UZBEKISTAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Sherzod Abdulkasimov, Nazokat Kamilova and Navruza Yunusova, PraeLegal Uzbekistan
ment acknowledged by the UNCITRAL Secretariat. Its core architecture tracks the Model Law: party autono - my, separability of the arbitration agreement, minimal curial intervention, a modern interim-measures regime and the written-form requirements for the arbitration agreement. The divergences are limited and mostly additive, sup - plementing rather than departing from the Model Law. Four are of particular note: • Immunity ( Article 6 ): The Model Law is silent on the civil liability of those who conduct or administer the arbitration. Article 6 confers immunity on arbitra - tors, tribunal-appointed experts, arbitral institutions and their employees for acts and omissions in the discharge of their functions, save in cases of inten - tional misconduct. • Confidentiality ( Article 53 ): The Model Law imposes no general duty of confidentiality. Article 53 makes confidentiality of the arbitration, the proceedings and the award a statutory default, without the need for express stipulation. • Representation ( Article 38 ): The Model Law does not regulate who may appear. Article 38 guar - antees the right to be represented by counsel of choice, including foreign-qualified lawyers, so that admission to the Uzbek Bar is not a precondition to representation in an international arbitration seated in Uzbekistan. • Enforcement formalities ( Article 51 ): By contrast, this is a more restrictive divergence: whereas the 2006 Model Law amendments dispensed with production of the arbitration agreement, Article 51 retains the stricter pre-2006 approach of Article IV of the New York Convention, requiring the original award and arbitration agreement, or duly certified copies of each. 2.2 Changes to National Law Uzbekistan’s approach has been targeted refinement rather than wholesale revision. The most significant recent measure was the 2022 package of amend - ments to the EP Code, introducing provisions on judicial assistance to arbitration, the taking of evi - dence, interim measures and the recognition of for - eign awards. In November 2023, the Plenum of the Supreme Court issued the Supreme Court Guidance
clarifying enforcement practice and confirming the courts’ application of the New York Convention. This incremental trajectory continues at the domes - tic level. The Law “On Amendments and Additions to Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan in Connection with the Further Improvement of the Activities of Arbitration Courts and the Strengthening of Budgetary Discipline” (No. ZRU-1141, 21 April 2026) (the “Law on Amendments on Domestic Arbitration”), which entered into force on 24 July 2026, amends the Law on Domestic Arbitration to professionalise domestic arbitrators (through a mandatory training programme approved by the Ministry of Justice and a continuing duty to maintain qualifications), to require that a permanent arbitration court be established only by a non-state, non-commercial organisation, and – to reinforce budgetary discipline – to exclude the state and enterprises with state participation from domestic arbitration and to place disputes over land, the owner - ship of buildings and structures, and the recovery of budget funds beyond arbitration, with administrative liability attaching to the unlawful creation of an arbitra - tion court, to those entities appearing as parties to an arbitration agreement, and to their voluntary perfor - mance of a domestic award. The most consequential development is the Constitu - tional Law, which entered into force on 25 July 2026; the TIFC and its institutions are not yet operational and are to be activated in stages. Rather than alter the substantive law of arbitration, it adds an institutional layer – a distinct jurisdiction with its own legal regime and a dedicated court, the TICC. Taken together, these initiatives point to consolidation and refinement of Uzbekistan’s arbitration architecture rather than its replacement.
3. The Arbitration Agreement 3.1 Enforceability
The essential conditions for a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement are broadly common to both regimes – international arbitration as regulated by the ICA Law, and domestic arbitration as regulated by Law on Domestic Arbitration – with the validity of the
1153 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook