an adjudication process, similar to litigation. With a view of ensuring that the dispute is determined without going through the normal trial process.[59] The maritime litigation has not been resolved on the pre-trial, then a trial is conducted, during which evidence is reviewed, and the witness may be interrogated. Singapore’s courts remain very effective in the investigation of facts and the consideration of both common law principles inter and international conventions.[60]

After Singapore, London is also properly grounded in a common law which has one of the most well-known “Maritime Jurisdictions” in the entire world. In the time of defining this particular aspect all the commercial disputes are focused on the “Admiralty Court” of the country's highest tribunal.[61]

Part l: England

In London, the case of Ocean Victory caused a lot of combination since it had to do with safe port warranties in a time charter party. The ship-owners sought their losses and in the same case the charterer attempted to establish the event as an “Act of God”. One of the significant questions arising in the present case concerned definition and implementation of safe port warranties in terms of the time charter party. English courts were careful in exercising procedure restraint – a procedural strictness was one of the cherishable features of the case. The court therefore controlled expert proof within the formal process of admitting it. In this respect, the court displayed cautious orientation in dealing with technical issues of the case especially the contract of maritime nature.

Strengths

One of the virtues of the case was how carefully the court approached the examination of clauses in the charter party, particularly the safe port warranties clauses. Legal rules laid more emphasis on focusing a contractual term as a plan that requires a systematic evaluation; this especially where such terms are deemed fundamental to the risk-sharing between the parties to the contract. It showed that the court meant to give direction on extent and enforceability of such clauses in the maritime law.

Limitations

However, some general and inherent drawbacks and limitations were identified in the course of litigation. The following were named as the key difficulties observed during the case: An important issue that was mentioned by the parties was a rather long period of time it took before the case was taken to the Supreme Court of United Kingdom. This elongated process incurred much more costs for the parties involved than the normal process would have incurred. Long tussles provided a clue of challenges associated with the disposal of sophisticated maritime affairs within the frames of reference of English legal culture together with doubts arising out of commission of litigation as a tool for managing such involved affairs. This is an indication that the parties involved in the transaction should pay precise attention and maneuver through the transactional aspects as well as the applicable legal rules in respect of the maritime contracts.

Part II: Singapore

The admiralty law, a ship owner was sued for negligence to pursue major shipping objectives based on breach of the warranty of seaworthiness[62]. This warranty is one of the shared conditions of the maritime law in that it requires the ship-owner to warrant and guarantee that the ships are fitting for the planned voyage. In this scenario “Eurasian Dream [2002] SGHC 123” are the most appropriate case which is help to define this section. This carrier failure allegation comes from the plaintiff, a charterer, to whom a certain ship was hired, was none seaman worthy, hence leading to delays that attracted demurrage claims, all under the governing of the COGSA. The case also made use of the Australian Convention by contrasting some parts of shipping laws to those of Singapore.

Transactional Issues in Singapore:

1. Warranty of Seaworthiness: As for contractual relations, the main disputable transactional matter concerns the violation of warranty of seaworthiness which is one of principal covenant in maritime contracts. These claims stemmed from the inability of the ship-owner to provide a seaworthy vessel that would enable the charterer to make his delivery on time and get regular moneymaking turnover that would have otherwise reduced his incoming overhead costs. This analysis provokes issues of law ports in the area of seaworthiness warranties in maritime contracts, especially under the COGSA regime.
2. In Rem Action

This procedural tool is considered in maritime litigation since it focuses on the ship as an object of the loss and complies the entirety of the interest of the claimant in order to attain an injury. The case shows effectiveness and feasibility of this action in guaranteeing compensation.

1. Costs and Expert Evidence: The weaknesses of the case it was noted that especially with an increased tendency towards lawyer’s fees and expenses which entails having to engage an expert on the matter and or even an expert witness would definitely pose a huge challenge to the parties involved.

Strengths:

• Thorough Discovery and Fair Trial: This paper will show that the Singaporean legal system is highly efficient when considering the extent of bias it minimizes in trials; the discovery stage is fairly comprehensive. This improves even the fairest trial for the party in question.
• Support for In Rem Action: The legal structure does help the claimant enforce a remedy in that it allows the claimant to go and arrest the vessel effectively.

Limitations:

• High Costs: The substantial expenses, especially the professional fees, witnessed some inconvenience in the access to the litigation by the parties.
• Delays due to Expert Evidence: Pre-trial measures are generally helpful in reducing the time taken, but the actual trial time is longer because of detailed expert evidence.

This case underscores the dual nature of Singapore’s maritime litigation process: while it provides very strong protection for claimants through efficient remedies it also has the problems of high cost and longtime consumption of expert opinion.

4.2 Comparison

The first problem that could lead to the controversy is whether either of the countries has the right to hear the case. Singapore and the UK have rich traditional accounts of maritime and both of them are well recognized globally in the maritime field. [63] These refer to contractual terms providing rules that determine the jurisdiction or law to be applied may create uncertainty when the specific jurisdiction or law to be applied in the determination of rights and liabilities of the contracting parties has not been provided for by the parties.

The Singapore and London marine laws show various loopholes affecting the effectiveness of strategic maritime legal undertakings. Singapore examples exhibit that key issues are embodied in such cases like the ‘Panamax Arbitration’ which rarely provide for the warranty of seaworthiness of a ship and scope and process of pretrial discovery. The practical focus of Singapore legal provision is linked to the claimant’s rights including in rem vessel arrests exhibits the nature of Singapore regulation enforcement bias. However, this approach raises a lot of costs and takes a long time, especially regarding expert opinions that are usually sought during trials. Although the MSA system facilitates resolution of procedural issues, the number of pretrial phases and costs discourages parties seeking quick determinations. This rigid adherence to the principles can cause procedural tactics hence causing undue elongation of the resolution framework and increasing the costs of litigation. Though it makes the proceedings most consistent and legally clear for all the parties involved, this approach may be limiting for the parties that seek as fast as possible trial more often than not originating from the Asian countries.

The differences of the two systems raise a tactical issue for maritime plaintiffs and defendants. Singapore’s framework benefits the no-nonsense and result-oriented parties, yet has two main drawbacks: cost and expert evidence. At the same time, however, London’s commitment to the precedents and procedural formalism provides stable conditions for legal proceeding while taking a long time. Consequently, Asian parties prefer going for arbitration in Singapore due to the efficiency it offers, while London is still the preferred venue for massive, leap-legal issues that need extensive analysis.

Appreciating these differences is crucial for those stakeholders that are seeking to determine which jurisdiction to apply in international marine law disputes since it has been realized that the selection of the correct forum enormously affects efficiency of proceedings and their results.

It is known maritime arbitrations are preferred over maritime legal actions for many reasons, one of which is that controversies usually span across national borders. Singapore, as well as the UK, are two developed arbitration centers where SIAC and LMAA procedures differ from one another.[64] It is not easy to coordinate these different arbitration frameworks.

Strengths of Singapore

All the parties in international conventions that primarily regulate marine law are between sovereign states, which do not come under shipping companies as well as other entities. In the time of defining the particular legal framework the main convention example comes from is "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)", this is relevant to maritime cases and this study is mainly focused on the legal framework of sea related cases in Singapore.[65] These frameworks are primarily provided to resolve all the potential disputes which are related to navigational rights, maritime boundaries as well as other economic factors.

A court judgement or an arbitration award can even be given in another jurisdiction, enforcing a judgement can always be a problem. As for the enforcement of court judgement s there is no such certainty as the two countries are members of the “1958 New York Convention” on the “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards”.[66] In these entire processes of English judgement are primarily analyses all kinds of potential enforce processes in the country Singapore and London due to their absence of different agreement among two countries.

