File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: The Keeneye Case: Rethinking the Content of Public Policy in Cross-border Arbitration between Hong Kong and Mainland China

TitleThe Keeneye Case: Rethinking the Content of Public Policy in Cross-border Arbitration between Hong Kong and Mainland China
Authors
KeywordsKeeneye
Cross-border Arbitration
Hong Kong
China
Public Policy
Issue Date2012
PublisherSweet & Maxwell Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hku.hk/law/hklj/
Citation
Hong Kong Law Journal, 2012, v. 42, p. 1001-1029 How to Cite?
AbstractA recent decision of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Gao Haiyan v. Keeneye Holdings Ltd considers public policy-based procedural objections in the context of enforcement of a mainland China arbitration award that was made following the hybrid process of mediation and arbitration (med-arb). This article attempts to decipher what this case means to Hong Kong and the cross-border arbitral relations. What has changed in the playing field of public policy in the enforcement of arbitral awards in Hong Kong and what can parties expect of Hong Kong courts on public policy issues in treating Mainland arbitral awards after the Keeneye case? In light of the rising use of med-arb procedures, this article studies particularly the novel issue of public policy of enforcing med-arb awards, and analyses how the different legal practices in Hong Kong and mainland China may cause much uncertainty in the cross-border enforcement arena. It is revealed that even after unification for more than 15 years there are legal as well as ideological conflicts between the two sides. Although the Keeneye case may have, on the one hand, lowered the predictability of outcome in cases which involve a cross-border clash in ideology in the enforcement of arbitral awards, it has simultaneously acted as a catalyst in reducing such differences, as seen from the rapid Mainland reform to the rules on med-arb. In the long run, a potentially more credible Chinese arbitration system is expected to be built upon and in the course of its improvement, understanding from the Hong Kong side will be helpful for the healthy development of a cross-border arbitration scheme.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/185921
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 0.215
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.101
SSRN

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGu, Wen_US
dc.contributor.authorZhang, XC-
dc.date.accessioned2013-08-20T11:46:37Z-
dc.date.available2013-08-20T11:46:37Z-
dc.date.issued2012en_US
dc.identifier.citationHong Kong Law Journal, 2012, v. 42, p. 1001-1029en_US
dc.identifier.issn0378-0600-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/185921-
dc.description.abstractA recent decision of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Gao Haiyan v. Keeneye Holdings Ltd considers public policy-based procedural objections in the context of enforcement of a mainland China arbitration award that was made following the hybrid process of mediation and arbitration (med-arb). This article attempts to decipher what this case means to Hong Kong and the cross-border arbitral relations. What has changed in the playing field of public policy in the enforcement of arbitral awards in Hong Kong and what can parties expect of Hong Kong courts on public policy issues in treating Mainland arbitral awards after the Keeneye case? In light of the rising use of med-arb procedures, this article studies particularly the novel issue of public policy of enforcing med-arb awards, and analyses how the different legal practices in Hong Kong and mainland China may cause much uncertainty in the cross-border enforcement arena. It is revealed that even after unification for more than 15 years there are legal as well as ideological conflicts between the two sides. Although the Keeneye case may have, on the one hand, lowered the predictability of outcome in cases which involve a cross-border clash in ideology in the enforcement of arbitral awards, it has simultaneously acted as a catalyst in reducing such differences, as seen from the rapid Mainland reform to the rules on med-arb. In the long run, a potentially more credible Chinese arbitration system is expected to be built upon and in the course of its improvement, understanding from the Hong Kong side will be helpful for the healthy development of a cross-border arbitration scheme.-
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherSweet & Maxwell Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hku.hk/law/hklj/en_US
dc.relation.ispartofHong Kong Law Journalen_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.subjectKeeneye-
dc.subjectCross-border Arbitration-
dc.subjectHong Kong-
dc.subjectChina-
dc.subjectPublic Policy-
dc.titleThe Keeneye Case: Rethinking the Content of Public Policy in Cross-border Arbitration between Hong Kong and Mainland Chinaen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailGu, W: guweixia@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailZhang, XC: xczhang@hkusua.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityGu, W=rp01249en_US
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84874367877-
dc.identifier.hkuros218545en_US
dc.identifier.volume42en_US
dc.identifier.spage1001en_US
dc.identifier.epage1029en_US
dc.publisher.placeHong Kongen_US
dc.identifier.ssrn2504561-
dc.identifier.hkulrp2014/036-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats