Singapore and London: A Comparative Analysis of Maritime Dispute Resolution

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)”. This comparative research contrasts these above stated two legal systems of litigation and arbitration on the SIAC and LMAA jurisdictions constructed with reference to effectiveness, procedures and implications to primary stakeholders in maritime distress. However, considering both the strong and weak points of each, this paper aims to present a clear vision of how both Singapore and London meet the needs of the maritime industry and help the parties to select the most appropriate forum to address the dispute.

This research paper explores the comparative effectiveness of maritime dispute resolution in Singapore and London, focusing on arbitration and litigation processes for charter parties and bills of lading. For students seeking assistance with such complex legal analyses, Assignment Help from Native Assignment Help offers expert guidance to craft well-researched and structured academic papers. Their professional support ensures clarity and precision in tackling intricate topics like maritime law.

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. Bills of lading disputes mainly pertain to payments, suspense accounts, and covers concerning shipment and transportation of goods by sea, loss or damage to cargo, delivery, and terms and conditions of the contract.

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. A Bill of Lading is a legal document that is issued by the carrier to the seller involving receipt of goods, title to goods and being an evidence of a contract as shipping contract. They are important in help of international business as they determine the contract of carriage, delivery and ownership of the cargo.

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 above mentioned issues are primarily analyses through different contracts like bill of landing as well as implement of some other international conventions, which is relevant to actual choice of London and Singapore based on dispute resolution centers. In the time of define this particular issues the main three aspects which cover is different contractual and legal frameworks, some international conventions as well as specialization where all kinds of complex shipping and international regulations analyzed.

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 maritime 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

In the time of define this section it is consider that London has not lost maritime disputes resolution cases but though these maritime laws Singapore has properly benefited the development in entire Asian Trade.

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. The hypothesis is that these factors make Singapore a more favorable environment for maritime dispute resolution in Asia implying a shift in preferences.

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

1. 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

1. 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

1. What are the main transnational legal challenges among English and Singapore Jurisdiction, and how do both legal system address to conflict the cooperation in commercial regulation perspectives?

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion

1. 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. The paper starts with highlighting Singapore and London as the jurisdictions of choice for maritime arbitration with differential advantages and inclinations. 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. On the other hand, Singapore’s emerging popularity among the maritime parties is considered, categorized by its effectiveness, inexpensive, and backed by robust institutions particularly on the Asian trade niche. 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 Maritime 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 explores all the potential complexities of maritime regulation in transnational contexts, which is focus on the several historical influences litigation practices and international conventions in the country London and Singapore. 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. The entire case studies from London and Singapore are primarily illustrate all the potential weakness and strengths based on their respective legal processes. The entire chapter are also highlights all kinds of important international rules of conventions that are help to highlight all kinds of fairness and consistencies in the entire transnational maritime resolution.

The chapter 5 enriches the knowledge of Singapore and London’s approach to maritime matters allowing the stakeholders to provide detailed information for certain conditions and requirements. However, the analysis of the comparison between the jurisdictions enlightens the parties of the crucial factors of the forum of their preference which is essential. This can help them to select the most appropriate forum that suits their needs.

Chapter 2: Legal Framework and Practices in Singapore

2.1 Maritime Law in Singapore

In this is Chapter 2, are demonstrates the Singapore's commercial law, in particular maritime 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. Major frameworks like the Merchant Shipping Act are so framed along lines with conventions like the Hague-Visby Rules and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 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 combined with stringent legal processes in promoting itself as one of the bases for effective maritime dispute resolution.

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

Conventions

The legal systems in Singapore, its Maritime 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. Singapore has been defining some of its general maritime policies through the Port and Maritime Authority of Singapore and Singapore Maritime Foundation. 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 maritime 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.

The discovery thus assumes importance, and the case law requires the parties to file a suit to exchange all relevant papers that help each party gain an insight into the strengths of the case on the other side. In its most basic sense, a trial entails arguing, supplying rationale, putting and cross examining the witnesses. 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] The trial phase also consisted of serious analysis of paragraphs within contractual agreements as well as testimonies from witnesses. The final judgement of the High Court was appealed thus, elaborating on the presence of the appellate procedure. Another particularized case is the one that got the name “Pacific Vigorous [2018] SGCA 20" regarding the issues, connected with bills of lading.