Another important influence that has been observed to stem from the international conventions in maritime dispute is the tend to converge the laws governing the sea among countries. Important codes like “Hague-Visby Rules”, the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” or the International Convention for Salvage offers the collection of rules to the courts and the arbitral tribunal in both the countries.[67] The “Hague-Visby Rules” are contain rights and responsibilities of the parties involved in the sea carriage of goods it contains the standard rules regarding the matters of cargo claims such as liability for loss, damage or delay as well as period of limitation on suits, and the amount of damages.[68]

The Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgement s in Civil and Commercial Matters signed in 1968 has been amended and was replaced by the Brussels I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001).[69] This regulation was again amended by the Brussels I Recast (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012) to simplify the jurisdictional issues and recognition and enforcement of judgement s in the Member State of the EU.[70] However, the United Kingdom does not follow the Brussels I Regulation after Brexit has occurred. Rather, the UK has created a different system of jurisdiction and the enforcement of the judgement s using the main source, which is the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgement s Act 1982 and other bi-lateral conventions. This change resulted from the UK leaving the European Union and means new factors for parties in cross-border litigation that are connected to the UK and EU jurisdictions because they apply different laws concerning jurisdiction issues and the enforcement of judgement s.[71]

Strengths of London

Maritime problems, especially those concerning charter parties and bills of lading, are more and more being resolved through arbitration rather than in conventional courts, Singapore and London being the two most popular places for arbitration dealing with maritime affairs.[72] London has been founded as a seaport city and has built up a strong seaborne legal practice which marked it as a city where marine disputes are solved. Generally the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) has a central role in determining the arbitration practices in the city.[73] One good example in explaining London’s arbitration process is the case of Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40.[74] In this case, the issue arose as to whether an arbitration provision to charter party agreements was valid and the House of Lords upheld the sanctity of the arbitration agreement noting that clauses should be given a wide construction so as to embrace all controversies arising under the contract.[75]

Limitations of London:

It can be stated that the procedural framework in London is quite sound since it is regulated by the English Arbitration Act 1996. The LMAA has long developed clear and organized rules for providing the parties procedural fairness despite the fact that it may take relatively much time and money. In the contract case of a breach of a charter party in the Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 14. The arbitration was an issue in contest.[76] The courts of England affirmed the arbitration award as they are a recognition of the reality that arbitration awards are valid and cannot be set aside unless there is legal mistake.[77]

Comparison and Suitability for Maritime Disputes

Singapore is therefore increasingly becoming an important location for maritime arbitration with backing from the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and with location near important shipping lines in Asia. 

In the time of define this particular thing the one case which is most relevant to this content is PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV and others [2013] SGCA 57.[78] In this case the court of appeal of Singapore upheld an arbitration award regarding a charter party case and Singapore once again demonstrated its pro-arbitration bias unless the procedural fairness was breached.

4.3 Conclusion

London being in the tradition of the maritime arbitration under the LMAA and leaning on the “English Arbitration Act” enacted in 1996 with focus on procedural fairness and vigorous enforcement of arbitration clause as seen in “Fiona Trust and Others v Privalov” and others. The processes that occur in London take time and money, or more accurately, for serious money. Kuala Lumpur, with the backing of SIAC and its strategic locations nearer the Asian shipping lanes, has emerged as the most appropriate arbitration seat, which is efficient and pro-arbitration Benton, as in “PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara”. Singapore with its pragmatic structure can offer an efficient and affordable solution to Asian seared parties.[79] 

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion

5.1 Summary of Findings 

5.1.1. Synthesis findings from Chapters 2, 3, and 4 

Findings of legal framework and practice in Singapore (Chapter 2)

Singapore has based its legal systems and procedures for maritime disputes both on conventions and its own laws. The country is a contracting party to most of the international maritime conventions that are administered by IMO (International Maritime Organisation) that serves as the source of its maritime legal systems.

Marine laws are sought to be countered here in Singapore with a hub of many legal professionals.[80] This has specialization in Marine laws and is supported by educational institutions including NUS or National University of Singapore. The Centre for Marine law (CML) at NUS is involved with the provision of maritime legal expertise through advancement of the work and study of laws. The Maritime Singapore Green Initiative adopted by the government of Singapore together with the support and actions of the industry players also show that Singapore is very active in shaping marine law and policy.[81] This crucial information can be found in chapter 2 of this study. 

Findings of legal framework and practice in London (Chapter 3)

The presented legal system of London concerning the maritime disputes can be described as historical and effective for encompassing both litigation and arbitration. There is the “Civil Procedure Rules” or referred to as CPR while the enforcement of arbitral awards, there is the Arbitration Act 1996. Subsequently, the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 is fundamental to the London arbitration practices. The London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) is probably one of the major players in the sphere of maritime arbitration.[82] London’s legal framework adopted a dual system that entitles the disputing parties to focus on either the formal legal proceedings or alienation processes. 

This is depending on the nature and preference of each company. Judicial precedents like Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Company v. Ministry of Religious Affairs of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Westacre Investments Inc v. Jugoimport-SPDR Holding Co Ltd shows the way London courts have come into the enforcement of decisions.[83] Apart from that, advantages of London are effective in legal experience and the tradition of marine law.[84] Among the technological issues, the city has been performing the center of dispute resolution referring to maritime affairs, proving its unreserved diligence to efficiently solve maritime questions.[85] This crucial information can be observed from the chapter 3 of this study. 

Findings of comparative analysis (Chapter 4)

Singapore and London with reference to legal system, arbitration and litigation. Legal systems of both jurisdictions are the civil law system with the influence in the maritime business common law and the actual sources of the given dispute regulation are international conventions including “UNCLOS and Hague-Visby Rules”. Singapore on the other hand is slowly but surely positioning itself as a maritime arbitration hub in the Asia with support from the “Maritime Singapore International Arbitration Centre (MSIAC)” as well as legislation such as the “Singapore International Arbitration Act”. Nonetheless, London’s standards of operation entails a procedure-like lawsuits process that is regarded as slow and expensive than that of Singapore. Altogether, the given analysis reveals a gradual shift in the focus on Singapore as emerging hub in the context of international marine law and this could overthrow London, which already occupied this position for rather long time.

5.1.2. Discuss the implications for maritime dispute resolution 

1. Implications of Comparative Practices

The comparative evaluation of the practices in Singapore and London concerning the maritime dispute suggests crucial findings on the way the parties decide to act upon them. The focus on arbitration in Singapore that is supported by the institutions such as the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration and the Singapore International Arbitration chamber points to focus on the dispute resolution. This proves to be rather beneficial for the international parties in particular in situations when they want a non-complex predictable procedure and experience in disputes solving with the help of maritime arbitration.[86]

1. Impacts of legal frameworks

Singapore’s legislation based on the international conventions along with the support of the local institutions proves the country’s requirement to provide a high level of the maritime disputes’ resolution. London being a maritime city has always had a strong history of marine law and a legal structure for litigation and arbitration which is supported chapter and verse by Arbitration Act 1996 and the Civil Procedure Rules. That has made sure that London in the international community can deal with international maritime disputes because of the Effective enforcement of judgement and arbitral awards provided under the New York Convention. 

1. Stakeholder implications

The stakeholders' involvement in the maritime industry, this choice between Singapore and London for shows has serious consequences that SIAC and SCMA can assure the efficiency of arbitration services given the institutions in charge of these services. London’s effective legal process is a useful precedent to parties as they are given an option between legal proceedings and arbitration.[87] Therefore, efficiency in managing both litigation and arbitration creates a wider coverage of legal measures and tools available to and for the stakeholders.

1. Strategic Considerations

Strategic concerns for the parties involved are the extent to which the jurisdiction is suitable for that particular kind of dispute, the means of managing the case and the issues of law that prevail in the case. The current study relates to Singapore’s specialization in arbitration specifically in maritime disputes making the country a hub for international parties seeking expertise in the area.[88] London has the advantage of being able to take more specific legal approaches for specific cases due to being able to do litigation and arbitration.

