Myanmar

With the implementation of market-oriented reforms and foreign investment pouring into Myanmar over the past few years, reform of the arbitration regime and legislation was inevitable and necessary.

Over the last two years, Myanmar has acceded to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards 1958 and issued a draft Arbitration Bill based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. Further, the latest draft Investment Law specifically provides that when a dispute arises between the Union Government of Myanmar or a government entity and a foreign investor, it can be referred to arbitration. These are the developments in Myanmar, bringing it closer to international investment and arbitration standards.

Arbitration Act 1944

As the starting point, we will look at the key features of the arbitration law currently applicable in Myanmar.

The Myanmar legal system is largely common law-based and the current law of arbitration is the Arbitration Act 1944 (Arbitration Act), which mirrors the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The Arbitration Act applies to domestic arbitrations, which includes arbitrations entered into between Myanmar companies as well as those involving one or more foreign parties. The Arbitration Act also applies to statutory arbitration.

Reference to arbitration can be made in three ways:

  • arbitration without the intervention of a court;
  • arbitration with the intervention of court where there is no suit pending;
  • arbitration in suits.

Arbitration agreement

An arbitration agreement is a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration, whether or not an arbitrator is named therein.1

There is no special form of agreement prescribed in the Arbitration Act and it may include terms as agreed between the parties. Unless otherwise provided for in the arbitration agreement, the following terms will apply to the arbitration:2

  • the reference will be to a sole arbitrator;
  • if the reference is to an even number of arbitrators, the arbitrators shall appoint an umpire within one month of their appointment;
  • the award must be made within four months of the reference to the arbitrators;
  • if the award is not made within four months, the matter will be referred to an umpire who must make an award within a further two months;
  • the parties to the arbitration will submit to examination under oath or affirmation and produce all requested documents within their possession or power;
  • the award will be final and binding on the parties;
  • the cost of the arbitration will be at the discretion of the arbitrators.

Arbitrability of dispute

The Arbitration Act does not specify which kinds of disputes are arbitrable. In general, any matter in respect of which a civil suit can be filed in court can be referred to arbitration. However, some matters are exclusively within the jurisdiction of a court. For example, the adjudication of a person as an insolvent under the Insolvency Act, the winding up of a company under the Myanmar Companies Act and the appointment of a guardian for a minor under the Guardian and Wards Act cannot be the subject matter of reference to arbitration.3

For certain contracts, there are also restrictions on the parties’ ability to choose the governing law and forum for dispute resolution. For example, the Myanmar Export and Import Rules and Regulations require trade disputes under sales contracts with foreign companies to be arbitrated in Myanmar under the Arbitration Act, with no option for dispute resolution outside Myanmar.

Substantive law

The Arbitration Act is silent on the governing law. However, the Myanmar courts have accepted one of the principles of English private international law, which is that the intention of the parties must first be determined before deciding which law is applicable to their dispute.4 In theory then, parties are free to select the substantive law. However, there appears to be no precedent or case law to date which explains how such choice of foreign law would be applied by the arbitral tribunal or the Myanmar courts.

Where a case involves a foreign element, in the absence of expressed choice by the parties, the substantive law would be determined in accordance with Myanmar law. If there is no enactment in force on the issue at hand, the decision must be according to justice, equity and good conscience.5

Procedural law

If the arbitration is seated in Myanmar, Myanmar law will be the procedural law for the arbitration.6

The procedural laws will govern the following:7

  • the constitution of the arbitral tribunal;
  • removal of an arbitrator;
  • powers of arbitrators;
  • powers of the court;
  • the arbitration proceedings and hearing;
  • duration of the arbitration proceedings;
  • limitation; and
  • grounds for setting aside an award.

Constituting the tribunal

In Myanmar, there is no official list of arbitrators and there are no restrictions or requirements as to who can be appointed by parties as an arbitrator. Lawyers, judges and government officials have been appointed as arbitrators in previous cases, but their ability to handle complex commercial disputes is questionable due to the lack of awareness and experience in arbitration practice.

Parties are at liberty to decide on the number of arbitrators and to each appoint their own arbitrators.8 If parties wish to challenge an arbitrator, they may apply to the court and the court may remove the arbitrator9 and appoint persons to fill the vacancies.10

Powers of the arbitral tribunal

Unless a contrary intention is expressed in the arbitration agreement, the arbitrator or umpire has the power under the Arbitration Act to:11

  • obtain the opinion of the court on any point or, if necessary on the whole subject of the award;
  • correct any clerical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission in an award;
  • administer interrogatories and oaths to all parties appearing in the arbitration;
  • make interim awards and grant interim measures; and
  • award costs.

