E.The competition is often weak：much of China’s commerciallaw was written by Communist Party officials and is fiddled with errors：and though India adopted much of English common law,its courts are notoriously slow.But the incumbents’biggest advantage is that they have common.law systems with centuries of binding precedent.That means they offer as much certainty as any jurisdiction(司法权)can.In civil-law countries such as France，Portugal and Spain，and their ex-colonies，judges have wide latitude to interpret statutes，increasing the risk of nasty legal surprises.Civil systems place more restrictions on acceptable clauses，and often consider the interests of third parties，such as workers or consumers.
F.Many other countries would like to break this duopoly(双头垄断市场).But even those with good laws on Paper would take decades to train enough lawyers and judges to make them stick.The immediate threat to American and British law comes from a trend that dispenses with courts A.together.Parties to a cross-border deal must decide not only which country’s law governs it but how disputes should be resolved.Firms are increasingly opting for private arbitration，which promises confidentiality,
speed and lower costs than going to court—and here London and New York are less dominant.
G. More recently，new entrants have made inroads.Among the most Successful is Singapore，whose dedicated arbitration venue(仲裁地点)，SIAC，opened in 199 1.Singapore’s government exempts arbitrators from income tax and expedites entry for participants in hearings.SIAC’s caseload has quadrupled in the past decade，with Indian firms particularly keen.Last year they were parties to a third of its 259 new cases.
H.With 260 new cases last year,Hong Kong matches SIAC for size.Arbitration is essential for cross-border deA.s involving China，since its iudges rarely enforce foreign court decisions but are bound to uphold arbitration awards by the New York Arbitration Convention，which it signed in 1987.In the past，Chinese flrlns reluctantly accepted distant arbitration venues.But they are increasingly insisting
on disputes being heard locally.Exorbitant no more?
I.English law remains prevalent in Asian arbitration，accounting for 32%of cases at SIAC.But a recent trend in South America shows how quickly this could change.Of the big emerging economies，the one mat has most effectively promoted its own law is Brazil.Its firms still use third.party law,usually New York’s.to raise money and make acquisitions abroad.But foreign firms active in Brazil often acquiesce to local law,relying on localarbitration as an A.ternative to courts that are politicized and glacially slow.
J.Brazil’s govemment created a legal framework for arbitration in 1996，which became widely used after being approved by tlle supreme court in 200 1.Nothing prevents firms from using foreign arbitration—but losers may delay the application of foreign rulings for years(though not for ever)by filing objections in Brazilian courts.In contrast，domestic arbitration awards in local-law cases are deemed
equivA.ent to legal rulings，and implemented on the spot.“There’s nothing to fear about having an arbitration in Brazil，”says Stepheno’Sullivan，a former solicitor in England who works for Mattos Filho，a Brazilian firm.
K.At first sight，the lawyers of Wall Street and the City of London have the most to lose from the growing popularity of arbitration.Their goyemments are not helping.In Britain authorities often fail to provide timely visas for parties，experts or witnesses.As for America，businesses often complain about the burden of pre.trial discovery,and the threat of unsophisticated juries or elected judges awarding exorbitant damages.In a recent survey,Hogan Lovells，a law firm whose main offices are in London and Washington，DC，asked general counsels around the world which jurisdiction they found most challenging.China finished second--after America.