5.2 Recommendations 

5.2.1. Offer recommendations based on the comparative analysis

Strategic Choice of Jurisdiction

After hearing that the parties of the Maritime Dispute, paying attention to the type of Dispute they want to solve and the ways of solving it in Singapore and London respectively. Where specialized arbitration is needed, especially for the commodities, such as charter parties and bills of lading issues, Singapore offers one of the most structurally sound environments for arbitration being the SIAC and SCMA.[89] It is always open to the parties to choose between litigation and arbitration due to the availability of mature centers like the LMAA.

Emphasize Legal Framework Compatibility

Singapore has positioned itself in accordance with international conventions and given much importance to arbitration so that it can offer assurance to the parties indulging in international business. London’s procedure is strong in both litigation and arbitration because of the Arbitration Act 1996 and the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Each party needs to consider whether London’s legal environment meets the requirements of a country such as enforcement of awards or judgement s.

Leverage Local Expertise

In both jurisdictions it can be seen that the involvement of local legal personnel can make a significant difference to the methods of dispute settlement. Lawyers who specialize in maritime arbitration located in Singapore should be consulted as they can offer the important and strategic information.[90] In the same manner, London can focus on parties turning to professionals that are familiar with both litigation and arbitration services as these shall provide a more versatile solution.

Consider Enforcement Implications

Another factor that should be considered as a jurisdiction's impact on enforcement is to make effective decisions. Singapore adheres to many international conventions and has well-prepared procedures for arbitration. The enforcement measures in London, based on the New York Convention and domestic laws give the execution of the contracts, awards and judgement s.[91] Singapore or London should be chosen for solving the maritime dispute should depend upon the nature of the case, compatibility of the legal system, the knowledge of the people in that country, and enforcement issues.[92]

5.2.2. Suggest improvements for both jurisdictions

Improvement in Singapore

Increase Understanding of Arbitration

Singapore has been acknowledged globally for its efficient structures in arbitration, though improving the relativity of the country’s processes could add an advantage. Increasing the reports on arbitration proceedings and decisions while preserving the degree of non-disclosure can help in strengthening the stakeholders’ confidence.

Enhance the Implementation Frameworks of Domestic Conflicts

While Singapore is efficient in the enforcement of international arbitral awards, the domestic awards could use reinforcements in the enforcement scheme.

Improvements in London

Streamline Litigation Process

London adopts an efficient legal system in the resolution of commercial litigations, which require procedural changes, to improve efficiency.[93] This suggest that if the formality and duration of court processes are improved, then the chances are high that the disputes can be solved.

Reduction of Cost Issue in Arbitration

A limitation of arbitration in London with regard to costs which can be discouraging, especially for a small company.[94] Measures to manage and possibly even minimize arbitration costs, including the fixed-fee arbitration systems or cost-friendly other methods of handling disputes, can result in making London the even more appealing destination for the parties.

5.3 Chapter Synopsis 

This analysis identifies the currents and future reserves and difficulties of each jurisdiction and provides guidelines on the way the existing systems of the respective jurisdiction can be improved. Singapore has legal strength, geographical location advantage and most importantly, the emphasis on arbitration. The focus on disclosure and the presence of a great many specialized legal professionals related to marine law which strengthen Singapore’s position as one of the leading maritime cities in the world.

On the other hand, LMAA and London courts provide a highly developed and efficient approach to solve multifaceted maritime problems. In the case of simplifying the process of litigations and decreasing the prices per arbitration, London can broaden the range of appeal to various parties internationally.

Personal Opinion

The comparative analysis of the litigation and arbitration practices of the Singapore and London will lead to the following observation with regard to the suitability of this topic in today’s global trading climate. Singapore and London both ranks very important in the marine law world, however, they are both different in many perspectives and each has different possibilities and risks for the companies that are involved in the maritime business.

 In my view, Singapore’s attitude towards arbitration and strong and sophisticated legal environment offer more advantages, especially for the parties in the APAC.[95]

In my opinion, it is quite relevant to conclude that a decision can be made about whether it is suitable for the parties to litigate or arbitrate depending on the nature of the dispute, or whether it is more suitable for the parties to seek restore in the legal systems of Singapore or London depending on which way the parties will find most favorable to their interests. Singapore provides excellent efficiency and quite a reasonable level of procedural justice, whereas in London, customers can get legal certainty originating from strong and legal traditions.[96]

For students seeking guidance on complex topics like maritime law and international arbitration, Native Assignment Help provides expert solutions. Their professional team ensures high-quality, plagiarism-free Assignment Help tailored to your academic requirements, helping you achieve top grades.

Bibliography

Books

A Arda, Arbitration Clauses and Third Parties (Informa Law from Routledge 2023)

C Hanretty, A Court of Specialists: Judicial Behavior on the UK Supreme Court (Oxford University Press 2020)

F Varesis, Private International Law and Arbitral Jurisdiction (Routledge 2022)

Uren, D., 2024. The Trade Routes Vital to Australia's Economic Security. Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

Journals articles

Abbott K W and Snidal D, Strengthening International Regulation through Transnationalal New Governance: Overcoming the Orchestration Deficit (Routledge 2021).

Adascalitei O, 'Shipper's Obligations under the Rotterdam Rules. A Comparison with the Hague-Visby Rules 1968 and the Hamburg Rules 1978' (2023) 4 International Investment Law Journal 83-91.

Ahmad M, 'Maritime Piracy Operations: Some Legal Issues' (2020) 4(3) Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping 62.

Al-Azzam A, 'Electronic Bill of Lading in the Jordanian Legislation: A Comparative Study with Hamburg and Rotterdam Rules' (2022) 9(1) InterEULawEast: Journal for the International and European Law, Economics and Market Integrations 229-254.

Allagan TM and Bayuputra MR, 'The Role of NYPE Inter-Club Agreement as a Modular Apportionment Mechanism for Cargo-Claims across Multiple Jurisdictions' (2021) 19 Indonesian J. Int'l L. 59.

Anele KK, 'A Comparative Analysis of the Arrest of Ship Procedures in Nigeria and Korea: The Need for a Paradigm Change' (2020) 19 J. Korean L. 191.

Ansong J O, McElduff L and Ritchie H, 'Institutional Integration in Transboundary Marine Spatial Planning: A Theory-Based Evaluative Framework for Practice' (2021) 202 Ocean & Coastal Management 105430.

Baig K, Mushtaq SA and uz Zaman W, 'Arbitration Agreement as a Pillar of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Commercial Arbitral Awards: An Exploratory Study of Pakistan and the UK' (2024) 6(1) Journal of Law Social Studies (JLSS) 17-27

Bath V, 'UNCITRAL and International Carriage of Goods by Sea' in The Elgar Companion to UNCITRAL (Edward Elgar Publishing 2023) 541-561.

Bell G F, 'Conflicts of Laws and Jurisdictions in Indonesia-Related Arbitrations Seated in Singapore-Perspectives from the Tribunal' (2022) 12 Indonesian Law Review 33.

Bermann G A, 'The UNCITRAL Model Law at the US State Level' (2023) 39(2) Arbitration International 172-190.

Blair W and Knowles R, 'Maritime and International Commercial Courts: Commercial Dispute Resolution for the 21st Century' (2020) 26 Asian Business Law 15

Burn G and Cheung K, 'Section 44 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 and Third Parties to Arbitration' (2021).

Butler G, 'The Sky Reefer Loophole: How Modern Carriers Lessen Their Liability through Foreign Arbitration and Choice of Court Provisions-And Four Countries Who Stopped It' (2022) 46 Tul. Mar. LJ 221.

Butlien R, 'The Singapore Convention on Mediation: A Brave New World for International Commercial Mediation' (2020) 46 Brook. J. Int'l L. 183.

C Hanretty, A Court of Specialists: Judicial Behavior on the UK Supreme Court (Oxford University Press 2020)

 C KeatingBitonti, 'United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): Living Resources Provisions' (2023) Congressional Research Service Reports and Issue Briefs

Chahine JH and others, 'The Acceleration of the Development of International Business Mediation After the Singapore Convention' (2021) 32(4) European Business Law Review

Checkley J C, 'Cross-Border Enforcement of Mediated Settlement Agreements and Potential Impact on the Practice of International Arbitration: Observations from Singapore on the Adoption of the Singapore Convention on Mediation' in Balkan Yearbook of European and International Law 2019 (2020) 23-40.

Cheong BC, 'Granting Legal Personhood to Artificial Intelligence Systems and Traditional Veil-Piercing Concepts to Impose Liability' (2021) 1(9) SN Social Sciences 231.

Chng LC, Chou LM and Huang D, 'Environmental Performance Indicators for the Urban Coastal Environment of Singapore' (2022) 49 Regional Studies in Marine Science 102101

Christodoulou A and Fernández JE, 'Maritime Governance and International Maritime Organization Instruments Focused on Sustainability in the Light of United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals' in Christodoulou A and Fernández JE (eds), Sustainability in the Maritime Domain: Towards Ocean Governance and Beyond (Springer International Publishing 2021) 415.

Chua E, 'Blurring the Lines Between International Commercial Courts and Arbitration: How, Why and the Future' (2020) Singapore Arbitration Journal

Chua E, 'Blurring the Lines Between International Commercial Courts and Arbitration: How, Why and the Future' (2020) Singapore Arbitration Journal.

Clark, J. and Owens, D., 2022. The role AI and machine learning will play in maritime and trade law. In Disruptive Technologies, Climate Change and Shipping (pp. 85-105). Informa Law from Routledge.

Cournil C, Martin-Chenut K and Perruso C, 'Taking the Ecological Transition Seriously: The Need for Changes in Law and Institutions' in Ulrich N and Weiler R (eds), Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics (Springer International Publishing 2024) 1.

Cuong NM and Hung PV, 'An Analysis of Available Solutions for Commercial Vessels to Comply with IMO Strategy on Low Sulphur' (2020) 4(2) Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping 40-47

 D Palmeter, PC Mavroidis and N Meagher, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization (Cambridge University Press 2022)

de Rochefort-Reynolds AJ, 'Confused Seas: Identifying the Proper Law of Arbitration Agreements in Maritime Contracts-England, Singapore and Australia' (2020) 34 Austl. & NZ Mar. LJ 1.

Donato R, 'Maritime Mediation' (2023).

Downs S, 'Civil Liability for Climate Change? The Proposed Tort in Smith v Fonterra with Reference to France and the Netherlands' (2024) 33(1) Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 31.

Ducruet C, 'The Geography of Maritime Networks: A Critical Review' (2020) 88 Journal of Transport Geography 102824.

Duve T, 'What is Global Legal History?' (2020) 8(2) Comparative Legal History 73-115.

 E Öğünç, 'The Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Sea under the Hague Rules, the HagueVisby Rules, the Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam Rules' (2022) 19(2) Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 821

Enang A I, 'Making a Case for the Uniform Adoption of the Rotterdam Rules in International Marine law' (2022) 9(3) Journal of Commercial and Property Law 93-102.

Erdogan E and Meral N, 'An Evaluation of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (Lmaa)' (2022) YBHD 1073

Ferdous J and Islam M, 'Politics and Possibilities of Deep Sea Port in Bangladesh: A Special Focus on Matarbari Port Project' (2020) International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation 82-89.

Fernández JE, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements in Contracts for the Carriage of Goods by Sea: Limitations on Party Autonomy (Informa Law from Routledge, 2021).

Freier L F and Gauci J P, 'Refugee Rights Across Regions: A Comparative Overview of Legislative Good Practices in Latin America and the EU' (2020) 39(3) Refugee Survey Quarterly 321-362.

 G Born, 'The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: A Critical Assessment' (2020) 169 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2079

Ghose A, Ali SA and Mohanty A, 'Scope of Counterbalancing Public Policy and Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards in India' (2022) 4(8) Revista Brasileira de Alternative Dispute Resolution - Brazilian Journal of Alternative Dispute Resolution - RBADR 105-121

Guan KC and Koh C, 'Maritime Security in Southeast Asia' in Germond B and Raymond C (eds), Routledge Handbook of Maritime Security (Routledge 2022) 346.

Guan KC and Koh C, 'Maritime Security in Southeast Asia' in Routledge Handbook of Maritime Security (Routledge, 2022) 346-355.

Gullifer L, 'The UNCITRAL Model Law and Secured Transactions Law Reform' (2022) 17 Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law 97.

Gultutan D, 'The UK Law Commission’s Reforms Proposed to the English Arbitration Act 1996: Bonum, Malum Et Turpe' (2024) 44(1) Public and Private International Law Bulletin 197-219.

Hariry NNB, Mokhtar FS and Nordin MN, 'Enforcement of Maritime Archaeology in Malaysia: A Review' (2021) 27(2) The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government 2201.

Hartley T, 'Arbitration and the Brussels I Regulation – Before and After Brexit' (2021) 17(1) Journal of Private International Law 53-73

Hoang T H H, 'Delay in Delivery of Goods under the Contract of Carriage by Sea in the Vietnam Maritime Code 2015: A Comparative Approach' (2024) 40(1) VNU Journal of Science: Legal Studies.

Hu J Z and Zhao L L, 'The Modernisation of the Chinese Maritime Code: The Revision of the Hybrid Regime Governing Carriage of Goods by Sea' in Commercial and Marine law in China and Europe (Informa Law from Routledge 2022) 40-60.

Ikpeze OV and Wosu OG, 'Reflections on the Impact of P&ID Case, Challenges and Lessons of Arbitration in Commercial Transactions in Nigeria' (2023) 19(3) Unizik Law Journal

Ishikawa T, 'Materializing Corporate Social Responsibility in Investor-State Dispute Settlement' (2021) 312 Columbia FDI Perspectives.

Jones D, 'Flexibility in International Commercial Dispute Resolution: CIArb Singapore Annual Thought Leadership Lecture' (2024) 90(2) Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management.

Joseph A and Dalaklis D, 'The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea: Highlighting Interrelations of Measures Towards Effective Risk Mitigation' (2021) 5(1) Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping 1.

 K Zabloudilová, 'Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards under Amended Czech Law and Recent Case Law' (2022)

Káposznyák A, 'Intra-EU Arbitral Awards After Achmea: Recognition and Enforcement Within the European Union Under the New York Convention' in Nagy C and Mandák F (eds), Balkan Yearbook of European and International Law 2019 (Springer 2020) 69.

Karton J, 'International Arbitration as Comparative Law in Action' (2020) Journal of Dispute Resolution 293.

Kasi A and Kasi A, 'Hague/Hague-Visby Rules: Carriers’ Liability and Time Limitations' in The Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea (2021) 323-362.

Kasi A and Kasi A, 'Shipping Documents' in The Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea (2021) 21-78.

Kessedjian C, 'Comment on the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgement s in Civil or Commercial Matters. Is the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 a Useful Tool for Companies Who are Conducting International Activities?' (2020) Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 19.

Khayoon Al-Naseri AA, 'The Legal Recognition of Electronic Bills of Lading' (2020).

Kortendiek N, 'How to Govern Mixed Migration in Europe: Transnationalal Expert Networks and Knowledge Creation in International Organizations' (2021) 21(2) Global Networks 320-338.

Lacy-Nichols J, Nandi S, Mialon M and others, 'Conceptualising Commercial Entities in Public Health: Beyond Unhealthy Commodities and Transnationalal Corporations' (2023) 401(10383) The Lancet 1214-1228.

Li A X, 'Challenges and Opportunities of Chinese International Arbitral Institutions and Courts in a New Era of Cross-Border Dispute Resolution' (2020) 38 Boston University International Law Journal 352.