In the case, Singapore sheared out the prowess of its litigation structure to deal with complicated marine issues. The pre-trial phase consisted of elaborate preliminary applications regarding the admissibility of some of the documents and the relevance of the testimonies of the experts.

[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 case the parties have a disagreement on an issue, then the aggrieved party presents a Notice of Arbitration to the other party outlining the issues being disputed and the remedies which the former seeks. In the time of choosing arbitrators is when it comes to significant procedures. 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. As has been noted, Singaporean arbitration questions are significantly different from court questions and are generally more informal. They can be conducted in person, by video or even just papers may be exchanged between the parties depending on the involvement and option of the parties. 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. The recognition and enforcement of awards globally follows domestication of awards because Singapore, being a signatory to the New York Convention.

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 maritime 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. The simplicity of the processes in initiating an arbitration and in appointing arbitrators singularly, coupled with the modality of hearings, inherently cuts down to a large extent the time and money spent in dispute-solving mechanisms. 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] Then, in the time of looking at the Singaporean experience of maritime arbitration, focused on efficiency, flexibility, and expertise, it is possible to identify useful lessons for the development of better practices in conducting maritime arbitration.

Chapter 3: Legal Framework and Practices in London

3.1 Maritime Law in London

Chapter 3 are primarily define features of maritime 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 maritime law with historical influences and international conventions

Overview of Maritime Law

London's legal structure is represented by maritime law, dating back to ancient times and having a great impact on the regulation of the international shipping industry.[24] Being one of the most important maritime centers in the world, London developed a rather elaborate and detailed system of regulation for different types of maritime-related disputes, particularly those connected with charter parties and bills of lading. 

Historical Influences 

In the time of analyzing the historical aspect of London and how “maritime 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 maritime 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 maritime 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 maritime law that comprises various international conventions that aim at standardizing the practices of different jurisdictions. Key international conventions influencing maritime 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] In this form, the relief claimed must be stated as well and has to include the description of the nature of the dispute and names of the parties involved.

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 maritime 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 judgments.
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

The process starts on the filing and serving of a notice of arbitration. In London, the notice must contain averment to the extent or details of the claim, the relief, and the grounds of the claim. 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 maritime 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 

After the hearings, the arbitrators discuss and reach an award to be given on the parties of the dispute. This award has to be reduced to writing, and the signatures of the arbitrators shall be on it. 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 case studies help to depict the effectiveness and the non-legalism tendencies of the arbitration patterns in London. 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 maritime law; one of the factors that contributes to effective dispute resolution. Although the litigation process benefits from the experienced judiciary and precedents giving predictability, the process itself involves lengthy trials, appeals, and high costs, as shown in the “The Erika” and “Achilles” cases. The above complexities often prolong the time taken in determining a dispute or claim, further implications on the financial and operational efficiencies of businesses that are involved in maritime operations.

Chapter 4: Transnational issues in the Singapore and English jurisdiction

4.1 Maritime Law in Transnational

4.1.1 Overview of maritime law with historical influences and international conventions

This chapter are analyses transnational legal issues in the maritime industry with particular reference to the Singaporean and English legal regimes. International legal standards and regional organizations regulate the maritime field but concern is in commercial arbitration with legal proceedings instead of one sovereign state suing another. This difference is especially important when comparing how these jurisdictions approach maritime law, and their cases, in the context of the current global economy.

