4.1 England 4.1.Ⅰ Background England is an established international arbitration venue. for both institutional and ad hoc arbitrations. The London court of international arbitration is one of the busiest arbitration institutions in the world. It plays in the league of the market leader, the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce. the American arbitration Association(AAA)and the traditional arbitration centres in Vienna, Stockholm and urIc Prior to the new single Arbitration Act 1996, the English legal framework fo international commercial arbitration comprised not only three different Acts (Arbitration Acts 1950, 1975 and 1979)but also a voluminous body of case law. The diversity of sources made access to the law equally difficult for non-specialists as foreigners. It therefore ill suited international commercial arbitration with its need for a transparent legal regime. But it was not only the law=s presentation which did not keep pace with modern trends, also substantive matters called for reform to defend England=s market share in the arbitration business The Model Law set new standards when it was ad opted by UNCITRAL and recommended by the General assembly of the United Nations in 1985. It gave impetus to a >Departmental Advisory Committee=(DAC), chaired by Mustill LJ(as he then was ). The task of the Committee was to advise on the adoption of the Model Law in England. The committee rejected adoption on several grounds, among them being the Committee=s finding that the Model Law differed >from established principles of English law=(see Merkin, 1996, p. 2, for quotation from the 1989 DAC Report). Even though the committee rejected adoption of the Model Law, it urged for new legislation and recommended features thereof. One of the features was the restatement of the principles of English arbitration law. But >consideration should also be given that the new statute] should, so far as possible, have the same structure and language as the Model Law, so as to enhance its accessibility to those who are familiar with the Model Law=(see DAC Report, 1996, No. 2 for quotation of paragraph 108(7)of the 1989 DAC Report). The first bill published in 1994 continued to reject adoption of the Model Law, as did the second bill prepared by the DAC in 1995-chaired by Saville L.J. -which followed the abandonment of the 1994 draft The 1995 draft led with mod ifications to the enactment of the arbitration Act 1996. The >DAC Report on the Arbitration Bill= of February 1996 contains a comprehensive commentary on the provisions and points out that >very close regard was paid to the Model Law, and [ that] it will be seen that both the structure and the content of[... the final draft owe much to this model=(DAC Report, 1996, No 4) The Arbitration Act 1996 came into force on 31 January 1997(The Arbitration Act 1996(Commencement No. 1)Order 1996) The new Arbitration Act 1996 was praised in the House of lords and in the House of Commons(see Miller, 1996, p. 252 and p 256)and has been welcomed >as it introduces a new arbitration regime which is clear and workable= (Slaughter and May4.1 England 4.1.1 Background England is an established international arbitration venue, for both institutional and ad hoc arbitrations. The London Court of International Arbitration is one of the busiest arbitration institutions in the world. It plays in the league of the market leader, the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and the traditional arbitration centres in Vienna, Stockholm and Zurich. Prior to the new single Arbitration Act 1996, the English legal framework for international commercial arbitration comprised not only three different Acts (Arbitration Acts 1950, 1975 and 1979) but also a voluminous body of case law. The diversity of sources made access to the law equally difficult for non-specialists as foreigners. It therefore ill suited international commercial arbitration with its need for a transparent legal regime. But it was not only the law=s presentation which did not keep pace with modern trends, also substantive matters called for reform to defend England=s market share in the arbitration business. The Model Law set new standards when it was adopted by UNCITRAL and recommended by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1985. It gave impetus to a >Departmental Advisory Committee= (DAC), chaired by Mustill L.J. (as he then was). The task of the Committee was to advise on the adoption of the Model Law in England. The committee rejected adoption on several grounds, among them being the Committee=s finding that the Model Law differed >from established principles of English law= (see Merkin, 1996, p. 2, for quotation from the 1989 DAC Report). Even though the committee rejected adoption of the Model Law, it urged for new legislation and recommended features thereof. One of the features was the restatement of the principles of English arbitration law. But >consideration should also be given [that the new statute] should, so far as possible, have the same structure and language as the Model Law, so as to enhance its accessibility to those who are familiar with the Model Law= (see DAC Report, 1996, No. 2 for quotation of paragraph 108 (7) of the 1989 DAC Report). The first bill published in 1994 continued to reject adoption of the Model Law, as did the second bill prepared by the DAC in 1995 - chaired by Saville L.J. - which followed the abandonment of the 1994 draft. The 1995 draft led, with modifications, to the enactment of the Arbitration Act 1996. The >DAC Report on the Arbitration Bill= of February 1996 contains a comprehensive commentary on the provisions and points out that >very close regard was paid to the Model Law, and [that] it will be seen that both the structure and the content of [. . .] the final draft owe much to this model= (DAC Report, 1996, No. 4). The Arbitration Act 1996 came into force on 31 January 1997 (The Arbitration Act 1996 (Commencement No. 1) Order 1996). The new Arbitration Act 1996 was praised in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons (see Miller, 1996, p. 252 and p. 256) and has been welcomed >as it introduces a new arbitration regime which is clear and workable= (Slaughter and May