Litina E, 'Sustainable Diversity in International Arbitration: The Case of Ad Hoc, Maritime, and Commodities Trade Arbitration' in Diversity in International Arbitration (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022) 83-100.

Litina E, 'Sustainable Diversity in International Arbitration: The Case of Ad Hoc, Maritime, and Commodities Trade Arbitration' in E Litina (ed), Diversity in International Arbitration (Edward Elgar Publishing 2022) 83-100

Litina E, Theory, Law and Practice of Maritime Arbitration: The Case of International Contracts for the Carriage of Goods by Sea: Comparative Insights and Policy Analysis (2020).

Lusznat, L., 2024. The Brussels IIb Regulation–Most significant changes compared to its predecessor and enhancement of the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. Journal of Private International Law, 20(1), pp.129-153.

 M Campbell, 'How to Determine the Law Governing an Arbitration Agreement: Direction from the UK Supreme Court' (2021) 24(1) International Arbitration Law Review 28

Mafi H and Eshaghi M, 'The Concept of Foreign Arbitration Award in the Light of New York Convention, 1958' (2022) 7(1) International Journal of Law and Society 1.

Marongiu Buonaiuti F, 'Maritime Contracts and Private International Law: Between Party Autonomy and Uniform Law' (2021) 10 Cahiers de l'Association Internationale du Droit de la Mer 161-175.

Matteucci, G., 2020. Enforceability of international commercial mediation agreement, the Singapore Convention.

Mehraby D I, Momeni S M and Khosravi A, 'A Comparative Study of the Commander's Civil Liability in Iranian Marine law and the Rotterdam Convention' (2020).

Mitchell SM, 'Clashes at Sea: Explaining the Onset, Militarization, and Resolution of Diplomatic Maritime Claims' in Erickson A, Wirth D, and Bentley A (eds), Security Studies in a New Era of Maritime Competition (Routledge 2023) 59.

Moore JN and Nordquist MH (eds), Current Maritime Issues and the International Maritime Organization (Brill 2023) vol 4

Muranov AI and Chaika AV, 'Review of the Book by Eva Litina (Greece) "Theory, Law and Practice of Maritime Arbitration: The Case of International Contracts for the Carriage of Goods by Sea" (2020)' (2020) Int'l Comm. Arb. Rev. 524.

Myburgh P, 'Elusive Carriers, Time Bars, and Salvation Through Arbitration' (2020).

Nahornyi V, Tiurina A, Ruban O and others, 'Corporate Social Responsibility in Modern Transnationalal Corporations' (2022) 11(53) Amazonia Investiga 111-121.

Necula RM, 'Foreign Arbitral Award Under The Code Of Civil Procedure And The Convention On The Recognition And Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Adopted In New York (1958). Comparative Look' (2020) 9(2) Perspectives of Law and Public Administration 219.

Obi CA and others, 'Evaluating Arbitration as a Dispute Resolution Mechanism in the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry' (2023) 7(01) AJIEEL 121-139

Öğünç E, 'The Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Sea under the Hague Rules, the Hague-Visby Rules, the Hamburg Rules, and the Rotterdam Rules' (2022) 19(2) Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 821-866.

Orakhelashvili A, Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law (Routledge 2022).

Osman S, Sundarakani B and Reve T, 'Benchmarking of Singapore Maritime Cluster: The Role of Cluster Facilitators' (2022) 29(5) Benchmarking: An International Journal 1452-1483.

Pocar F, 'The Brussels Convention: 50 Years of Contribution to European Integration' in The 50th Anniversary of the European Law of Civil Procedure (Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co KG 2020) 249-258

Pokora I, 'Electronic Transport Documents in International Carriage of Goods by Sea as a Novel of the Rotterdam Rules' (2020) Visegrad Journal on Human Rights 89.

Poliakov R, 'A Comparative Legal Analysis of the UNCITRAL Model Law 1997 on Cross-Border Insolvency with the EEIU Regulations of 2000 and 2015 on Insolvency Proceedings as the Essential International Legal Sources for the Regulation of Cross-Border Insolvency Proceedings' (2023) Law of Ukraine: Legal Journal 143.

Pranevičienė, K. and Gaubienė, N., 2024. Rules of Jurisdiction of the Regulation Brussels I bis–Application of General Jurisdiction Rule and Special Jurisdiction Rule under Close Connecting Factor (Article 7 (1))–Lithuanian Perspective. Teisė, 132, pp.52-63.

 R Väyrynen, 'To Settle or to Transform: Perspectives on the Resolution of National and International Conflicts' in Raimo Väyrynen, A Pioneer in International Relations, Scholarship and PolicyMaking (Springer International Publishing 2023)

Reyes A and Tan K, 'Recognition and Enforcement of International Commercial Court Judgement s' in Dispute Resolution in China, Europe and World (2020) 31-50

Ringsberg AH and Cole S, 'Maritime Security Guidelines: A Study of Swedish Ports’ Perceived Barriers to Compliance' (2020) 47(3) Maritime Policy & Management 388-401

Rusakova E, Frolova E, Kupchina E and Ocaqli U, 'Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the Federative Republic of Brazil' (2020) 6(16) IJASOS-International E-journal of Advances in Social Sciences 118.

 S Herbst and S Allison, 'Breaking the HagueVisby Rules’ Silence on Choice of Law and Forum Clauses: Article 3 Revisited' (2024)

Sethi A, 'In Re Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act 1899' (2023) 4 Jus Corpus Law Journal 41.

Shaffer G and Halliday T C, 'With, Within, and Beyond the State: The Promise and Limits of Transnationalal Legal Ordering' in The Spectrum of International Institutions (2021, Routledge) 95-139.

Shang CS and Shen W, 'Embracing Lex Mercatoria Through Resistance: Courts, Arbitration and Customs Governing Commercial Relationships in China' (2020) 28(1) Asia Pacific Law Review 97-121.

Shaw K, 'Conventions in the Trenches' (2020) 108(6) California Law Review 1955.

Shreeramkumar S, 'Dynamic Concept of Seaworthiness in International Marine law-A Systemic Analysis' (2021) 23 Supremo Amicus 37.

Sohn LB and Noyes J, Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea (Brill 2021).

Staring R and van Swaaningen R, 'Borders, Mobilities, and Governance in Transnationalal Perspective' in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (2021).

Steen M, 'How to Resolve Maritime Claims with Data From Internet of Things in Ecosystems' (2024).

Talha A, 'Evolution of Exemptions to Carrier in Different Maritime Legal Regime' (2022) 28(03) Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government.

Teff-Seker Y and others, 'Do Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Track Two Processes Support Transboundary Marine Conservation? Lessons from Six Case Studies of Maritime Disputes' (2020) 7 Frontiers in Marine Science 593265

Thomas R, 'Third Party Direct Rights of Action against Insurers under UK Law and International Maritime Liability Conventions' in BAL Abhinayan Basu, RAJPUT Trisha, ARGUELLO Gabriela, LANGLET David (eds), Regulation of Risk, Transport, Trade and Environment in Perspective (Brill Nijhoff, 2023) 685-717.

Treichl C, 'The Singapore Convention: Towards a Universal Standard for the Recognition and Enforcement of International Settlement Agreements?' (2020) 11(3) Journal of International Dispute Settlement 409.

Tsuvina T and Ferz S, 'The Recognition and Enforcement of Agreements Resulting from Mediation: Austrian and Ukrainian Perspectives' (2022) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 32.

Vellaei N, 'Cognitive and Comparative Analysis of the Maritime Performing Party in the Rotterdam Rules' (2023) Jurisprudence and Islamic Law.

Vila-Santa, N., 2024. Knowledge Exchanges Between Portugal and Europe: Maritime Diplomacy, Espionage, and Nautical Science in the Early Modern World (15th-17th Centuries) (p. 378). Amsterdam University Press. 

