M.B.: How would you describe the role of Swedish arbitration in Russia today? Given that perspective.

S.L.: It is important, what is the feeling of Russian companies, who are involved in arbitration proceedings, in actual arbitration proceedings in Sweden. If there is dissatisfaction for some awards, I understand, I said of course, that here may be dissatisfaction. If I lost the case, surely I’m not satisfied. But that is not a decisive factor. Whether the award which I don’t like has been adopted according to the rules and so on, I have nothing to do. It was some fault during the performance of the contract. But if there is some ignorance of important factors when the award was made by the arbitrators, then there is another case, and if it happens once it might be not so important, but if it happens several times with different companies, then there is dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction on the side of the Russian company or on the side of the companies from other countries who participated in that arbitration. That is an important factor. I cannot tell you exactly what is the situation right now, but it is important. I also received an information in that GAR bulletin, that recently, a Swedish award, of the Swedish arbitration institute award, has been enforced in Belarus. And I know about that case, it was a very difficult case, but nevertheless, the court of Belarus agreed to enforce that Swedish award. That is important, even Belarus party was not satisfied with that award. Nevertheless, the court had agreed to enforce that award. Maybe it will be challenged in the next judicial instance, I don’t know, but at this time, this award has been enforced.

M.B.: May I ask about China? Did you recommend Sweden as a place for arbitration to China as well? After you had decided upon Stockholm?

S.L.: I don’t remember exactly what negotiations we had with the Chinese colleagues at that time. Maybe it was important that we made such an agreement with American Arbitration Association, yes, but we published many information about that agreement with Americans and it was influential for other countries at that time. I was an arbitrator in China, in Beijing, and it was interesting, it was a dispute between a Greek company and a Chinese company and the Greek company appointed me as arbitrator in that case. And I did not know that Greek company, never met them before, and during coffee break, I asked the lawyers from the Greek company, why they decided to choose me as arbitrator in that case, to which I had no relationship, and so on. And the answer was very interesting. They told me, I’m on the list of arbitrators in Chinese arbitration court, and a Greek lawyer told me “You know why? We looked through the list of arbitrators, and you were the only one from the country where the religion is good for us.” All of a sudden, of course, yeah, that was the reason why they used me. Not because I am an expert, no, that was of second importance. The first importance was orthodox religion, that was the most important for them.

M.B.: From your perspective, what were the most important elements of the optional clause agreement? What were the most important elements and what role has it played for international trade?

S.L.: There is a possibility to choose arbitrators in that case, to have arbitration in a certain place. That is an important element of each arbitration agreement. And so, the difficulty, when we consider that clause, the possibility was that if there was a contract between Soviet and American parties, what our company propose with regard to arbitration: “Let’s go to Moscow. Let’s have arbitration in Moscow.” And what American party says: “No, let’s have arbitration in New York, according to the rules of American Arbitration Association.” “Okay,” they say, “Let’s go to London.” “Oh, no, no, no, London and American law and practice are almost the same,” say our companies. “Let’s go to Bulgaria. Oh, you don’t like Bulgaria, let’s go to Hungarian Arbitration.” “Oh, no, let’s go to Vienna Arbitration,” and so on. What to do? It was a very difficult situation. And now there is a clause which is recommended by the Russian Chamber of Commerce on the one side, and the American Arbitration Association in the other side, and approved by the Swedish Arbitration Institute. So it is a good clause. So it is very good for you, for the parties. Put that into the contract. And it is very good, it is not something that the clause is very important by itself, it is just the possibility for the parties to resolve dispute, which is so obvious and very difficult to overcome. “Why,” Soviet company says, “Why we should go to New York?”. And the Americans say: “Why we should go to Moscow? No.” And how to overcome it. And it is a good instrument. So that was the most important reason why that clause was important. But otherwise it is done very well, and it is acceptable for both parties.