AD HOC ARBITRATION IN MONGOLIA A PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW
Anderson & Anderson LLP is an international law firm, based in the United States, founded in California in 1885. We have been active in China for more than forty years and in Mongolia for over twenty. Our practice both inside and outside of Mongolia has included a diverse range of fields, including mining, intellectual property law (e.g., trademark, patent, and copyright registration and protection), tax law (general domestic and international tax law), litigation and arbitration, both in Mongolia and internationally, direct foreign investment, banking law and structured cross-border loans, mergers and acquisitions, derivative contracts, securities law, real estate and property law, due diligence and contract work related to all of the above fields, initial and secondary public offerings and offerings of bonds on stock exchanges, domestic and foreign, other securities-related transactions, as well as establishment of Mongolian subsidiaries and the franchising thereof. Furthermore, our clients come from a wide variety of backgrounds, including influential international organizations (both governmental and non-governmental), private banks and insurance companies, major media companies, foreign and domestic mining corporations, including wholly-owned subsidiaries, telecom and media firms, as well as manufacturers of construction equipment and the world’s largest soft-drink manufacturer. We send you this newsletter, Mongolia Lex, as an accommodation and to keep you abreast of the latest topical changes in Mongolian law. If there are other areas of law you wish to be kept informed about, please do let us know.
Anderson & Anderson LLP
Ad Hoc Arbitration in Mongolia: a Procedural Overview
In recent times, disputes arising from private relations have greatly increased and have become more complex as each country’s market economy becomes more closely intertwined with other foreign countries due to globalization. Methods of dispute resolution have also evolved. No longer is dispute resolution limited only to litigation, but has changed and developed to be more suitable and flexible for parties in handling complex disputes. Arbitration is one such form of alternative dispute resolution which occurs outside the traditional court system, and which has become increasingly widespread in the practice of law.
Compared to litigation, the parties to arbitral proceedings play more active roles in choosing the rules, forum, and procedures of dispute resolution. For example, parties choose procedural rules and may also select arbitrators and the number of them. Parties may also choose the location of arbitration, the language of arbitral proceedings, and more. However, there are certain aspects of arbitration that are less desirable than those found in a traditional court system. In most arbitration proceedings, parties do not have the right to appeal a final award even if the parties believe the arbitral tribunal was mistaken in its decision. Nevertheless, in terms of efficiency and flexibility in dispute resolution, arbitration has advantages over litigation. As such, it is important to understand the role of arbitration in Mongolia’s judicial system. In particular, we consider the role of ad hoc arbitration in an effort to provide readers with an overview of existing procedures which govern the process in Mongolia.
Differences between Institutional and Ad Hoc Arbitration in Mongolia
The Arbitration Law, Article 5.1 states that, in Mongolia, “arbitration shall be either institutional or ad hoc.” Article 4.1.1 defines institutional arbitration as “arbitration, set up for the purpose of conducting arbitral proceedings permanently.” Ad hoc arbitration is defined by Article 4.1.2 as “arbitration, set up for settling a particular dispute, at one time, between the parties.” With regard to institutional arbitration, Article 5.2 states that institutions such as the Mongolia International and National Arbitration Center (“MINAC”) or other non-governmental organizations and their associations, may undertake institutional arbitration. Once parties engage such institutions to handle institutional arbitration, the procedures for arbitration and the list of arbitrators that may be utilized are regulated by the stipulated rules and procedures (e.g., the Charter) of the chosen institution, pursuant to the Arbitration Law, Articles 5.4 and 5.5.
On the other hand, the Arbitration Law, Article 5.7 provides that ad hoc arbitration may be set up and procedural rules chosen by the parties via written agreement. For example, the parties may choose their own arbitrators without restriction, except for those that are prohibited by law. Moreover, Article 5.8 states that the parties to ad hoc arbitration shall have the same rights as parties to institutional arbitration. These rights, as stated above, include choosing arbitrators and appointing authorities, designating the location and language of arbitration, and so forth. Parties are free to choose the place of arbitration either in institutional or ad hoc proceedings pursuant to the Arbitration Law, Article 24. Thus, ad hoc arbitration, while guaranteeing the same rights as institutional arbitration, presents a more flexible alternative to parties who wish to manage the process of arbitration.