Admiralty law essentially represents maritime law; it governs issues, disputes, and activities within the high seas by navigating and creating solutions of shipping, commerce, and other practices through maritime contracts. It is based on definite instruments of regulation that define these laws, such as important international treaties and conventions, such as the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)” and the conventions of the “International Maritime Organization (IMO)”. These instruments are developing maritime practices, they are not authorities with jurisdiction and the power to make decisions in cases of disputes. However, they provide a set of guidelines that harmonize standards among nations, such as in safety regulation, pollution control, and shipping procedures. Disputes are left to be decided upon by national courts or arbitration under the principles established in these conventions.[53]

Two significant bodies of international conventions govern maritime law today:

This consists of the IMO conventions and other global laws such as the “Hamburg Rules”, the “Rotterdam Rules” and many others.[54] The conventions set worldwide standards that steer countries into the proper management of maritime disputes. The agreement does not resolve any dispute, but it gives guidelines on how to apply it in nations within their jurisdictions.[55] Maritime law has its roots from ancient ages however, it advanced in the “16th and 17th centuries” with the emergence of European powers' sea dominant empires.[56] In the country of England, this admiralty court was primarily created in the time of the early fourteenth century. Not only that this is also specifically controlled by all the legal matters which are related to these maritime activities. The jurisdiction of the court was primarily created through legislation which grants authority over several disputes that involve shipping, navigation as well as other maritime issues. This Admiralty Court extended to international waters, which play a crucial role in creating modern maritime regulations that influence all the global practices related to legal perspectives.

Legal Structures of Ship Related Business in London, Including Maritime Law and Arbitration

London is considered one of the world's premier centres for maritime law because of the traditions in this area of law dating back to the city's legal history and acknowledged experience in dealing with maritime conflicts. The "London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA)" has a central role to play in this since it is one of the largest international maritime arbitration organizations. LMAA is an essential organization as it offers a specific substitution for litigation concerning the Maritime field since it offers professional Arbitration services for organizations in shipping across the globe. The main reason which can be argued is that London has a long history of seaborne trade, has a great legal background, and sufficient legal infrastructure. English maritime law is an attractive and fairly certain jurisdiction for the parties; therefore, the choice of arbitration or litigation risks will not affect the outcome. Arbitration is firmly entrenched into the English legal system and is governed by the “Arbitration Act 1996” which will apply to arbitrations seated in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not in Scotland. The Act does not make a differentiation between domestic and international arbitration and even though it was not an enactment of the “UNCITRAL Model Law”’ it was largely based on it. Some of the most far-reaching direct provisions of the Act include those dealing with the enforcement of arbitration clauses and awards to ensure that parties looking forward to efficient dispute solutions. As to charter-parties and bills of lading the Model Law is especially applicable for Singapore because the legislature of this country has chosen to adopt the “UNCITRAL Model Law” within the framework of the “Singapore International Arbitration Act”. It is significant since when charter parties to the parties or bills of lading select Singapore for arbitrating, they get an advantage of international framework hence ensuring the dispute resolution in the maritime matters hence improving on the certainty and enforceability in the international business.[57]

Judicial redress:

The Admiralty Court hears all forms of maritime lawsuits: while the Admiralty Court may be an appellate court for the decisions of the arbitral tribunal, it is also a general maritime court which hears not only appeals from the arbitral tribunal but also the full range of maritime legal cases such as ship arrest, cargo claims, Maritime contracts and many others. Unlike maritime litigation, London provides parties with the possibility to appeal the arbitral awards on grounds of law under the "Arbitration Act 1996" which reassures the parties. This is different from Singapore for example by way of the Singapore International Arbitration Act which provides more restrictions on appeals and judicial intervention. Precisely, parties here in London seem to enjoy wider prospects for seeking legal redress in a offer to reverse arbitration decisions most appropriately on legal questions. This two-tier structure of specialized maritime courts as well as a strong maritime arbitration regime makes London an ideal location for both maritime litigation and arbitration providing end-to-end legal services for maritime issues.[58] There are distinctions in civil procedural rules regarding both Singapore and English maritime laws within law firms as well as within the courts. Such variation results from jurisdictional variation in the legal systems or procedural frameworks that govern how firms approach the cases. Singapore follows rules laid down by its courts while in England the rules are the "Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)" dealing with maritime litigation. Each system has its own set of legal theories and procedural rules. As this paper conceptualizes, it is crucial to grasp the approaches used by Singapore and England towards such matters as a way of handling international disputes. The Singaporean courts restrain the access of the judiciary openings in arbitration compared to that of the Singapore International Arbitration Act; the English courts allow appeals on smatterings under the "Arbitration Act 1996" which offers more legal redress for the disputing parties. In studying the nature of international commercial regulation through the comparison of Singapore and England in light of their procedural rules and legal traditions, this chapter focuses on the impact of these differences on maritime arbitration and litigation.

