 Good morning ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Graduate Class Society of the University of Cambridge it is my pleasure to welcome you to the 4th edition of the Cambridge Arbitration Day. Since its inception in 2014, the Cambridge Arbitration Day has endeavoured to bring together scholars, practitioners and students of international arbitration to discuss recent developments in the field. With this in mind, this year's event titled Wins of Change, rethinking the future of international arbitration, will assess those changes that are due to arbitration in a new shape. Without further ado, allow me to present Professor Devin Fentonman, who had kindly agreed to deliver the bedroom address. Professor Fentonman was the double distinction between the Professor of Public International Law and also the Chair of the Law Party here. Professor Fentonman is the author of the widely cited books International Commercial Litigation and Order Law in English 4. Among his many accomplishments, Professor Fentonman was awarded the University's Penalty of Prize for Residence in Teaching recently. It is my pleasure to welcome you Professor Fentonman. Thank you and I would like to extend to you all on behalf of the Faculty of Law our most party welcome to Cambridge and to the Faculty and to the Arbitration Day. It is I think especially appropriate that there should be a conference about arbitration in Cambridge. I want to say something briefly about our long-standing connections with arbitration. We have of course a very long tradition of teaching and research in the area of dispute resolution which spans the whole range of relevant topics. Investment treaty disputes, hard core commercial litigation in the commercial court arbitration and we also have a course on civil procedure which is heavily focused on alternative dispute resolution. It's particularly fitting perhaps that we should have this event in Cambridge because of the long-standing association of this faculty with that great work Mustle and Boyd. Lord Mustle, when he retired from what was then the House of Lords, became a visiting professor in this faculty and we had the distinction that arbitration was then taught by no lesser person than Michael Mustle. This tradition of course has been continued because my colleague Neil Andrews, the Professor of Civil Procedure, is one of the authors of Mustle and Boyd. I should just say that our commitment to arbitration is also reflected in the fact that when we had in the faculty as our top priority in terms of fundraising, raising funds for the establishment of a permanent professorship in international commercial arbitration. I should just say that if anybody wishes to donate, forms are available at the back of the room. Actually I was only joking but if somebody does contribute then anyone is welcome to do so. I would also say that the links between this faculty and arbitration are also reinforced by the enthusiasm of our students for topic. I think here of the extraordinary energy which is being displayed at the moment by our RISMUT team of whom we have to quote Charles Dickens' great expectations. This is also reflected of course in the very hard work which has gone into the organisation of this event today. Even though we are all of five minutes in, I think I can already say this is going to be a very successful event and I commend the organisers on their very considerable efficiency and in particular on providing the best pastries and coffee in Inbridge for breakfast. More seriously the theme today, Winds of Change, could not be more timely with the likely invocation of article 50 next week. Now of course if you are an English lawyer, your every waking hour and indeed sleeping hour is dominated by thoughts of Brexit but you may be asking yourselves what has this to do with international commercial arbitration, possibly the great deal. Brexit begs a significant but difficult question. What will be the effect of this new landscape on legal services in the United Kingdom? In particular what will happen to the world dominance, if I may say so, of the London commercial court as a setting for the resolution of commercial disputes? I say that partly of course as someone who teaches a course called international commercial litigation and I very much like to know the answer to that question. There are many ways in which we can approach the issue of how Brexit might affect legal services and in particular commercial dispute resolution in England but I think at root there are two issues. What will be the effect on English jurisdiction agreements? The security which is now guaranteed by article 25 Brussels 1 regulations throughout Europe and what will be the fate in future of judgments rendered by the English courts which are now of course subject to more or less automatic recognition and enforcement as a result of the Brussels 1 regulation on jurisdiction? Of course different answers are possible and it's not my place here to explore these. It may be of course that nothing will happen or at least nothing serious will occur. Particularly if the United Kingdom does ratify unilaterally as it may do the hate convention on choice of court agreements then the security of our jurisdiction agreements in the rest of Europe will be assured not by EU law but by international truce. Again even without the automatic enforcement mechanisms of the Brussels regulation I think it is possible to say without being an expert on comparative law that the English judgement would be capable of recognition and enforcement under the national laws of other EU states. Alternatively of course there is the more serious possibility, the more worrying possibility of the English lawyers that for example commercial litigation will migrate to Dublin, the famous Dublin option. The Dublin option basically means that commercial parties who by and large favour the application of English substantive law to their transactions will still want English substantive law but they will want their disputes to be resolved in the course of an EU state. Ireland is an EU state. It is also an EU state whose first language is English and which is a common law system. Basically what people are saying is a judge in Dublin can apply English law pretty much just as well as a judge in England but any judgement rendered will be subject to automatic enforcement under the regulation. My own take on the Dublin option is that this is a perfectly good option but there is of course another possible common law jurisdiction in the EU which might be a suitable destination and that is Malta where the climate is infinitely warmer than Ireland. Maybe however, and here you can see the answer to the question I posed what has this to do with arbitration it may be of course that the answer lies in arbitration in increased use of arbitration possibly increased use of hybrid jurisdiction and arbitration clauses in commercial contracts. The point being of course that arbitration has always sat outside the regime of the Brussels regulation and the issues about party autonomy and enforcement are of course dealt with by the New York Convention which has nothing more to do with the EU regime. This wouldn't be the first time that arbitration has responded to difficulties in civil litigation. Some of you will remember the famous I'm tempted to say infamous decision of the Court of Justice in a case called Eric Gasser. The effect of that decision was effectively to render worthless exclusive jurisdiction agreements in commercial contracts. That has since been corrected by the New Brigham regulation but of course an instant response on the part of those who were drafting commercial documents was to resort to a killer to unforeseen extent to arbitration for the resolution of in particular the kind of high grade financial disputes which normally get litigated. More to the point what tended to happen was that hybrid jurisdiction and arbitration clauses were introduced one may hypothesize that this is exactly what will happen now as a response to Brexit. This does have a pose many questions and as someone who is as it were primarily a civil litigator not an arbitrator one of those questions I simply leave it hanging is whether of course arbitration is a suitable mechanism for dealing with the highly complex multi-parcy predominantly financial disputes which tend to be litigated in the commercial court in London. Certainly whatever happens arbitration is going to be front and centre in the post Brexit debate. So we can see that the winds of change are blowing indeed. We cannot say where they will blow us, for that we need a fortune teller, we need a clear wallet. We don't have a clear wallet here today but we do have the next best thing, we have a guru. That is to say, Mr. E. D'Arab. He needs no introduction to anyone working in the arbitration community. He is of course the founding partner of D'Arab and Garabi. He is a former secretary general of the ICC court and chairman of ICC Institute of World Business Law. He is, I venture to say, not someone who merely knows the law as it were but someone who created it as someone who of course led the review of the ICC rules on two certifications leading to the current form of those rules. He is, I think, uniquely qualified both as somebody with experience as an arbitrator and as an administrator of arbitration and as a councillor in arbitration to speak to us today about this exciting theme of rethinking the future of international arbitration. So may I now hand over to our keynote speaker Mr. E. D'Arab.