Relationship between UNCITRAL Rules and Mongolian Arbitration Rules in Ad Hoc Proceedings
In accordance with the Arbitration Law, Article 5.7, the parties set up ad hoc arbitration via a written agreement. The Arbitration Law, Articles 23.1 and 24 specifically state that the parties are free to agree upon the place of arbitration and the procedural rules to be followed by an arbitral tribunal when conducting arbitration. Although the Arbitration Law, Article 3.1 states that the law will be applied within the territory of Mongolia, whenever arbitration is proposed to settle a dispute, parties in Mongolia are free to choose UNCITRAL Rules, Mongolian Arbitration Law, or any other arbitration rules they deem fit, such as ICC Rules, and also to choose the location to settle the dispute. In other words, there is no restriction on choosing foreign or international arbitration rules under Mongolian law, unless the parties agree to choose Mongolia’s Arbitration Law. If, for example, the parties choose Korean arbitration law to govern arbitral proceedings in Mongolia, the Korean law shall govern the procedural process over such a dispute. Conversely, if the parties in Mongolia choose UNCITRAL Rules and the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board as the locus, the ad hoc arbitration will be held in Korea and will be governed by UNCITRAL Rules. If parties agree on UNCITRAL Rules and the place of ad hoc arbitration to be Mongolia, the proceedings shall be governed by UNCITRAL Rules while the ad hoc arbitration will occur in Mongolia. In the latter case, parties may still request assistance from MINAC, if the parties so choose.
Ad Hoc Arbitration Procedures in Mongolia
Drafting Contractual Provisions
As stated, the Arbitration Law, Article 5.7 provides that parties may set up ad hoc arbitration through written agreement. In other words, parties may decide upon procedural process and rules of arbitration when drafting arbitration provisions under contract. For example, parties may agree to choose (1) either the Arbitration Law, UNCITRAL Rules, or other preferred rules, (2) the appointing authority, (3) the number of arbitrators, (4) the location of arbitration, and (5) the language to be used in arbitral proceedings.
A sample ad hoc arbitration clause may appear as follows:
“This Agreement shall be subject to the laws of Mongolia and shall be deemed to be made in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or breach, termination or invalidity thereof, shall be resolved by ad hoc arbitration, before a single arbitrator, pursuant to UNCITRAL arbitration rules at the office of Anderson & Anderson LLP in Mongolia. The language of arbitration shall be English.”
Selecting Arbitrators and Appointing Authorities
According to the Arbitration Law, Articles 14.1, 14.2, and 14.3, parties are free to compose an arbitral tribunal consisting of a sole arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. If the parties fail to make this determination in contract, the number of arbitrators shall, by default, be three. This is consistent with the UNCITRAL Rules, Article 7.1, which more specifically provide the parties thirty days within which to determine the makeup of an arbitral panel. In the case of three arbitrators, the UNCITRAL Rules, Article 9 and the Arbitration Law, Article 15.3 state that each party shall appoint one arbitrator and the two arbitrators shall thereafter appoint a third arbitrator as the presiding arbitrator.
With regard to the choice of arbitrators, there is a distinction between UNCITRAL Rules and the Arbitration Law requirements. While UNCITRAL Rules do not state any qualifications for potential arbitrators, the Arbitration Law, Articles 15.1 and 15.2 impose restrictions that potential arbitrators may not be members of the Mongolian Constitutional Court, a judge, a prosecutor, a case registrar, a detective, an officer of court enforcement, an advocate or notary who had previously worked with/for any of the parties, or other officials who are prohibited to conduct work which is not related to their legal duties. With the exception of the aforementioned persons, the parties to arbitration are free to choose any local persons as arbitrators in Mongolia. However, if a foreign party selects a local Mongolian individual as an arbitrator, there can be some impediments. Particularly, there are few arbitrators in Mongolia who have experience in dealing with international arbitration and are able to speak English fluently. This can be disadvantageous to parties who choose to conduct arbitral proceedings in English as they may require the services of a professional English translator.
In addition to those described above, there is another distinction between the UNCITRAL Rules and Arbitration Law. This distinction occurs when one party fails to choose the second arbitrator within thirty days after such party receives the other party’s request to appoint an arbitrator, or when two appointed arbitrators fail to agree on the third arbitrator within thirty days of their appointments. According to the UNCITRAL Rules, Article 9, the parties or arbitrators may request the appointing authority to select the second arbitrator or the presiding arbitrator. Should the parties or arbitrators fail to do so, the UNCITRAL Rules, Article 6 state that any institution or person, including the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, can be designated as the appointing authority, unless the parties have already agreed upon the choice of the appointing authority. On the other hand, the Arbitration Law, Article 15.5 specifically states that upon the parties’ request, selection of the appointing authority shall be made by the Mongolian Court of Appeals. In the case of a sole arbitrator and according to UNCITRAL Rules, Article 8.1, the parties should agree upon the appointment of the sole arbitrator, with the designated appointing authority providing this service in the event the parties are unable to agree. However, the Arbitration Law, Article 15.6 stipulates that if the parties are unable to reach an agreement regarding the appointment of an arbitrator, the sole arbitrator shall be appointed by the Court of Appeals based on the requests of the interested parties.