The role of the court

The court retains a wide supervisory role under the Arbitration Act and an arbitration agreement that ousts the jurisdiction of the court is deemed to be invalid. The expansive powers of the court are a key area in which the Arbitration Act differs widely from international arbitration laws and rules.

The Act empowers the court to exercise various powers once the tribunal is constituted, such powers including (although without prejudice to any power that may be vested in the arbitrator in respect of these matters):12

  • the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject matter of the reference;
  • securing the amount in difference in the reference;
  • the detention, preservation or inspection of any property or thing which is the subject of the reference or as to which any question may arise therein;
  • authorising persons to enter on or into any land or building in the possession of any party to the reference for the aforesaid purposes;
  • authorising any samples to be taken, or any observation to be made, or experiment to be tried, which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence;
  • interim injunctions or the appointment of a receiver;
  • the appointment of a guardian for a minor or person of unsound mind for the purposes of arbitration proceedings.13

Apart from the above, the court also has jurisdiction in the following areas:

  • revocation of the authority of an arbitrator;14
  • appointment of arbitrators or umpire if the parties cannot agree on the appointment;15
  • appointment of arbitrators or umpire to replace the original persons if they had failed to act;16
  • remove arbitrators or umpires who have failed to use all reasonable dispatch in proceeding with the reference and making an award or have misconducted themselves or the proceedings;17
  • order the arbitration agreement to cease to have effect if all the arbitrators or umpire are removed for failure to act or misconduct;18
  • answer questions of law if requested to do so by the arbitrators or the umpire;19
  • remit an award back to the arbitrators; the award will become void if the award is remitted and the arbitrators or umpire fail to reconsider and submit their decision within the time fixed;20 and
  • set aside an award.21

In relation to misconduct, the following would be sufficient to warrant the revocation of an arbitrator’s authority:22

  • the arbitrator had failed to act impartially or has an interest or bias in the result of the proceedings;
  • the arbitrator had breached the principles of natural justice by, for example, failing to give one of the parties to the arbitration the opportunity to be heard before the arbitrator;
  • the arbitrator had mishandled the arbitration such that it is likely to amount to some substantial miscarriage of justice.

The court may also stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement. However, the relevant party must file the stay application before filing a written statement or taking any other steps in the legal proceedings. If the court is satisfied that there is no sufficient reason why the matter should not be referred in accordance with the arbitration agreement, the court may make an order staying the proceedings.

The award

The arbitral tribunal can make final and interim awards.23 There are no prescribed requirements for constituting an award, except that the award must be signed by the arbitrators and the parties informed of it by written notice.24 Unless a different intention is expressed in the arbitration agreement, a final award must be made within four months of entering on the reference or after having been called on by notice in writing from any party to the arbitration agreement. The court may also allow an extended period for the arbitrators to make the award.25

The arbitral tribunal has the power to correct in an award any clerical mistake or error arising from any accidental slip or omission.26 Either party also may request the arbitrators or the umpire to submit the award to a competent court.27 The court will then check whether the award should be modified or corrected,28 remitted to the arbitrators or umpire for reconsideration29 or set aside.30

If the court finds no fault with the arbitral award, it pronounces the judgment according to the award and a decree is issued.31 Such court decree has the same effect and can be enforced like an ordinary decree from the court.

Setting aside

An application to set aside must be made to court32 within 30 days of the date of the service of the notice filing the award.33

The grounds for setting aside an award are:34

  • the arbitrators or the umpire misconducted themselves or the proceedings;
  • the award was made either after the issue of an order by the court superseding the arbitration or after arbitration have become invalid under section 35;
  • the award was improperly procured or is otherwise invalid.

As the courts appear to have wide discretion in deciding whether to set aside an arbitral award, this raises the likelihood that an award may be set aside (at the request of the losing party), resulting in a re-litigation of the entire matter.

If the court refuses to set aside an award, the award may be challenged in an appeal.35

Enforcement of award

For awards made in Myanmar, the arbitrators must, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement, file the award together with depositions and documents at a court. Such application must be filed within 90 days of the date of service of the notice of the making of an award.36

If the court sees no cause to remit or set aside the award, the court shall, after the time for making an application to set aside has expired or such application has been dismissed, proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award.37 A decree shall follow and can be executed as any other decree in a civil court.

