Since antiquity, arbitration has been well known in the Italian peninsula.1 Basic rules of arbitration are today spelled out in the Italian civil procedure code (hereinafter CCP). The code was enacted in 1940, but has, since then, undergone radical changes, including a comprehensive reform in 2006.2 Despite the fact that current rules are largely in line with those of other countries and with international legal standards, Italy is generally perceived, by insiders and outsiders alike, as a nonfriendly arbitration country.3

Subject to minor modifications, Germany has adopted an almost verbatim version of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Law (Model Law) and is a signatory country to the New York Convention. This means that domestic discussions regarding the relevant and recurring topics, such as the arbitrator’s potential bias and misconduct, the interpretation of arbitration clauses, and arbitrability and the enforcement of arbitral awards generally follow the international standard. Since the adoption of the Model Law in 1998, Germany has been regarded as an arbitration-friendly country and has increasingly attracted international arbitration cases.

France has always recognised arbitration as a mean of settling disputes.1 Arbitration has long been and still is considered in France to actually be the ‘normal mode of dispute resolution’ in international commerce, and the French arbitration community was among the promoters of the New York Convention of 1958 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards (1958 New York Convention). The 1958 New York Convention entered into force in France on September 24, 1959.2

Switzerland has long been a New York Convention (NY Convention)1 state. Although Switzerland’s arbitration law is not based on the UNCITRAL Model Law (Model Law), it does by and large conform to the fundamental principles of the Model Law as amended in 2006, in particular in relation to the interpretation of arbitration agreements, and the vacation and enforcement of international arbitration awards.

Swiss law distinguishes between international arbitration and domestic arbitration. This proceeds from article 176 of Switzerland’s arbitration statute,of the Swiss Private International Law Act2 (PIL), which defines the scope of international arbitration as arbitrations with their seat in Switzerland and in which, at the time of the conclusion of the arbitration agreement,3 at least one of the parties had neither its domicile nor its habitual residence in Switzerland. Domicile for registered corporate entities is treated as the place of formal registration.4 For registered corporate entities, habitual residence does not apply. No other provision in Swiss international arbitration law is more stringent than those under the NY Convention.5