Civil litigation can be explained as the prosecution of a case in a court by a plaintiff who starts the process by filing a write of summons. In matters concerning charter parties the claimant (or shipper) may bring a writ in persona against the contractual counterparty or in rem against the ship or cargo where the matter concerns a bill of lading.[59]

Pre-trial conferences may be made with a view of issues being determined before trial. Singapore courts also prefer the filing of cases through the use of the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR), for example, mediation. However, it is important to understand that the trial judge does not run an interactive process; he or she does not mediate the trial or the parties' disputes. However, mediation is carried out by the third party with no interest in the outcome of the case. The courts continue to encourage ADR with a view of ensuring that the dispute is determined without going through the normal trial process.[60] 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.[61]

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.[62] In recent years, there has been a lot of emphasis on how to do away with legal impediments and how to exercise the sovereignty of jurisdiction in matters to do with marine law that should be governed legally on both International and Domestic marine laws. This aspect focuses on the purpose of analyzing legal issues while performing correct jurisdiction in naval jurisprudence. In maritime cases especially under charter parties or bills of lading, a claimant may bring an in rem action whereby he is likely to attach a vessel, or the cargo. London is governed by the “Senior Courts Act of 1981”, especially the admiralty jurisdiction under which ship arrest procedures are provided to support claims.[63] 

The trial phase remains in London and is extremely dependent on the common law legal system most significantly the matters concerning precedence and audio-visual rules.

4.1.2 Case Studies

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

Litigation in Singapore

Singapore Case Study: “The Panamanian Crisis the Panamax Arbitration” 

It was accused of causing serious setbacks in the operations of the cargo. The plaintiff charterer pointed out that the ship owner was in anticipation of the warranty of seaworthiness, this being a basic function under maritime law.[64] Therefore, the charterer sued for losses resulting from this breach, being claims for demurrage under the “Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA)”. The litigation process illustrated several strengths of the Singaporean legal system: 

Strengths: The pre-trial procedures especially the phase of discovery in Singapore courts was effectively done which enabled the fast tracking of the trial.[65] It also allowed the claimant to arrest the vessel through in rem actions that would make it easier for the person to receive the compensation he deserves. 

Limitations: The cost involved in acquiring lawyers as well as expert witnesses and the length of time it took to conduct a trial. It must be noted that the process took long due to the court’s dependence on the testimony of the experts.

Litigation in England and Wales

London Case Study: “The Ocean Victory Case”

In London, the Ocean Victory case attracted much interest relating to the effect of safe port warranties concerning a time charter party. The vessel foundered during a storm at a port, which has caused the emergence of a dispute about the conformity of the port to the safety criterion as stated in the charter party. The ship-owners want to qualify for compensation for their loss, whereas the charterers claimed the loss was due to an "Act of God".[66] This case had one strength for the English court; the court observed procedural order in dealing with and admitting expert evidence and charter party clauses' meaning. The case also teaches legal for foreseeable maritime disputes lessons. However, the authorities such as the UK Supreme Court were worried that the process was becoming serial and costly when the case was taken to court.

Strengths: Some of the strong aspects include How the English court engages in procedural discipline in handling/ admitting the expert evidence and how the law in approaching and interpreting charter party clauses.

Limitations: Others complained that the litigation process took quite a long time and this was expensive, pointing to the fact that it was taken to the United Kingdom Supreme Court.

The Singapore and London case studies demonstrate inherent weaknesses that have significant implications on the efficiency of tactical maritime legal actions. Substantial concepts involved in Singapore’s “Panamax Arbitration” include warranty of seaworthiness and efficient pretrial discovery because Singapore has more regulatory concern on rights of the claimant than respondents through vessel arrest in rem actions. The costs are high and the time to trial, particularly for expert opinions, remains a concern. Conversely, the “Ocean Victory” case of London demonstrates a severe and systematic behavior of regime regarding expert opinions and construction of Charter provisions which is in consonance with the English legal system which is rooted and conservative with precedents. While Singapore’s framework is efficient, one may agree that English system sometimes delay justice through precedence which may cause Asian parties for arbitration in Singapore for efficient, quick solutions.