Accordingly, there appears to be no procedure for a party to resist enforcement of the award. If they are not satisfied with the award, their recourse would be in applying to set aside the award. If they fail to do so, the court may not refuse to recognise and enforce an award accordingly.

As to foreign awards, prior to acceding to the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards 1958 (New York Convention), Myanmar was party to the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1927) (Geneva Convention). However, there were obstacles present in the Geneva Convention such as the limited number of signatories and those which had reciprocal arrangements with Myanmar, as well as a convoluted enforcement process. In any event, there appears to be no reported cases of enforcement of foreign awards in Myanmar, which would have to be enforced in compliance with the Arbitration (Protocol and Conventions Act) 1939 (Protocol and Conventions Act).

As Myanmar is now party to the New York Convention, the application of the Geneva Convention is not material.

While there have been developments in Myanmar’s future enforcement of foreign awards, which will be discussed below, there remains a lot of work to be done in a wholly untested area.

Agreements and treaties

Myanmar is an ASEAN member state and has acceded to the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement 2009, which provides investor protections as well as a dispute resolution mechanism, including referral to foreign arbitration, for commercial activities in certain economic sectors (eg, manufacturing and agriculture).

There are also several bilateral investment treaties in effect (eg, with China, India and Japan). For example, the settlement of disputes clause in the Myanmar–China BIT provides that any legal dispute between an investor of one contracting party and the other contracting party shall first be settled amicably through negotiations. If the dispute cannot be settled within six months, the dispute must be submitted at the request of either party to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) (under the Convention of the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention) or an ad hoc tribunal.38

Accordingly, there are agreements which provide for the comfort of neutral arbitration of investor-state disputes, should Myanmar and an investor from another contracting country need to resolve certain issues.

Prevailing attitudes

As seen above, the Arbitration Act is in need of an overhaul and the enforcement of foreign awards is still untested. In Myanmar, dispute resolution is handled mainly in the courts and local users have very little experience or inclination toward arbitration. The local party would generally prefer dispute resolution in Myanmar as they have little knowledge of arbitration procedures and costs of the same, whether domestically or abroad. Without the entry of foreign investors, arbitration would not be the preferred choice.

Further, the institutional infrastructure for arbitration is weak – there are no domestic or international arbitration centres in Myanmar or procedural rules in place. As a result, international institutional arbitration outside of Myanmar is more popular than arbitrating in Myanmar itself. In this regard, the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, SIAC Rules and ICC rules are popular choices for international arbitrations.

There is, however, a process in which commercial and financial disputes can be resolved at the Union of Myanmar Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (UMFCCI). The UMFCCI has a duty to conciliate disputes between its members and between its members and other individuals and organisations. However, there is no written procedure of conciliation. A subcommittee is formed to conciliate for a specific dispute and to call experts and see their opinions if required. Some parties in local disputes seek the help of the committee to reach a settlement before they proceed to court, however this does not occur with international disputes. The findings of the subcommittee with the approval of the Central Executive Committee are pronounced and the parties who do not comply with the findings are blacklisted.39 This conciliation procedure, however, does not appear to be in line with international practices.

The waves of change

However, in the last few years, Myanmar has seen a number of changes which will shape the trajectory of arbitration here in time to come.

The New York Convention

Myanmar formally acceded to the New York Convention on 16 April 2013, with the Convention entering into force in Myanmar on 15 July 2013. This accession has been years in the making, and reaching this milestone is an important piece in Myanmar’s legal and investment framework.

The New York Convention currently has 154 signatories,40 and requires the contracting states to give effect to arbitration agreements and recognise and enforce arbitration awards from other states. By signing on to the New York Convention, the Geneva Convention will cease to have effect between the contracting states on their becoming bound and to the extent that they become bound, by the New York Convention.41 This would eradicate issues with the process of enforcement present in the Geneva Convention, wherein the enforcing party must first obtain recognition of the award from the courts in the country of origin before making an application for enforcement in the jurisdiction where enforcement is to follow.

The New York Convention supports ready enforceability of awards from other contracting states without re-litigation in the courts, and offers a supportive environment for the arbitration process in Myanmar.

However, the domestic legislation for the enforcement of foreign awards has not been passed and enforcement therefore remains theoretical. A draft Arbitration Bill has since been published, of which we will consider the key points, but as long as this Bill is not passed, there remains no domestic procedure to enforce a foreign arbitral award.