As the differences between the Arbitration Law and UNCITRAL Rules have demonstrated above, the UNCITRAL Rules are arguably more advantageous and more flexible and manageable for parties than the Arbitration Law. For example, if the parties select UNCITRAL Rules to guide arbitral proceedings, the parties may choose a Mongolian judge or any other person as an arbitrator. This process is more restrictive under Mongolia’s Arbitration Law. Moreover, with regard to the choice of appointing authorities, the UNCITRAL Rules are far more flexible in that they impose no restrictions on the selection of appointing authorities. Under the Arbitration Law, on the other hand, the Court of Appeals must play a role as the appointing authority upon the parties’ request and will appoint arbitrators if the parties fail to agree on such appointments. Therefore, in terms of flexibility and independent decision-making, the UNCITRAL Rules are more preferable for parties to ad hoc arbitration.
The Exchange of Evidence
In regard to the exchange of evidence, the Arbitration Law, Article 27.5 states that parties may submit all relevant documents, including references to the documents and evidence, with their statements. In addition, pursuant to the Arbitration Law, Article 28.4, all statements, documents, or other information supplied to the arbitral tribunal by one party shall be communicated to the other party; any expert reports or evidentiary documents that may be used in proceedings by the arbitral tribunal shall also be communicated to the parties. If any party fails to produce documentary evidence, the arbitral tribunal may continue with the proceedings and make a decision and award based on the evidence that was presented before it in accordance with the Arbitration Law, Article 29.1.3.
Alternatively, the UNCITRAL Rules do not impose upon parties the requirement to communicate to the other party with regard to the exchange of evidence. The UNCITRAL Rules instead require each party to bear the burden of proving the facts relied on to support its claim or defense pursuant to Article 27.1. Compared to the UNCITRAL Rules, the Arbitration Law provides better opportunities for parties to prepare for arbitration proceedings in that they are required to communicate all evidence to each other. This assists a party to understand what the other party is going to argue in arbitration and provides the parties with the opportunity to better prepare arguments prior to a hearing.
The Request for Production of Evidence and Interim Measures
As stated, if any party fails to produce documentary evidence, the arbitral tribunal may continue with proceedings and make a decision and award based on the evidence that was presented before it, pursuant to the Arbitration Law, Article 29.1.3. Additionally, in accordance with the Arbitration Law, Article 33, the arbitral tribunal or a party with the approval of the arbitral tribunal, may request assistance in gathering evidence from the Mongolian Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals may execute such a request in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 46. Furthermore, pursuant to the Arbitration Law, Article 21, the arbitral tribunal may order any party to take interim measures of protection, if necessary, and also may require any party to provide appropriate security in connection with such measures. According to the Arbitration Law, Article 13.1, a party may request the Court of Appeals to order interim measures of protection before or during arbitration proceedings and a judge may undertake such interim measures as per the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 69.
Similarly, UNCITRAL Rules, Article 27.3, state that “the arbitral tribunal may require the parties to produce documents, exhibits or other evidence at any time during the arbitral proceedings within such a period of time as the arbitral tribunal shall determine.” However, the UNCITRAL Rules do not provide any avenues through which a party may obtain evidence by asking for assistance from a court of law. In regard to interim measures related to evidence, the UNCITRAL Rules, Articles 26.1 and 26.2(d) clearly state that an arbitral tribunal may grant interim measures in order to “[p]reserve evidence that may be relevant and material to the resolution of the dispute.” UNCITRAL Rules, Article 26.6 further states that the arbitral tribunal may also “require the party requesting an interim measure to provide appropriate security in connection with the measure.” In addition, “a request for interim measures addressed by any party to a judicial authority shall not be deemed incompatible with the agreement to arbitrate, or as a waiver of that agreement” under UNCITRAL Rules, Article 26.9.
