Recent Publications

International Arbitration: Between Myth and Reality

by Susan Franck

The author explores common but flawed accounts of international arbitration based on anecdotes and myths while encouraging the audience to pay more attention to scientific facts. She argues that international arbitration, whether commercial or investment-based, is caught within a larger geo-political maelstrom which includes a backlash against globalization, the popularization of populism, and a turn toward nationalism. She recommends proceeding based upon rationality, data analysis, and with an eye towards evidence-based reform. In an effort to connect data and normative choices, Professor Franck explores existing empirical research on international arbitration, with a focus on cognitive illusions and how intuitive decision-making impairs the quality of both decision-making and the implementation of appropriate reform of international arbitration. She ultimately challenges stakeholders to move past ideological debates in an effort to find common ground in the valuation of vetted facts and rule of law values.

Arbitrage commercial international et le UK Bribery Act 2010

by Othmann Layati

À l’instar du U.K. Bribery Act 2010, l’apparition de nouveaux standards répressifs internationaux caractérisés par leur sévérité accrue a engendré une jurisprudence nouvelle, relative à l’interférence entre arbitrages commerciaux internationaux et procédures pénales internationales. Si cette confrontation entre justice commerciale privée et justice pénale internationale n’est pas un phénomène naissant, les champs d’application matériel et territorial du U.K. Bribery Act 2010 ont par leur étendue, favorisé les points d’impact entre ces deux univers juridiques a priori hermétiques. Nombreuses et variées, les questions théoriques et pratiques qui découlent de cette cohabitation forcée sont par exemple celles de la prise en compte par les arbitres des décisions pénales passées en force de chose jugée, du sursis de l’instance arbitrale dans l’attente de l’issue de l’enquête pénale ou encore de l’exécution des sentences arbitrales lorsque la procédure pénale concurrente questionne l’ordre public international. Cet article propose une revue théorique de ces problématiques, qu’elles soient existantes ou à venir, et suggère des solutions concrètes et stratégiques à destination des praticiens de l’arbitrage commercial international, arbitres et conseils.

International Disputes Resolution Courts : Retreat or Advance?

by Lucy Reed

In the 10th John E.C. Brierley Memorial Lecture, Professor Lucy Reed explores the hybrid dispute resolution mechanism of domestic “international commercial courts”. The lecture starts with a description of the current debate of ‘Arbitration versus Domestic Courts versus Investment Courts’, to frame the question of whether proposed reforms in international arbitration and new court structures represent advances or retreats in international dispute resolution. After surveying the existing international commercial courts, Prof. Reed describes the new Singapore International Commercial Court (‘SICC’) and its promising early case law. In her view, the SICC is uniquely international among comparable offerings, and hence is an important new option – and an advance – in international commercial justice, at least in the Asia-Pacific region.

The Status Of The Limitations Period Doctrine In Public International Law: Devising A Functional Analytical Framework For Investors And Host-States

by Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga & C. Ryan Reetz

Customary international law is seemingly irreconcilably conflicted on the fundamental issue of whether it recognizes an international law equivalent to national-domestic statutes of limitations. The lack of uniformity and governing standards has given rise to uncertainty and insecurity - the very policy objectives that the limitations period doctrine itself seeks to eradicate. The authors argue that the fragmented status of public international law with respect to the limitations period doctrine is attributable to (i) the wholesale importation of national-domestic law on limitations into public international law without having considered the policies and aspirations of international law, and (ii) the economic agendas of industrialized states to the exclusion of the interests of developing states and economies in transition. A descriptive and prescriptive methodology is applied in the development of this proposition.


Interested in submitting?


The McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution publishes Articles, Essays, and Book Reviews. In doing so, we look for well-researched and well-written work that advances or challenges the current state of alternative dispute resolution scholarship.


There is no typical submission to the MJDR. We strive to innovate and facilitate discourse between academics, practitioners, and the public at large. We accept classical academic manuscripts under 30,000 words, case and practitioner comments between 3,000-10,000 words, as well as works of original character approved by the editorial board.


If you would like to publish with us, please ensure to follow the Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation – used by all major Canadian legal journals and accessible online.


Should you have inquiries about the publishing process, please contact our Coordinating Editor : or click here to find out more.

Latest Blog Posts

Please note that blogs are posted in the language of submission and are not translated.

Recent Opportunities

We’re hiring Summer Editors! 

Summer Editors at the McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution work directly with our Executive Editors in managing our workload between May and August. This is an excellent chance to improve your CV, your understanding of the McGill Guide, and to get paid!


Deadline: May 13th, 2018.


More information here: Summer Editors_Description.