Draft Arbitration Bill 2014

On 25 May 2014, the Myanmar Parliament published a draft of the new Arbitration Bill, which, when passed into law, will supersede the Arbitration Act and Protocol and Convention Act. The Arbitration Bill had been widely anticipated and sets the domestic tone and framework for arbitration on Myanmar, as well as the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards pursuant to Myanmar’s accession to the New York Convention.

The Arbitration Bill is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law (Model Law), with the first part applying to arbitration in Myanmar and the second to the enforcement of a foreign award in Myanmar. For example, the provisions relating to the definition of an arbitration agreement,42 the procedure of appointing arbitrator(s)43 and the grounds for setting aside an award44 are mirrored in the Arbitration Bill and the Model Law.

However, there are differences between the Arbitration Bill and Model Law. First, while parties are free to decide on the substantive law in an ‘international commercial arbitration ‘, the Arbitration Bill provides that arbitrations seated in Myanmar must adopt Myanmar law as the substantive law if those arbitrations do not fall within this definition.45 This creates uncertainty as to what can be defined as an international commercial dispute, such that parties are allowed to adopt any foreign law as substantive law under this provision.

Next, in relation to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, article 16 of the Model Law allows parties who object to an order that the tribunal has jurisdiction to request for the court to decide on the matter. In the Arbitration Bill, if the arbitral tribunal rules that it has jurisdiction, it may continue the arbitration proceedings and make an award, with the disputant’s only recourse being to apply to set aside this award under section 34.46 This presents a more onerous process in objecting to the jurisdiction of the tribunal, and much will depend on how the Myanmar courts would apply the provisions under section 34.

For the enforcement of awards, instead of following article 36 of the Model Law, the Arbitration Bill provides that awards made in Myanmar will be enforced when the period for setting aside the award has elapsed or the application to set aside the award had been dismissed. This would indicate that parties objecting to an award must seek to set the award aside, failing which, the court may not refuse to enforce the award and it is not open to the objecting party to resist enforcement.

According to the Arbitration Bill, foreign arbitral awards can be enforced if they are the result of a commercial dispute and were made at a place covered by international conventions connected to Myanmar and as notified in the State Gazette by the President.47 If the Myanmar court is satisfied with the award, it has to enforce it as if it were a decree of a Myanmar court.48

There will be details to be ironed out, but in the meantime we can be heartened to know that this Bill brings Myanmar’s legislation much closer to international arbitration standards and legislation.

For one, the Arbitration Bill states there shall be no court intervention in arbitrations except as provided for under the Bill. This is in contrast with the Arbitration Act, where the court has wide powers in arbitration proceedings. Limiting the court’s jurisdiction will help to establish arbitration as a parallel and independent dispute resolution option in Myanmar. The Myanmar court now will play a supporting role in the arbitration proceedings instead of an intervening one.

Draft Myanmar Investment Law 2015

After the issuance of the Arbitration Bill, a draft Myanmar Investment Law was released on 24 February 2015 (MIL). The MIL consolidates the Foreign Investment Law 2012 (FIL) and the Myanmar Citizens Investment Law 2013, and aims to provide a transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory legal framework for both domestic and foreign investors.49 The consolidation is also meant to ensure consistency with best practices in the ASEAN region and a sign of Myanmar’s commitment to the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community.50

Foreign investors should be well acquainted with the FIL – this is the piece of legislation they have relied on and wrangled with in making their investments into Myanmar. In relation to dispute resolution, the FIL provides that if any dispute arises in respect of the investment, that parties shall comply with the dispute resolution mechanism as stipulated in the relevant agreement.51 Theoretically then, the parties can provide for foreign arbitration, both substantively and procedurally. In practice, when it comes to contracts with the government or state-owned enterprises, the substantive law would still be Myanmar law.

In the MIL, at section 21, the language in relation to the dispute resolution mechanism has shifted, and is set out below:

(1)  In the event of any dispute between the Union Government or any Government Entity and an Investor in relation to the Investor’s Investment where the Investor has incurred loss or damage by reasons of an alleged breach of any rights conferred by this Law with respect to the Investment of that Investor, the Investor shall have access to a dispute settlement mechanism, either domestic court or tribunal or arbitration or other procedures, under the existing laws of the Union or the relevant laws which will be enacted in due course.

(2)  In the event of any dispute referred to in sub-section (1) above is between the Union Government or any Government Entity and a Foreign Investor, the disputing Foreign Investor may submit a claim referred to in sub-section (1) above to:

      a)    Domestic courts or administrative tribunals; or

      b)    Arbitration under relevant Myanmar law; or

      c)   Arbitration under the Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules; or

      d)   Arbitration under the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) between States and Investors         

Provided that resort to any arbitration rules or fora under sub-section (2) shall exclude resort to the other.