Von Wattenwyl I, 'Inclusion of the Shipping Sector in the European Carbon Emissions Trading System (ETS): Impacts on Panamax (4TC) and Capesize (5TC) Freight Rates and Their Time-Varying Risk Model' (2023).

Wan W Y and McCormack G, 'Implementing Strategies for the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency: The Divergence in Asia-Pacific and Lessons for UNCITRAL' (2020) 36 Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal 59.

Wu H H, 'A Study on Transnationalal Regulatory Governance for Marine Plastic Debris: Trends, Challenges, and Prospect' (2022) Marine Policy 136, 103988.

 Y Baatz, 'The Conflict of Laws' in Marine law (Informa Law from Routledge 2020)

Yildiz S, Tonoglu F, Ugurlu O, Loughney S and Wang J, 'Spatial and Statistical Analysis of Operational Conditions Contributing to Marine Accidents in the Singapore Strait' (2022) 10(12) Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 2001.

Yılmaz M, 'The Evolution of the Obligation of Seaworthiness from the Hague Rules to the Rotterdam Rules' (2021) 29(2) Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 881-912.

Yip M, 'Combinations of Mediation and Arbitration: The Singapore Perspective' in M Yip (ed), Multi-tier Approaches to the Resolution of International Disputes: A Global and Comparative Study (2021) 182-202

Zafarovich TS, 'Different Approaches in Enforcement of Arbitral Award Annulled at the Place of Arbitration' (2022) 25 Miasto Przyszłości 320.

Zahiri A, Ranjbar M R, Zarei R and Askari H, 'A Comparative Study of the Commitment of the Operator and the Carriage of Goods by Sea in Providing a Ship Capable from the Perspective of the International Conventions in The Hague, Hamburg and Rotterdam' (2020).

Zekos GI, 'Courts’ Engagement in Arbitration Under US, English, Belgian and Greek Law' in Advanced Artificial Intelligence and Robo-Justice (Springer International Publishing, 2022) 89-179.

Zhao L, 'Delocalisation of Maritime Dispute Resolution: Changes, Challenges and New Initiatives Affecting Access to Justice' (2023).

Zharikov A, 'Resolving Disputes Without Reference to National Laws: Analysis of the Nature and Practice of Documentary Instruments Dispute Resolution Expertise (DOCDEX)' (2022) 33(10) International Company and Commercial Law Review 507-526.

Zharikov A, 'The Concept of Lex Petrolea from a Dispute Resolution Perspective: When Further Development is Not Possible' (2022) 3(1) Global Energy Law and Sustainability 72-99.

Zumbansen P C, Transnationalal Law: Theories & Applications (TLI Think 2020).

Legal Website

Westlaw, (2015), Court of Appeal considers principle of remoteness in cases of concurrent liability in contract and in tort. https://today.westlaw.com/Document/I6afa34fa8d3a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0/View/FullText.html?ppcid=19604dc1afb244d7911cb98605439e01&originationContext=assetPage&transitionType=KnowHowItem&contextData=%28sc.Default%29 [Accessed on: 03.10.2024] 

Elitigation, (2010), Pacific King Shipping Pte Ltd and another v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 173. https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2010_SGHC_173 [Accessed on: 25.07.2024]

Elitigation, (2018), In the court of appeal of the republic of Singapore [2018] SGCA 20. https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2018_SGCA_20 [Accessed on: 25.07.2024]

Londonpandi, (2008), The Achilleas – judgement . https://www.londonpandi.com/knowledge/news-alerts/the-achilleas-judgement / [Accessed on: 26.07.2024]

Maitlandchambers, (2009), In the matter of Global Trader Europe Ltd (In Liquidation) v City Facilities Management Ltd & Ors. https://www.maitlandchambers.com/resources/case-detail/in-the-matter-of-global-trader-europe-ltd-in-liquidation-v-city-facilities-management-ltd-ors [Accessed on: 26.07.2024]

Officerofthewatch, (2013), Tracing Vessel Ownership – the Erika Case. https://officerofthewatch.com/2013/10/01/tracing-vessel-ownership-in-case-of-accidents-the-erika-case/ [accessed on: 26.07.2024]

UN, (2017), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. https://www.un.org/ [accessed on: 03.10.2024]

Elitigation, (2016), in the high court of the republic of Singapore [2016] SGHC 100. Available at: https://www.elitigation.sg/ [Accessed on: 03.10.2024]

Iclg, (2024) Family Laws and Regulations Singapore 2025. https://iclg.com/practice-areas/family-laws-and-regulations/singapore [Accessed on: 03.10.2024]

Siac, (2024), International Arbitration Act. https://siac.org.sg/legislation/international-arbitration-act [Accessed on: 03.10.2024]

Siac, (2024), SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with China International Contractors Association. https://siac.org.sg/ [Accessed on: 03.10.2024]

Kluwerlawonline, (2013), The Erika Case: an Incitement to Rewrite the CLC. https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/European+Energy+and+Environmental+Law+Review/22.1/EELR2013003 [Accessed on: 03.10.2024]

Legalresearch, (2018), Tag: PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV [2013] SGCA 57. Enforcement of awards under the New York Convention: choice of remedies and the significance of time limits. https://legalresearch.blogs.bris.ac.uk/tag/pt-first-media-tbk-v-astro-nusantara-international-bv-2013-sgca-57/ [Accessed on: 14.10.2024] 

Legislation, (1996) Arbitration Act 1996. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/contents [Accessed on: 03.10.2024] 

Lexology, (2024), The London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA): Path to Maritime Arbitration. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6ea2e942-e31c-4c93-b871-5983acdc6c88 [Accessed on: 03.10.2024] 

Uncitral, (2022), Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958) (the "New York Convention"). https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/conventions/foreign_arbitral_awards [Accessed on: 03.10.2024]

Elitigation, (2014), In the high court of the republic of singapore

[2016] SGHC 100. Available at: https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2016_SGHC_100 [Assessed on: 03.10.2024]

Elitigation, (2010), Pacific King Shipping Pte Ltd and another v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 173. Avalable at: https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2010_SGHC_173 [Accessed on: 03.10.2024]

safety4sea, (2018), Maritime History: Fire on board car carrier “Eurasian Dream”. Available at: https://safety4sea.com/cm-maritime-history-fire-on-board-car-carrier-eurasian-dream/ [Accessed on: 19.12.2024]

Legislation

Merchant Shipping Act 

Admiralty Jurisdiction Act

Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC

UK’s seamen's rights

London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA)

Arbitration Act 1996

London Maritime Arbitrators Association

Chartered Institute of Arbitrators

New York Convention 1958

Case Laws

Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Company v Ministry of Religious Affairs of Pakistan [2010] UKSC 46.

Westacre Investments Inc v Jugoimport-SPDR Holding Co Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 1401.

Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 14.

Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40.

Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 1146

PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV and others [2013] SGCA 57”.

Conventions

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

[1] Litina, E., 2020. Theory, law and practice of maritime arbitration: the case of international contracts for the carriage of goods by sea: comparative insights and policy analysis.

[2] Arda A, Arbitration Clauses and Third Parties (Informa Law from Routledge, 2023).

[3] de Rochefort-Reynolds AJ, 'Confused Seas: Identifying the Proper Law of Arbitration Agreements in Maritime Contracts-England, Singapore and Australia' (2020) 34 Austl. & NZ Mar. LJ 1.

[4] Allagan TM and Bayuputra MR, 'The Role of NYPE Inter-Club Agreement as a Modular Apportionment Mechanism for Cargo-Claims across Multiple Jurisdictions' (2021) 19 Indonesian J. Int'l L. 59.

[5] Adascalitei, O., 2023. Shipper's Obligations under the Rotterdam Rules. A Comparison with the Hague-Visby Rules 1968 and the Hamburg Rules 1978. Int'l Inv. LJ, 4, p.83.

[6] Fernández JE, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements in Contracts for the Carriage of Goods by Sea: Limitations on Party Autonomy (Informa Law from Routledge, 2021).