With regard to hearings, the Arbitration Law, Article 28.1 states that subject to any contrary agreement by the parties, the arbitral tribunal shall decide whether it will hold an oral hearing for the presentation of evidence or for oral arguments, or whether the procedures shall be undertaken based on documents and other materials, without an oral component. In addition, according to the Arbitration Law, Article 28.2, the arbitral tribunal shall hold a hearing if requested by one of the parties unless the parties have agreed that no hearings shall be held. In regard to the notice of hearings, the parties must be provided sufficient advanced notice of any hearings and of any meetings of the arbitral tribunal, especially when the arbitral tribunal carries out inspections on goods, property, or documents pursuant to the Arbitration Law, Article 28.3.
According to UNCITRAL Rules, Article 28.1, in the event of an oral hearing, “the arbitral tribunal shall give the parties adequate advanced notice of the date, time and place” of any proceedings. Unlike the Arbitration Law, UNCITRAL Rules, Article 28.3 requires that “[h]earings shall be held in camera unless the parties agree otherwise.” The UNCITRAL Rules also provide articles relating to the closure and reopening of hearings. Pursuant to Article 31.1, “[t]he arbitral tribunal may inquire of the parties if they have any further proof to offer or witnesses to be heard or submissions to make and, if there are none, it may declare the hearings closed.” According to Article 31.2, “[t]he arbitral tribunal may, if it considers it necessary owing to exceptional circumstances, decide, on its own initiative or upon application of a party, to reopen the hearings at any time before the award is made.”
If the parties to arbitration agree to utilize the Arbitration Law, the parties’ arbitration briefs must comply with the provisions set forth in Article 27 of the law. According to the Arbitration Law, Articles 27.1 and 27.2, a statement of claim must be in writing and signed by the claimant or its representative. The requirements for the statement of claim are the same as those stipulated in the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 62, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. In a statement of claim, the claimant must state the facts supporting claim, the points at issue, and the relief or remedy sought, while the respondent should state his or her defense(s) to the claims raised in accordance with the Arbitration Law, Article 27.5. In regard to the respondent’s rights, the respondent may choose to agree and perform the claim requirements to settle the case, or the respondent may deny the claims and submit a counterclaim, pursuant to the Arbitration Law, Articles 27.3 and 27.4. Finally, the Arbitration Law, Article 27.6 states that either party is able to amend or supplement its claim or defense during the course of arbitral proceeding, unless the arbitral tribunal disagrees in order to prevent the delays that may be involved with making such amendments.
Under the UNCITRAL Rules, Article 20.1, the claimant is responsible to “communicate its statement of claim in writing to the respondent and to each of the arbitrators within a period of time to be determined by the arbitral tribunal.” In accordance with Article 20.2(a)-(e), the statement of claim should include the following: the names and contact details of the parties; a statement of the facts supporting the claim; the points at issue; the relief or remedy sought; and the legal grounds or arguments supporting the claim. The UNCITRAL Rules have similar requirements for the respondent under Article 21.1: “[t]he respondent shall communicate its statement of defence in writing to the claimant and to each of the arbitrators within a period of time to be determined by the arbitral tribunal.” Additionally, pursuant to Article 21.3, “[i]n its statement of defence, or at a later stage in the arbitral proceedings if the arbitral tribunal decides that the delay was justified under the circumstances, the respondent may make a counterclaim or rely on a claim for the purpose of a set-off provided that the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction over it.”
In order to enforce an arbitral award in foreign countries, it does not matter whether a party chooses to use the Arbitration Law or UNCITRAL Rules. Rather, it is a matter of whether an enforcing country is a signatory of the New York Convention. The UNCITRAL Rules do not include provisions regarding the enforcement of arbitral awards; however, the United Nations, in an effort to promote the use of international arbitration in commercial-related dispute resolution, established the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (also referred to as the New York Convention) in 1958. Since its entry into force in 1959, most United Nations member states have adopted the New York Convention, and are bound by its provisions.
Mongolia is one such signatory to the New York Convention. This means that one hundred fifty-one countries should recognize and enforce Mongolian arbitral awards, with exceptions. In addition, arbitration decisions rendered in Mongolia may be sent to a foreign authority designated for arbitration enforcement, so long as that state is also a member of the New York Convention and therefore bound to recognize Mongolian arbitral awards. The enforcement of a foreign arbitral decision in Mongolia is regulated by the Law on Enforcement of Court Decisions. According to Article 7.3.3, if MINAC receives a request for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, MINAC will send this award decision to Mongolia’s Office of Court Decision Enforcement, which will be responsible for processing the request and initiating enforcement procedures.
