1. Introduction to UNCITRAL and Arbitration in Nepal
1.1. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has extended Arbitration Practices worldwide, including Nepal. Established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966 through Resolution 2205(XXI), UNCITRAL’s primary mandate is to promote the progressive harmonization and unification of international trade law. This mandate has led to the development of critical instruments such as the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, amended in 2006) and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976, revised in 2010 and 2013).
1.2. Nepal’s arbitration landscape has undergone significant evolution over the past decades. The formal recognition of arbitration in Nepal can be traced back to the Development Board Act, 2013 (1956), which introduced arbitration as a means of resolving disputes involving government contracts. However, the most substantial advancement came with the enactment of the Arbitration Act, 2055 (1999). This Act replaced the earlier Arbitration Act of 2038 (1981) and marked a pivotal shift towards aligning Nepal’s arbitration regime with international standards.
2. UNCITRAL Model Law and Its Key Features
2.1. The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration provides a comprehensive framework for arbitration legislation. Its key features include:
a) Scope and General Provisions: Article 1 defines the scope of application to international commercial arbitration, while Article 2 provides definitions of key terms.
b) Arbitration Agreement: Article 7 outlines the requirements for a valid arbitration agreement, recognizing both pre-dispute and post-dispute agreements.
c) Composition of Arbitral Tribunal: Articles 10-15 provide rules for the appointment, challenge, and replacement of arbitrators.
d) Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal: Article 16 establishes the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, allowing tribunals to rule on their own jurisdiction.
e) Conduct of Arbitral Proceedings: Articles 18-27 set out basic procedural rules while respecting party autonomy.
f) Making of Award and Termination of Proceedings: Articles 28-33 cover the form, content, and effect of arbitral awards.
g) Recourse Against Award: Article 34 limits the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award.
h) Recognition and Enforcement of Awards: Articles 35-36 establish a regime for enforcing arbitral awards consistent with the New York Convention.
2.2. These features of the UNCITRAL Model Law have significantly influenced arbitration legislation globally, including in Nepal, albeit to varying degrees.
3. Nepal’s Arbitration Act 2055 (1999) and UNCITRAL Model Law
3.1. Nepal’s Arbitration Act, 2055 (1999) draws inspiration from the UNCITRAL Model Law, though it is not a verbatim adoption. The Act shares several fundamental principles with the Model Law:
a) Party Autonomy: Section 3 of the Nepalese Act emphasizes party autonomy in arbitration proceedings, aligning with Article 19 of the Model Law.
b) Separability of Arbitration Agreements: Section 7 recognizes the separability principle, similar to Article 16(1) of the Model Law.
c) Kompetenz-Kompetenz: Section 16 of the Act allows arbitral tribunals to rule on their own jurisdiction, mirroring Article 16 of the Model Law.
d) Grounds for Setting Aside Awards: Section 30 of the Act provides grounds for setting aside arbitral awards that are largely consistent with Article 34 of the Model Law.
3.2. However, notable differences exist between Nepal’s Act and the UNCITRAL Model Law:
a) Scope: Unlike the Model Law, which focuses on international commercial arbitration, Nepal’s Act applies to both domestic and international arbitration without clear distinction.
b) Arbitrator Appointments: Sections 5-8 of the Nepalese Act provide more detailed provisions on arbitrator appointments compared to the Model Law.
c) Court Intervention: The Nepalese Act grants broader powers to courts in arbitration matters, particularly in Sections 7 and 16, which allow court intervention in arbitrator appointments and jurisdictional challenges.
4. Application of UNCITRAL in Nepalese Arbitration Practice
4.1. The influence of UNCITRAL extends beyond legislation to practical applications in Nepal’s arbitration landscape. The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules have gained recognition in Nepal:
a) Institutional Adoption: The Nepal Council of Arbitration (NEPCA) has incorporated elements of the UNCITRAL Rules into its own arbitration rules. For instance, NEPCA’s Arbitral Procedures Regulations of 2072 (2015) reflect UNCITRAL principles in areas such as arbitrator appointments and challenge procedures.
b) Party Autonomy: Parties to international commercial contracts in Nepal often opt for UNCITRAL Rules in their arbitration agreements. This choice is recognized and enforced by Nepalese courts under Section 3 of the Arbitration Act, which respects party autonomy in determining arbitration procedures.
4.2. Nepalese courts have shown increasing awareness of UNCITRAL standards in their rulings:
a) In NHA Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Rasuwa Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. (2012), the Supreme Court of Nepal referenced UNCITRAL principles in interpreting the validity of arbitration agreements.
b) The case of Kishor Bikram Malla v. Gandaki Urja Pvt. Ltd. (2074) saw the Supreme Court apply UNCITRAL-inspired principles in determining the scope of arbitrable disputes.
