CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

DIMITRIS I. LIAKOPOULOS CYIL 11 (2020) of technical and legal obstacles that do not unilateral application of many of the measures currently in force is practicable. Many discussions, both from British institutions and from the EU environment, however, have revealed differences of even very significant views among those who believe that the prejudice resulting as a whole to the United Kingdom from the new legal scenario will be very limited and indeed partially compensated by the return greater freedom of action (in this regard, much emphasis is given to the possibility of putting the traditional instrument of anti-suit injunctions back into use 8 ) and those who instead advocate an overall worsening of the legal framework with repercussions on individual rights as well as on the competitiveness of the country 9 . Negative consequences on the role of London as an arbitration venue could also have occurred, because although the rules specifically applicable in this matter – in particular those established by the New York Convention of 1958 10 -remain practically unchanged, however the climate of overall uncertainty could discourage operators economic from indicating London as the seat of arbitration in their contracts, while others believe that, on the contrary, the new regulatory framework could incentivize the use of English arbitration 11 . The adoption of European private international law rules was conceived as functional to the elimination of obstacles to the exercise of the freedoms of the Union market; correlatively, the absence or withdrawal of the latter will undoubtedly also influence the content and operation of the former 12 . The United Kingdom has shown that it knows how to seize the opportunities offered by the synergies between the various measures put in place in the context of the Union to carve out a leading position in many sectors, in particular as an arbitration venue, but also as a privileged forum for numerous cross-border issues, such as, among other 8 AHMED, M., BEAUMONT, P. ‘Exclusive choice of court agreements: Some issues on the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and its relationship with the Brussels I Recast especially anti-suit injunctions, concurrent proceedings and the implications of BREXIT’, (2016/5) CPIL . In particular for the role of anti-suit injunctions in arbitration see: ABDEL WAHAB, M. ‘Brexit’s chilling effect on choice of law and arbitration in the United Kingdom: Practical reflections between aggravation and alleviation’, 2016, 33, JIA , 473ss. It is noted that anti-suit injunctions may not be recognized in other European States and thus lose, at least in part, their effectiveness. 9 The British government is very keen to maintain the role of the country and in particular of London as seats whose judicial and arbitral institutions meet the favor of international trade operators, an element that is considered important for the preservation of the attractiveness of the United Kingdom towards of the economic and business world. Already in 2015, even before the Brexit problem arose, the government had commissioned a study of LEIN, E., McCORQUODALE, R., McNAMARA, L., KUPELYANTS, H., DEL RIO, J. (2015) Factors influencing international litigants’ decisions to bring commercial claims to the London Based Courts, Ministry of Justice. CUNIBERTI, G. ‘The international market for contracts: The most attractive contract laws’, (2014), 34, NJIL&B , 458ss, on the data provided by the International Chamber of Commerce in relation to over 4400 international contracts that English law (followed by Swiss law) is preferred by the parties that insert a choice of law in their contract, usually accompanied by a choice of court clause in the UK. See also: DOUGLAS, M., BATH, V., KEYES, M., DICKINSON, A. Commercial issues in private international law. A common law perspective , (Bloomsbury Publishing, New York, 2019) 174 ss. CLAIRE CUTLER, A., DIELZ, T. The politics of private transnational governance by contract , (Taylor & Francis, New York, 2017). A. MILLS, Party autonomy in private international law , (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018). HALSOW, R., CAMPBELL, D. Research handbook on remedies in private law , (Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham, 2019) 69ss. 10 PAULSSON, M.R.P. The 1958 New York Convention in action , (Kluwer Law International, New York, 2016). 11 ALNUEMAT, A., NAWAFLEH, A. ‘Brexit, arbitration and private international law’, (2017), 5 JPL , 119ss. 12 JENEY, P. ‘The European Union’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice without the United Kingdom-Legal and practical consequences of Brexit’, (2016), ELTE LJ , 117ss.

260