Talk:London Court of International Arbitration

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

I'm not sure if the LCIA can be said to be a leading institution. It's case load is really small (80 a year?), and I would not be surprised if a great number of institutions were more active (ADA, DIS, CIETAC, SIAC, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codik (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TTIP[edit]

MEP Ashley Fox suggests LCIA would be an appropriate body to arbitrate disputes under TTIP Newsletter [1]. Its this suggestion widely backed? Any views? Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 08:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard that (the link you provide doesn't actually mention LCIA). Although Fox is an MEP (and a solicitor), that doesn't sound like a very informed opinion to me. LCIA is more commonly utilised for commercial disputes between private parties. Disputes under trade agreements between states usually have their own forums/tribunals for resolving disputes, eg. under GAFTA there is a special GAFTA arbitration system. See generally Investor-state dispute settlement. On the other hand, given Fox does have some gravitas, it might be appropriate to say that he said it. I'd probably put it under the TTIP page rather than the LCIA page though. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A short point, but shouldn't this page contain some of the controversies that LCIA have been involved with. For me, this page has the feel of being too biased towards LCIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.220.227 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20010221234745/http://www.lcia-arbitration.com/usergyde/usergyde.htm#21. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]