According to the Arbitration Law, Article 42.5, the party applying for the enforcement of an arbitral award in Mongolia must submit the following documents with its application: a duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof; the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof; receipt of payment of the State Stamp Fee; and a request to enforce the arbitral award. If the award is not made in the official language of the Mongolian state (i.e., Mongolian), the requesting party should also furnish a certified Mongolian translation of the decision in accordance with the Arbitration Law, Article 42.6. If the Office of Court Decision Enforcement finds that the request for enforcement is reasonable, it will confirm the arbitral award and issue a writ of execution in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 184.3. The Code of Civil Procedure, Article 184.3 states that within seven days, upon examination of the arbitration award, a judge shall confirm the award by his/her order. Once the judge has confirmed the award, he/she shall also issue a writ of execution and deliver it to the claimant and respondent within seven days.
Generally, enforcement of an arbitral award is mandatory for signatory countries of the New York Convention. Whether a request from Mongolia for enforcement of an award outside the country is sent via MINAC or through alternative means should not influence the binding nature of the arbitral award. In other words, whether enforcement of an arbitral award is mandatory or not will not depend on the party who sent the request to a foreign authority. However, in non-signatory countries, award enforcement will largely depend on the sender, subject matter, and more. For non-signatory states, the process for sending requests for enforcement may be governed by existing bilateral treaties. If a country is not a signatory of the New York Convention, the requesting party needs first to check whether there is a bilateral treaty between the country from which the request is originating and the enforcing country. In regard to Mongolian bilateral treaties, the Ministry of Justice or the Mongolian Supreme Court are the main authorities which handle arbitration award requests from non-signatory states. For example, the 2008 Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters between Mongolia and the Republic of Korea, Article 4.2 states that parties shall send their requests for legal assistance to a foreign authority through the Supreme Court of the state, and that the Supreme Court will be the main authority to connect the requisite government agencies. Although Mongolia and the Republic of Korea are both signatories to the New York Convention, it is a bilateral treaty similar in nature to the one above that should be referenced in the case of arbitral award enforcement in a non-signatory state.
In practice, if a party wants to enforce an arbitral award in Mongolia from a signatory nation of the New York Convention, the party may send its request to the Office of Court Decision Enforcement by him/herself or via MINAC. If the party wants to enforce an arbitral award in a non-signatory country of New York Convention, the party needs first check the existence of a bilateral treaty with that country in order to find out which authority has the power to communicate with the foreign authority responsible for enforcement.
In the case of ad hoc arbitration which occurs in Mongolia, with an award that will be enforced domestically, a similar procedure to the one described above should be followed. In the event the party against whom an award has been issued fails to comply with the arbitral award, the party seeking enforcement may submit a request to the Court of Appeals. The request for enforcement should include the original arbitral award, or a notarized copy thereof, and a receipt demonstrating the party’s payment of the State Stamp Fee. These documents are to be submitted to the Court of Appeals who will thereafter issue a writ of execution to the Office of Court Decision Enforcement.
Statute of Limitations Issues
There may be questions regarding whether Mongolia’s statute of limitations applies in arbitral proceedings where the parties have chosen to be governed by the laws of Mongolia. In regard to the statute of limitations, the Civil Code, Article 74.1 states that “the right to demand a party to take any action shall have a limitation period,” unless the law specifically stipulates the limitation period is irrelevant. Since the law’s language includes “any action,” the statute of limitations will likely include arbitration proceedings. In addition, the Civil Code, Article 82.4 states that “[i]f the expiration of the limitation period is justifiable, a court or arbitration body may restore it and protect the breached rights.” This means that, according to the provisions within the Civil Code, an arbitral body may restore the limitation period. Thus we can conclude that the aforementioned articles governing Mongolia’s statute of limitations will apply to arbitral proceedings. For example, if a claim related to obligations is due to be performed within a fixed time, but the parties do not file a claim before the court or in accordance with the contract’s arbitration clause, then after three years the claim may not be able to be pursued given that the statute of limitations period has passed.