[7] Kasi A and Kasi A, 'Shipping Documents' in The Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea (2021) 21-78.

[9] Muranov AI and Chaika AV, 'Review of the Book by Eva Litina (Greece) "Theory, Law and Practice of Maritime Arbitration: The Case of International Contracts for the Carriage of Goods by Sea" (2020)' (2020) Int'l Comm. Arb. Rev. 524.

[10] UN, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Available at: https://www.un.org/ [accessed on: 03.10.2024]

[11] Myburgh P, 'Elusive Carriers, Time Bars, and Salvation Through Arbitration' (2020).

Merchant Shipping Act

[12] Anele KK, 'A Comparative Analysis of the Arrest of Ship Procedures in Nigeria and Korea: The Need for a Paradigm Change' (2020) 19 J. Korean L. 191.

[13] Donato R, 'Maritime Mediation' (2023).

[14] Butler G, 'The Sky Reefer Loophole: How Modern Carriers Lessen Their Liability through Foreign Arbitration and Choice of Court Provisions-And Four Countries Who Stopped It' (2022) 46 Tul. Mar. LJ 221

[15] Litina E, 'Sustainable Diversity in International Arbitration: The Case of Ad Hoc, Maritime, and Commodities Trade Arbitration' in Diversity in International Arbitration (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022) 83-100.

[16] Kasi A and Kasi A, 'Hague/Hague-Visby Rules: Carriers’ Liability and Time Limitations' in The Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea (2021) 323-362.

[17] Siac, (2024), International Arbitration Act. Available at: https://siac.org.sg/legislation/international-arbitration-act [Accessed on: 03.10.2024]

[18] Elitigation, (2018), In the court of appeal of the republic of Singapore [2018] SGCA 20. Available at: https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2018_SGCA_20 [Accessed on: 25.07.2024]

[19] Shang CS and Shen W, 'Embracing Lex Mercatoria Through Resistance: Courts, Arbitration and Customs Governing Commercial Relationships in China' (2020) 28(1) Asia Pacific Law Review 97-121.

[20] Siac, (2024), SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with China International Contractors Association. Available at: https://siac.org.sg/ [Accessed on: 03.10.2024]

[21] Khayoon Al-Naseri AA, 'The Legal Recognition of Electronic Bills of Lading' (2020).

[22] Elitigation, (2010), Pacific King Shipping Pte Ltd and another v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 173. Available at: https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2010_SGHC_173 [Accessed on: 25.07.2024]

[23] Shreeramkumar S, 'Dynamic Concept of Seaworthiness in International Marine law-A Systemic Analysis' (2021) 23 Supremo Amicus 37.

[24] Zharikov A, 'Resolving Disputes Without Reference to National Laws: Analysis of the Nature and Practice of Documentary Instruments Dispute Resolution Expertise (DOCDEX)' (2022) 33(10) International Company and Commercial Law Review 507-526.

[25] Thomas R, 'Third Party Direct Rights of Action against Insurers under UK Law and International Maritime Liability Conventions' in BAL Abhinayan Basu, RAJPUT Trisha, ARGUELLO Gabriela, LANGLET David (eds), Regulation of Risk, Transport, Trade and Environment in Perspective (Brill Nijhoff, 2023) 685-717.

[26] Zekos GI, 'Courts’ Engagement in Arbitration Under US, English, Belgian and Greek Law' in Advanced Artificial Intelligence and Robo-Justice (Springer International Publishing, 2022) 89-179.

[27] Zharikov A, 'The Concept of Lex Petrolea from a Dispute Resolution Perspective: When Further Development is Not Possible' (2022) 3(1) Global Energy Law and Sustainability 72-99.

[28] Steen M, 'How to Resolve Maritime Claims with Data From Internet of Things in Ecosystems' (2024).

[29] London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA)

[30] Osman S, Sundarakani B and Reve T, 'Benchmarking of Singapore Maritime Cluster: The Role of Cluster Facilitators' (2022) 29(5) Benchmarking: An International Journal 1452-1483.

[31] Yildiz S, Tonoglu F, Ugurlu O, Loughney S and Wang J, 'Spatial and Statistical Analysis of Operational Conditions Contributing to Marine Accidents in the Singapore Strait' (2022) 10(12) Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 2001.

[32] Cheong BC, 'Granting Legal Personhood to Artificial Intelligence Systems and Traditional Veil-Piercing Concepts to Impose Liability' (2021) 1(9) SN Social Sciences 231.

[33] Hariry NNB, Mokhtar FS and Nordin MN, 'Enforcement of Maritime Archaeology in Malaysia: A Review' (2021) 27(2) The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government 2201.

[34] Sohn LB and Noyes J, Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea (Brill 2021).

[35] Christodoulou A and Fernández JE, 'Maritime Governance and International Maritime Organization Instruments Focused on Sustainability in the Light of United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals' in Christodoulou A and Fernández JE (eds), Sustainability in the Maritime Domain: Towards Ocean Governance and Beyond (Springer International Publishing 2021) 415.

[36] Officerofthewatch, (2013), Tracing Vessel Ownership – the Erika Case. Available at: https://officerofthewatch.com/2013/10/01/tracing-vessel-ownership-in-case-of-accidents-the-erika-case/ [accessed on: 26.07.2024]

[37] Kluwerlawonline, (2013), The Erika Case: an Incitement to Rewrite the CLC. Available at: https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/European+Energy+and+Environmental+Law+Review/22.1/EELR2013003 [Accessed on: 03.10.2024]

[38] Ahmad M, 'Maritime Piracy Operations: Some Legal Issues' (2020) 4(3) Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping 62.

[39] Londonpandi, (2008), The Achilleas – judgement . Available at: https://www.londonpandi.com/knowledge/news-alerts/the-achilleas-judgement / [Accessed on: 26.07.2024]

[40] Orakhelashvili A, Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law (Routledge 2022).

[41] Mitchell SM, 'Clashes at Sea: Explaining the Onset, Militarization, and Resolution of Diplomatic Maritime Claims' in Erickson A, Wirth D, and Bentley A (eds), Security Studies in a New Era of Maritime Competition (Routledge 2023) 59.

[42] Ducruet C, 'The Geography of Maritime Networks: A Critical Review' (2020) 88 Journal of Transport Geography 102824.

[43] Guan KC and Koh C, 'Maritime Security in Southeast Asia' in Germond B and Raymond C (eds), Routledge Handbook of Maritime Security (Routledge 2022) 346.

[44] Joseph A and Dalaklis D, 'The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea: Highlighting Interrelations of Measures Towards Effective Risk Mitigation' (2021) 5(1) Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping 1.

[45] Downs S, 'Civil Liability for Climate Change? The Proposed Tort in Smith v Fonterra with Reference to France and the Netherlands' (2024) 33(1) Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 31.

[46] Legislation, (1996) Arbitration Act 1996. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/contents [Accessed on: 03.10.2024] 

[47] Cournil C, Martin-Chenut K and Perruso C, 'Taking the Ecological Transition Seriously: The Need for Changes in Law and Institutions' in Ulrich N and Weiler R (eds), Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics (Springer International Publishing 2024) 1.

[48] Ishikawa T, 'Materializing Corporate Social Responsibility in Investor-State Dispute Settlement' (2021) 312 Columbia FDI Perspectives.

[49] The Blue Ocean Case

[50] Maitlandchambers, (2009), In the matter of Global Trader Europe Ltd (In Liquidation) v City Facilities Management Ltd & Ors. Available at: https://www.maitlandchambers.com/resources/case-detail/in-the-matter-of-global-trader-europe-ltd-in-liquidation-v-city-facilities-management-ltd-ors [Accessed on: 26.07.2024]

[51] The Global Trader Case

[52] Mafi H and Eshaghi M, 'The Concept of Foreign Arbitration Award in the Light of New York Convention, 1958' (2022) 7(1) International Journal of Law and Society 1.