(3)  In any case arising from sub-section (1) above, the Union Government and the Government Entities are assumed to have given express advanced consent to court proceedings, arbitration or any other dispute settlement procedures.

      (…)

(5)  In the event of any award made by a foreign arbitral tribunal, such award shall be recognized and enforceable in the Union according to international law, including the New York Convention on the Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958.

Why is this significant? First, it is now specifically stipulated that investors (both foreign and domestic) have access to arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism as against the government and government entities. Second, for foreign investors, reference may be made to foreign arbitral rules or under international conventions, such as the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and arbitration under the ICSID Convention.

Third, it would appear that there is no absolute interpretation of sovereign immunity and the government will not avail itself of that defence – the government has given express advanced consent to both court proceedings and arbitration in the event of such a dispute under the MIL. Finally, an award by a foreign arbitral tribunal shall be recognised and enforceable in the Union, including those made under the New York Convention.

The language of section 21 of the MIL is promissory, a movement from a nebulous reference to dispute resolution mechanisms in the FIL to the government’s pledge to submit disputes under the MIL to arbitration. There is also a reinforcement of Myanmar’s commitment to the New York Convention, insofar as it is ‘guaranteed’ that disputes under the MIL and arbitrated abroad can be enforced in this jurisdiction. This will bring comfort to foreign investors, specifically those that are engaged in projects with the government, that in the event of a dispute, they now have (explicitly provided) access to foreign arbitration in a neutral jurisdiction.

Myanmar is currently not a member of ICSID. However, as it appears to be open to referring disputes to arbitration under the ICSID Convention (as evinced in the Myanmar–China BIT and MIL), there may be plans to sign on to the ICSID Convention in the future.

While this is a draft piece of legislation and will be further reviewed, it still marks a positive mindset in encouraging foreign investment and assuaging foreign investors. This is in line with other core investor guarantees given in the MIL, such as protection against nationalisation and expropriation52 as well as regulatory transparency and the right to due process for investors.53

Fraser and Neave case

Prior to the issuing of the MIL, there was a legal dispute between Fraser and Neave Limited (F&N) and Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited (MEHL) (a government entity) which was arbitrated under Myanmar law in Singapore.

Myanmar Brewery Limited was set up in 1995 by MEHL with Heineken through the latter’s Asian arm, Asia Pacific Breweries Ltd (APB). APB transferred its 55 per cent stake to F&N in 1997. In 2012, F&N was bought over by Thai Beverage Public Company Limited (ThaiBev). MEHL commenced arbitration proceedings in November 2013, wherein they argued that ThaiBev’s buyout of F&N constituted a change in ownership and therefore violated the joint venture terms between MEHL and F&N, which gave the partners the first right of refusal to purchase each others’ shares before they are offered to a third party.54

The arbitral tribunal (made up of two Singapore arbitrators)55 ruled in favour of MEHL and held they were entitled to buy out F&N’s stake in Myanmar Brewery as they were in default of the joint venture terms. This case was touted as a test for Myanmar’s legal framework and foreign investment environment, and it was commented by MEHL’s deputy managing director, Myint Aung, that ‘the conduct of this arbitration shows [their] commitment to the rule of law and that [they] will always adhere to due process.’56

Based on this earlier case, it would appear that the government will submit to foreign arbitration – a good start – although we are currently unable to tell if such award will be enforced in Myanmar if the tribunal had ruled in favour of F&N. The entrenchment of such reference to arbitration in the MIL is perhaps a crystallisation of, and assurance that, the government will continue their openness toward foreign arbitration.

Where does Myanmar go from here?

In the last few years, Myanmar has taken constructive steps in overhauling their arbitration regime and reinforcing their commitment to investors and enforcement of foreign awards. However, it will be some time yet before Myanmar reaches a modern arbitration standard.

Myanmar will first need to develop its institutional infrastructure. The passing of the Arbitration Bill and implementing regulations as well as the establishment of a Myanmar Arbitration Centre (which is in the making) are certainly steps in the right direction and are necessary to establish a strong foundation of a modern regime.

In tandem with the setting up of strong legal framework, there is also the need to raise awareness and educate as to the benefits of arbitration practice in Myanmar. As a noted arbitrator has commented, it would be more relevant to talk about judicial ignorance of arbitration than judicial attitudes toward it.57 The judges, the lawyers, the students, the companies – there is an entire spectrum of users that need to be made aware and brought up to speed on the advantages of arbitration and how it works.