Ad hoc arbitration provides parties with more independence in arbitral proceedings, including providing greater flexibility in terms of choosing tribunals or procedural rules than that found in institutional arbitration. Ad hoc arbitration also provides the parties with the ability to avoid potential biases in Mongolia’s institutional arbitration. If the parties agree to commence ad hoc arbitration in Mongolia, parties may freely choose UNCITRAL Rules, Mongolian Arbitration Law, or any other foreign arbitration procedural rules. UNCITRAL Rules are often used in ad hoc arbitration due to their greater uniformity and legal predictability, which are in-line with global standards. If parties choose UNCITRAL Rules, the parties may select domestic or foreign appointing authorities, qualified arbitrators of their choice, and the preferred location for arbitral proceedings. Thus, in the jurisdiction of Mongolia, the choice of ad hoc arbitration conducted pursuant to UNCITRAL Rules, at the parties preferred location and in the decided upon language, may be a preferable choice for international and/or domestic parties when considering various forms of dispute resolution to govern commercial transactions within the country.
Arbitration Law (2003) (Mong.)
Civil Code (revised 2002) (Mong.)
Code of Civil Procedure (revised 2002) (Mong.)
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 330 UNTS 38, 21 UST 2517, 7 ILM 1046 (1958)
Mongolian International and National Arbitration Center, http://en.mongolchamber.mn/index.php/business-services/mongolian-national-arbitration-center
Mongolia Ministry of Justice, http://www.pmis.gov.mn/pmis_eng/
Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters between Mongolia and the Republic of Korea (2008)
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, G.A. Res. 65/22, U.N. Doc. A/RES/65/22 (revised 2010)
 Arbitration Law, art. 5.1 (2003) (Mong.).
 Id. at art. 4.1.1.
 Id. at art. 4.1.2.
 Id. at art. 5.2.
 Id. at arts. 5.4, 5.5.
 Id. at art. 5.7.
 Id. at art. 5.8.
 Id. at art. 24.
 Id. at art. 5.7.
 Id. at arts. 23.1, 24.
 Id. at art. 3.1.
 Id. at art. 5.7.
 Id. at arts. 14.1, 14.2, 14.3.
 UNCITRAL, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, art 7.1, G.A. Res. 65/22, U.N. Doc. A/RES/65/22 (revised 2010) [hereinafter UNCITRAL].
 Id. at art. 9; Arbitration Law, art. 15.3 (2003) (Mong.).
 Arbitration Law, arts. 15.1, 15.2 (2003) (Mong.).
 UNCITRAL, supra note 14 at art. 9.
 Id. at art. 6.
 Arbitration Law, art 15.5 (2003) (Mong.).
 UNCITRAL, supra note 14 at art. 8.1.
 Id. at art. 15.6.
 Arbitration Law, art 27.5 (2003) (Mong.).
 Id. at art. 28.4.
 Id. at art. 29.1.3.
 UNCITRAL, supra note 14 at art. 27.1.
 Arbitration Law, art. 29.1.3 (2003) (Mong.).
 Id. at art. 33.
 Id. at art. 21.
 Id. at art. 13.1.
 UNCITRAL, supra note 14 at art 27.3.
 Id. at arts. 26.1, 26.2.
 Id. at art. 26.6.
 Id. at art. 26.9.
 Arbitration Law, art. 28.1 (2003) (Mong.).
 Id. at art. 28.2.
 Id. at art. 28.3.
 UNCITRAL, supra note 14 at art. 28.1.
 Id. at art. 28.3.
 Id. at art. 31.1.
 Id. at art. 31.2.
 Arbitration Law, arts. 27.1, 27.2 (2003) (Mong.).
 Id. at art. 27.2.
 Id. at art. 27.5.
 Id. at arts. 27.3, 27.4.
 Id. at art. 27.6.
 UNCITRAL, supra note 14 at art. 20.1.
 Id. at art. 20.2.
 Id. at art. 21.1.
 Id. at art. 21.3.
 New York Convention, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 330 UNTS 38, 21 UST 2517, 7 ILM 1046 (1958) [hereinafter New York Convention].
 Law on Enforcement of Court Decisions, art. 7.3.3 (amended 2007) (Mong.)
 Arbitration Law, art. 42.5 (2003) (Mong.).
 Id. at art. 42.6.
 Code of Civil Procedure, art. 184.3 (revised 2002) (Mong.).
 New York Convention, supra note 51.
 Mongolian International National Arbitration Center, http://en.mongolchamber.mn/index.php/business-services/mongolian-national-arbitration-center.
 Ministry of Justice, http://www.pmis.gov.mn/pmis_eng/.
 Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters between Mongolia and the Republic of Korea (2008), available at http://www.mongolembassy.com/downloads/09.pdf.
 Civil Code, art. 74.1 (revised 2002) (Mong.).
 Id. at art. 82.4.