[53] Zumbansen P C, Transnational Law: Theories & Applications (TLI Think 2020).

[54] Shaffer G and Halliday T C, 'With, Within, and Beyond the State: The Promise and Limits of Transnational Legal Ordering' in The Spectrum of International Institutions (2021, Routledge) 95-139.

[55] Vila-Santa, N., 2024. Knowledge Exchanges Between Portugal and Europe: Maritime Diplomacy, Espionage, and Nautical Science in the Early Modern World (15th-17th Centuries) (p. 378). Amsterdam University Press.

[56] Adăscăliţei, O., 2024. Shipper’s Obligations under the Rotterdam Rules. A Comparison with the Hague-Visby Rules 1968 and the Hamburg Rules 1978. International Investment Law Journal, 4(1), pp.83-91.

[57] Wan W Y and McCormack G, 'Implementing Strategies for the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency: The Divergence in Asia-Pacific and Lessons for UNCITRAL' (2020) 36 Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal 59.

[58] Gullifer L, 'The UNCITRAL Model Law and Secured Transactions Law Reform' (2022) 17 Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law 97.

[59] Öğünç E, 'The Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Sea under the Hague Rules, the Hague-Visby Rules, the Hamburg Rules, and the Rotterdam Rules' (2022) 19(2) Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 821-866.

[60] Adascalitei O, 'Shipper's Obligations under the Rotterdam Rules. A Comparison with the Hague-Visby Rules 1968 and the Hamburg Rules 1978' (2023) 4 International Investment Law Journal 83-91.

[61] Yılmaz M, 'The Evolution of the Obligation of Seaworthiness from the Hague Rules to the Rotterdam Rules' (2021) 29(2) Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 881-912.

[62] safety4sea, (2018), Maritime History: Fire on board car carrier “Eurasian Dream”. Available at: https://safety4sea.com/cm-maritime-history-fire-on-board-car-carrier-eurasian-dream/ [Accessed on: 19.12.2024]

[63] Palmeter, D., Mavroidis, P.C. and Meagher, N., (2022). Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization. Cambridge University Press.

[64] Väyrynen, R., 2023. To settle or to transform: perspectives on the resolution of national and international conflicts. In Raimo Väyrynen: A Pioneer in International Relations, Scholarship and Policy-Making: With a Foreword by Olli Rehn and a Preface by Allan Rosas (pp. 279-299). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

[65] Keating-Bitonti, C., 2023. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): Living Resources Provisions. Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports and Issue Briefs, pp.NA-NA.

[66] Zabloudilová, K., 2022. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards under Amended Czech Law and Recent Case Law.

[67] Öğünç, E., 2022. THE CARRIAGE OF DANGEROUS GOODS BY SEA UNDER THE HAGUE RULES, THE HAGUE-VISBY RULES, THE HAMBURG RULES AND THE ROTTERDAM RULES. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), pp.821-866.

[68] Herbst, S. and Allison, S., 2024. Breaking the Hague-Visby Rules’ Silence on Choice of Law and Forum Clauses: Article 3 Revisited. In Shane Herbst and Simon Allison,'Breaking the Hague-Visby Rule's Silence on Choice of Law and Forum Clauses: Article (Vol. 3).

[69] Pranevičienė, K. and Gaubienė, N., 2024. Rules of Jurisdiction of the Regulation Brussels I bis–Application of General Jurisdiction Rule and Special Jurisdiction Rule under Close Connecting Factor (Article 7 (1))–Lithuanian Perspective. Teisė, 132, pp.52-63.

[70] Lusznat, L., 2024. The Brussels IIb Regulation–Most significant changes compared to its predecessor and enhancement of the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. Journal of Private International Law, 20(1), pp.129-153.

[71] Born, G., 2020. The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: A Critical Assessment. U. Pa. L. Rev., 169, p.2079.

[72] Burn G and Cheung K, 'Section 44 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 and Third Parties to Arbitration' (2021).

[73] Checkley J C, 'Cross-Border Enforcement of Mediated Settlement Agreements and Potential Impact on the Practice of International Arbitration: Observations from Singapore on the Adoption of the Singapore Convention on Mediation' in Balkan Yearbook of European and International Law 2019 (2020) 23-40.

[74] Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40.

[75] Jones D, 'Flexibility in International Commercial Dispute Resolution: CIArb Singapore Annual Thought Leadership Lecture' (2024) 90(2) Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management.

[76] Varesis, F., 2022. Private International Law and Arbitral Jurisdiction. Routledge.

[77] Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 14.

[78] Legalresearch, (2018), Tag: PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV [2013] SGCA 57. Enforcement of awards under the New York Convention: choice of remedies and the significance of time limits. Available at: https://legalresearch.blogs.bris.ac.uk/tag/pt-first-media-tbk-v-astro-nusantara-international-bv-2013-sgca-57/ [Accessed on: 14.10.2024] 

[79] Bell G F, 'Conflicts of Laws and Jurisdictions in Indonesia-Related Arbitrations Seated in Singapore-Perspectives from the Tribunal' (2022) 12 Indonesian Law Review 33.

[80] Ringsberg AH and Cole S, 'Maritime Security Guidelines: A Study of Swedish Ports’ Perceived Barriers to Compliance' (2020) 47(3) Maritime Policy & Management 388-401

[81] Cuong NM and Hung PV, 'An Analysis of Available Solutions for Commercial Vessels to Comply with IMO Strategy on Low Sulphur' (2020) 4(2) Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping 40-47

[82] Necula RM, 'Foreign Arbitral Award Under The Code Of Civil Procedure And The Convention On The Recognition And Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Adopted In New York (1958). Comparative Look' (2020) 9(2) Perspectives of Law and Public Administration 219.

[83] Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Company v Ministry of Religious Affairs of Pakistan [2010] UKSC 46.

[84] Kessedjian C, 'Comment on the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgement s in Civil or Commercial Matters. Is the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 a Useful Tool for Companies Who are Conducting International Activities?' (2020) Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 19.

[85] Westacre Investments Inc v Jugoimport-SPDR Holding Co Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 1401.

[86] Ducruet C, 'The Geography of Maritime Networks: A Critical Review' (2020) 88 Journal of Transport Geography 102824.

[87] Hariry NNB, Mokhtar FS and Nordin MN, 'Enforcement of Maritime Archaeology in Malaysia: A Review' (2021) 27(2) The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government 2201.

[88] Yildiz S, Tonoglu F, Ugurlu O, Loughney S and Wang J, 'Spatial and Statistical Analysis of Operational Conditions Contributing to Marine Accidents in the Singapore Strait' (2022) 10(12) Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 2001.

[89] Thomas R, 'Third Party Direct Rights of Action against Insurers under UK Law and International Maritime Liability Conventions' in BAL Abhinayan Basu, RAJPUT Trisha, ARGUELLO Gabriela, LANGLET David (eds), Regulation of Risk, Transport, Trade and Environment in Perspective (Brill Nijhoff, 2023) 685-717.

[90] Khayoon Al-Naseri AA, 'The Legal Recognition of Electronic Bills of Lading' (2020).

[91] Shreeramkumar S, 'Dynamic Concept of Seaworthiness in International Marine law-A Systemic Analysis' (2021) 23 Supremo Amicus 37.

[92] Blair W and Knowles R, 'Maritime and International Commercial Courts: Commercial Dispute Resolution for the 21st Century' (2020) 26 Asian Business Law 15

[93] Anele KK, 'A Comparative Analysis of the Arrest of Ship Procedures in Nigeria and Korea: The Need for a Paradigm Change' (2020) 19 J. Korean L. 191.

[94] Obi CA and others, 'Evaluating Arbitration as a Dispute Resolution Mechanism in the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry' (2023) 7(01) AJIEEL 121-139

[95] Matteucci, G., 2020. Enforceability of international commercial mediation agreement, the Singapore Convention.