PRESIDENT OF THE MIDDLE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION CENTER (MCAC) HOLDS A WORKING SESSION WITH THE HEADS OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OFFICES IN HANOI AND HO CHI MINH CITY

At the headquarters of the Middle Commercial Arbitration Center (MCAC) in Da Nang City, Lawyer Tran Quang Huy – President of MCAC – met and held discussions with Dr. and Lawyer Le Thi Dung – Head of MCAC’s Representative Office in Hanoi – and Lawyer Kieu Anh Vu – Chairman of the Scientific Council and Head of MCAC’s Representative Office in Ho Chi Minh City.

During the working session, the participants discussed MCAC’s recent activities and coordination between the Center’s headquarters and its Representative Offices. They also discussed future directions for strengthening cooperation, expanding MCAC’s operations, and enhancing the quality of dispute resolution by arbitration.

The continued operation of MCAC’s Representative Offices in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City contributes to expanding MCAC’s operational network, strengthening its capacity to provide support and facilitate connections, and improving access to arbitration as a method of dispute resolution for individuals, organizations, and enterprises nationwide.

To select MCAC for the resolution of disputes arising from the conclusion and performance of contracts, the parties may refer to the following Model Arbitration Clause:

“Article …: Dispute Settlement

1. Any dispute arising from or related to this Contract shall be resolved by arbitration at the Middle Commercial Arbitration Center (MCAC) under its Arbitration Rules.

2. The number of arbitrators shall be … (one or three).

3. The place of arbitration shall be … (city and/or country).

4. The language to be used in the arbitral proceedings shall be … (only applicable to disputes involving foreign elements or disputes with at least one foreign-invested economic organization; state a single language).

5. The governing law of the Contract shall be the substantive law of … (only applicable to disputes involving foreign elements and where the parties have not agreed on the applicable law in another clause).”