In This Issue:

-The ABCs of Arbitrating Outside of the New York Convention

- Leading International Arbitration Partner Joins Latham & Watkins in Paris

- US Supreme Court Revives International Arbitration Decision

- Ukraine Crisis: US and EU Sanctions

- New York Convention Extended to the British Virgin Islands

- Update on ICSID’s Caseload

- New Rules on Transparency and Party Representation — When Do They Apply?

- EU and Myanmar to Negotiate a Bilateral Investment Treaty

- Munich I District Court Held Standard Athlete’s Arbitration Clause Invalid

- ICSID Tribunal Provides Declaratory Relief but Not Monetary Damages to Assignee

- ICSID Awards May Have Significant Consequences for Future Claims Against Indonesia

- ICJ Grants Timor-Leste’s Request for Provisional Measures Against Australia

- Arbitrator Disqualified by Co-Arbitrators for the Appearance of a Lack of Impartiality, an ICSID First

- Japan: Major Overhaul of JCAA Rules

- Excerpt from The ABCs of Arbitrating Outside of the New York Convention:

Non-Convention states such as Iraq and Taiwan can pose complex questions of reciprocity and enforceability for international investors and businesses.

The United Kingdom has recently extended application of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (the New York Convention) to the British Virgin Islands, bringing the total number of countries and territories which are party to the New York Convention to more than 150. However, 47 countries are still not party to the New York Convention (Non-Convention States), including several with sizable and growing economies.1International investors and businesses should consider carefully the intersecting, and often ambiguous, web of international instruments, domestic laws and policies governing the enforcement of arbitral awards when doing business in or with companies from these 47 countries.