4.2 Key Transnational challenges in maritime dispute resolution

4.2.1 Jurisdictional Conflicts

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. However, procedure rules and maritime laws are not the same and may produce further issues in the future because both Malaysian and English legal systems are based on common law.[67] 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.

4.2.2 Arbitration vs. Litigation

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.[68] It is not easy to coordinate these different arbitration frameworks. However, the enforcement of the arbitration award and its recognition may become challenging where the issue arises when an award is made in one country, and enforcing it in another.

4.2.3 Legal Framework and Conventions

All the parties in international conventions that primarily regulate maritime 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 also relevant for the states such as Singapore.[69] 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. This also indirectly influences all kinds of activities related to commercial maritime. In England, the UK government. All the courts in several countries such as the UK and Singapore primarily interpret all the potential conventions, and there are also various legal outcomes related to maritime disputes.

4.2.4 Enforcement of Judgments

A court judgment or an arbitration award can even be given in another jurisdiction, enforcing a judgment can always be a problem. In situations where one party does not follow the judgement made the other party has to play the role of seeking acknowledgement and enforcing the same in another country. As for the enforcement of court judgments 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”.[70] 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.

4.3 Impact of international conventions

4.3.1 Standardization of Maritime Law

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.[71] For instance, 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.[72]

4.3.2 Jurisdiction and Choice of Forum

The Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters signed in 1968 has been amended and was replaced by the “Brussels I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001)”.[73] 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 judgments in the Member State of the EU.[74] 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 judgments using the main source, which is the “Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments 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 judgments.

Singapore and England complied with the principle of party autonomy as to the selection of forums for resolution of contentious issues even the conventions such as the “Hague Choice of Court Convention” approve the practice making it easier for the courts in Singapore and England to enforce agreements on the choice of forums.[75]

4.3.3 Case Studies

Examination of the efficiency and procedural aspects based on case outcomes

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.[76] In order to understand how the efficiency and the process of applying laws in these two jurisdictions vary, several transnational case studies can be explored, which regard the outcomes and the ways of dealing with maritime disputes.

Arbitration in England and Wales

London: Arbitration at Sea: Historically Speaking 

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.[77] One good example in explaining London’s arbitration process is the case of “Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40”.[78] 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.[79]

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.[80] 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.[81]

 Arbitration in Singapore

Singapore: A New Hope in the Sea of Maritime arbitration 

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”.[82] 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.

The analysis of the arbitration systems in Singapore and London shows the different principles that exist in relation to the resolution of maritime disputes. 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.[83] 

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. The conventions are implemented and the maritime activities are supervised by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore.

Maritime laws are sought to be countered here in Singapore with a hub of many legal professionals.[84] This has specialization in Maritime laws and is supported by educational institutions including NUS or National University of Singapore. The “Centre for Maritime 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 maritime law and policy.[85] Through both public private partnerships and government initiative, much development has been embarked in making sure that Singapore is the premier global maritime city. 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.[86] 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.[87] The specifics of finally and the narrow scope of legitimate grounds for refusal to enforce make London one of the most arbitration-friendly places in the world. Apart from that, advantages of London are effective in legal experience and the tradition of maritime law.[88] 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.[89] 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”. London is known to be historically significant as well as the involvement and reputation of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association making London a preferred center for maritime arbitration, especially in terms of procedural certainty coupled with the then reliance on precedent. 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”. Both have in rem actions for vessel arrests and stress before processes however, Singapore’s courts support mediation and other ADR means significantly. A major concern for both is matters to do with jurisdictional conflict and enforcement of judgments especially where there are cross border issues. 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 maritime 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.[90]

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. This improves Singapore’s image of an efficient country that offers professional arbitration services to the parties interested in organizing the dispute resolution. London being a maritime city has always had a strong history of maritime 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. The cases have to be referred to arbitration and that the legal environment of Singapore supports this kind of approach making it appropriate for the kind of parties that seek a specialized and efficient procedure. 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.[91] 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.[92] 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. The efficiency and expertise provided by these institutions can be quite beneficial for the international parties willing to achieve efficient and professional solutions.[93] It is always open to the parties to choose between litigation and arbitration due to the availability of mature centers like the LMAA. Closely related to the topic is the fact that maritime law has a long history in London, moreover, legislation in this area is highly developed, which ensures a stable legal framework for dealing with the dispute either judicial or arbitration.