Foreign delegations and arbitrators have visited Myanmar to promote awareness of arbitration services via seminars and workshops. This should continue, particularly as Myanmar is opening up to the idea of foreign arbitration and understanding the relevance of international arbitration in the light of attracting foreign investment. The development of a pro-arbitration and robust judiciary will also be necessary for supporting the arbitration ecosystem; such as the implementation of provisions on enforcing and setting aside of awards.

The road is long, but Myanmar has taken the first stride.

Notes

  1. Section 2(a), Arbitration Act.
  2. Section 3 and First Schedule, Arbitration Act.
  3. Thida Aye and James Finch, Asia Arbitration Handbook 2011 (Oxford University Press), chapter 17, para 17.40.
  4. See China Siam Line by their local Agents Chip Hwat v Nay Yi Yi Stores [1954] (HC) BLR 270; V Ramaswamy Iyengar and others v SVKV Velayudhan Chettiar and One [1952] BLR 25.
  5. Thida Aye and James Finch (Note 3, above), para 17.23 and Section 13 of the Burma Laws Act 1898.
  6. Thida Aye and James Finch (Note 3, above), Arbitration Act.
  7. Supra n3, para 17.23(iii).
  8. The procedure for appointment is generally set out at sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Arbitration Act.
  9. Section 11(1) and (2), Arbitration Act.
  10. Section 12, Arbitration Act.
  11. Section 13 , 27, 41 and First Schedule, Arbitration Act.
  12. Section 42(b), Arbitration Act.
  13. Second Schedule, Arbitration Act.
  14. Section 5, Arbitration Act.
  15. Section 8, Arbitration Act.
  16. Section 11, Arbitration Act.
  17. Section 11, Arbitration Act.
  18. Section 12(2)(b), Arbitration Act.
  19. Section 13(b), Arbitration Act.
  20. Section 16, Arbitration Act.
  21. Section 30.
  22. See Burma Indo-Ceylon Rice Corporation Ltd v. The State Agricultural Marketing Board (1958) BLR (HC) 68, Aishabhaihaji Tahir Mohamed v. Mohamed Yacoob Yunus Jamal (1960) BLR (HC) 452.
  23. Section 27, Arbitration Act.
  24. Section 14, Arbitration Act.
  25. First Schedule, para 3, Arbitration Act.
  26. Section 38, Arbitration Act.
  27. Section 14(2), Arbitration Act.
  28. Section 15, Arbitration Act.
  29. Section 16, Arbitration Act.
  30. Section 30, Arbitration Act.
  31. Section 17, Arbitration Act.
  32. Section 33, Arbitration Act.
  33. Section 158, Limitation Act.
  34. Section 30, Arbitration Act.
  35. Section 39(1)(vi), Arbitration Act.
  36. Article 178, First Schedule, Limitation Act.
  37. Section 17, Arbitration Act.
  38. Article 9, Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and The Government of the Union of Myanmar on the Promotion and Protection of Investments.
  39. Thida Aye and James Finch (Note 3, above), para 17.45(b).
  40. UNCITRAL,‘Status – Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958)’, www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html.
  41. New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Awards 1958, Article VII No. 2.
  42. Section 7, Arbitration Bill 2014.
  43. Generally, chapter 4 of the Arbitration Bill.
  44. Section 34, Arbitration Bill.
  45. Section 28(a), Arbitration Bill.
  46. Section 16(e) and (f), Arbitration Bill.
  47. Section 46, Arbitration Bill.
  48. Section 51, Arbitration Bill.
  49. Draft Myanmar Investment Law 2015 (Myanmar Investment Law), p3.
  50. Ibid.
  51. Section 43(b), Foreign Investment Law 2012.
  52. Section 15, Myanmar Investment Law.
  53. Section 11, Myanmar Investment Law.
  54. Tim McLaughlin, ‘Military firm wins arbitration battle with Fraser & Neave’, The Myanmar Times, www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/12137-military-firm-wins-arbitration-battle-with-fraser-neave.html.
  55. Shen Rujun and Rachel Armstrong, ‘Updated 2-Military-linked Myanmar spat with Singapore’s F&N’, Reuters, www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/31/mehl-fn-myanmarbrewery-idUSL4N0SQ5XZ20141031.
  56. Ibid.
  57. Interview by Jane Crinnion, ‘Arbitration in emerging markets – Myanmar’, Lexis Nexis, 8 October 2014.

Get unlimited access to all Global Arbitration Review content