4.3. Training and capacity building initiatives in Nepal often draw on UNCITRAL resources:
a) NEPCA regularly conducts training sessions for arbitrators and legal professionals using UNCITRAL materials.
b) Law schools in Nepal, such as Kathmandu School of Law and Nepal Law Campus, have incorporated UNCITRAL Model Law and related materials into their commercial law and ADR curricula.
5. UNCITRAL’s Impact on Specific Aspects of Arbitration in Nepal
5.1. Arbitration Agreements:
a) Formal Requirements: Section 3 of Nepal’s Arbitration Act recognizes arbitration agreements in writing, including electronic communications, aligning with Article 7 of the UNCITRAL Model Law.
b) Separability Principle: Nepalese courts have upheld the separability doctrine, as seen in the case of Kishor Bikram Malla v. Gandaki Urja Pvt. Ltd. (2074), reflecting Article 16(1) of the Model Law.
5.2. Arbitral Tribunal:
a) Appointment Procedures: While Section 6 of Nepal’s Act provides more detailed rules on appointments, it respects party autonomy, aligning with UNCITRAL principles.
b) Challenge of Arbitrators: Section 11 of the Act outlines grounds for challenging arbitrators, reflecting Article 12 of the Model Law.
5.3. Arbitral Proceedings:
a) Procedural Flexibility: Section 17 of Nepal’s Act allows parties significant freedom to agree on procedural rules, consistent with Article 19 of the Model Law.
b) Place of Arbitration: Section 12 recognizes the concept of the juridical seat of arbitration, as promoted in UNCITRAL texts.
c) Language of Arbitration: Section 13 allows parties to choose the language of proceedings, aligning with Article 22 of the Model Law.
5.4. Arbitral Awards:
a) Form and Contents: Section 27 of Nepal’s Act outlines requirements for arbitral awards largely in line with Article 31 of the Model Law.
b) Correction and Interpretation: Section 29 provides procedures for correcting or interpreting awards, reflecting Article 33 of the Model Law.
5.5. Recognition and Enforcement of Awards:
a) Grounds for Refusal: Section 34 of Nepal’s Act mirrors the grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement found in Article 36 of the Model Law and Article V of the New York Convention.
b) Enforcement Procedure: While more detailed than UNCITRAL provisions, Sections 31-32 of Nepal’s Act aim to facilitate award recognition and enforcement.
6. Challenges in Applying UNCITRAL Standards in Nepal
6.1. Legal Barriers:
a) Inconsistencies: Nepal’s Act deviates from the Model Law in areas like court intervention (Sections 7 and 16) and appeals against arbitral awards (Section 30).
b) Limited Jurisprudence: Nepalese courts have relatively few precedents applying international arbitration norms, leading to uncertainty in interpretation.
6.2. Practical Obstacles:
a) Awareness Gap: Many Nepalese lawyers lack comprehensive knowledge of UNCITRAL instruments and their application.
b) Resource Constraints: Institutions like NEPCA face challenges in fully implementing international best practices due to limited financial and human resources.
6.3. Cultural Factors:
a) Traditional Preferences: Some businesses in Nepal still prefer informal or court-based dispute resolution methods.
b) Resistance to Foreign Concepts: There can be hesitation in adopting international legal norms perceived as alien to Nepalese legal culture.
7. Future Prospects for UNCITRAL’s Role in Nepalese Arbitration
7.1. Potential Amendments to Nepal’s Arbitration Act:
a) Closer Alignment: Discussions are underway to amend the Act to more closely reflect the UNCITRAL Model Law, particularly in distinguishing between domestic and international arbitration.
b) Addressing Gaps: Proposed changes include clearer provisions on interim measures and emergency arbitrators, inspired by the 2006 amendments to the Model Law.
7.2. Expanding Use of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules:
a) Institutional Promotion: NEPCA and other organizations are encouraging the use of UNCITRAL Rules in commercial contracts.
b) Education Initiatives: Law schools and professional bodies are increasing focus on UNCITRAL instruments in their programs.
7.3. Enhancing Nepal’s Position in International Arbitration:
a) Expertise Building: More Nepalese professionals are seeking specialized training in international arbitration, including UNCITRAL standards.
b) Venue Promotion: Initiatives are underway to promote Nepal as a venue for international arbitrations, emphasizing its adherence to UNCITRAL-inspired laws.
In conclusion, while UNCITRAL has significantly influenced Nepal’s arbitration framework, challenges remain in fully aligning practice with international standards. Continued efforts in legislative reform, education, and practical implementation are necessary to strengthen UNCITRAL’s application in Nepal and enhance the country’s position in the international arbitration community.
Also Read: Arbitration in Nepal, The Arbitration Act, 1999
Disclaimer: The information contained herein is provided solely for general informational purposes and shall not be construed as legal advice, solicitation, advertisement, or any form of inducement or personal communication from the firm or its members. The law firm expressly disclaims any and all liability arising from reliance on, or use of, the information contained in this article, and no party shall derive any legal or professional obligation from its content.