Emphasize Legal Framework Compatibility

In making the choice of the jurisdiction, the parties should verify the way effective national legislation can work and relate to the practicalities of the two parties’ particular contract. 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 judgments.

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.[94] 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 judgments.[95] 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.[96] In fact every jurisdiction has its peculiarity and understanding a jurisdiction can make lots of difference in the process and results.

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.[97] 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.[98] 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 research provides a comparative analysis of litigation and arbitration concerning charter parties and bills of lading in Singapore and London. This also gains insight into the methods of handling maritime legal disputes. 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. Prominent institutions that exist within it include SIAC, to give the country’s disposition towards efficient and effective means of handling disputes. The focus on disclosure and the presence of a great many specialized legal professionals related to maritime 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. The procedural issues and associated high costs are considered as issues to overcome. 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. Therefore, the study established that both jurisdictions offer efficient resolution of disputes. However, this can operate within different legal frameworks and cultural backgrounds.

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 maritime 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, although London has always been the long standing popular venue of the maritime arbitration owing to historical value and legal risk free city, the emerging Singapore as the maritime nation cannot be ruled out. The growing popularity of arbitration as compared to litigation, especially in the complicated cases that relate to charter parties and bills of lading points to a growing trend towards less expensive, faster and flexible mechanisms of dispute solution.

 In my view, Singapore’s attitude towards arbitration and strong and sophisticated legal environment offer more advantages, especially for the parties in the APAC.[99] On mediation Singapore underlines pragmatic approach present in system accompanied by legal regulations reflecting efficient ways to solve conflict without bringing additional time, while giving it fair solution. Although a center of legal services excellence, London practices a longer and more costly ordeal and hence discourages small parties from taking the law into their hands.

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.[100] For me, this raises Singapore’s profile as a maritime dispute hub in the right direction from previously perceived added different aspects, while London remains a legal power house for more complex, case dependent proceedings. In my opinion, both cities will remain significant stakeholders in the ongoing and future management of disputes over issues to do with the sea since they fit various strategic requirements.

References

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 Maritime 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 Maritime 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 Judgments 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 Maritime 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 Judgments' 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 Maritime 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 Maritime 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. Available at: 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. Available at: 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. Available at: https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2018_SGCA_20 [Accessed on: 25.07.2024]

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

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]

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]

UN, (2017), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Available at: 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. Available at: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/family-laws-and-regulations/singapore [Accessed on: 03.10.2024]

Siac, (2024), International Arbitration Act. Available at: 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. Available at: https://siac.org.sg/ [Accessed on: 03.10.2024]

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]

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] 

Legislation, (1996) Arbitration Act 1996. Available at: 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. Available at: 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"). Available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/conventions/foreign_arbitral_awards [Accessed on: 03.10.2024]

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 Maritime 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 – judgment. Available at: https://www.londonpandi.com/knowledge/news-alerts/the-achilleas-judgment/ [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] 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.

[55] 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.

[56] 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.

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

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

[60] 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.

[61] 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.

[62] 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.

[63] Hanretty, C., 2020. A court of specialists: Judicial behavior on the UK Supreme Court. Oxford University Press, USA.

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

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

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

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

[68] 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.

[69] 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.

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

[71] 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.

[72] 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).

[73] 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.

[74] 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.

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

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

[77] 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.

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

[79] 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.

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

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

[82] 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] 

[83] 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.

[84] 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

[85] 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

[86] 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.

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

[88] Kessedjian C, 'Comment on the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 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.

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

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

[91] 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.

[92] 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.

[93] 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.

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

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

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

[97] 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.

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

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

[100] 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.