Suchergebnisse

Arbitration is an attractive alternative for parties entering into commercial transactions. Parties to international contracts often include arbitration clauses in an attempt to protect their rights and to eliminate uncertainties in the event of a dispute. A court may nevertheless treat a given dispute as nonarbitrable if the issue is highly charged with conflicting public policy concerns. The United States Supreme Court in the recent landmark decision, Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc., held that private antitrust claims are arbitrable in a transaction arising in international commerce. The court ruled in a five-to-three decision that if an international contract contains a broad arbitration agreement, policy favoring arbitration overrides the domestic public policy against arbitration of antitrust claims. The majority stated that an arbitration clause need not specifically mention a given statute in order to require the arbitration of claims arising under the statute. This Note will first discuss the background of antitrust claims in the international context, including the statuatory provisions and treaties involved in such disputes. Second, it will analyze the procedural history of the Mitsubishi case. The Note will then analyze the Supreme Court's decision in light of the legislative intent underlying the statutes involved, previous judicial authority, and alternative public policy concerns. The Note concludes that the Supreme Court failed to properly evaluate the countervailing public interest in the nonarbitration of antitrust claims by holding the Mitsubishi-Soler agreement enforceable.

Treaties — Interpretation of — Principles and Rules of — Intention of the PartiesArbitration — In General — The Arbitration Treaty — Interpretation of — Implied Exclusion of Award of Costs — Intention of the Parties.Arbitration — Procedure — Practice — Award of Costs — Exclusion by Rules of Procedure in Hague Convention for Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, 1907 — Implied Exclusion by Terms of Compromis — Intention of the Parties.

"The concept of state sovereignty is increasingly challenged by a proliferation of international economic instruments and major international economic institutions. States from both the south and north are re-examining and debating the extent to which they should cede control over their economic and social policies to achieve global economic efficiency in an interdependent world. International lawyers are seriously rethinking the subject of state sovereignty, in relation to the operation of the main international economic institutions, namely the WTO, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The contributions in this volume, bringing together leading scholars from the developed and developing worlds, take up the challenge of debating the meaning of sovereignty and the impact of international economic law on state sovereignty. The first part looks at the issues from the perspectives of general international law, international economic law and legal theory. Part two discusses the impact of trade liberalisation on the sovereignty of both industrialised and developing states and Part three concentrates on the challenge to state sovereignty created by the proliferation of investment treaties and the significant recent growth of investment treaty based arbitration cases. Part four focuses on the domestic and international effects of international financial intermediaries and markets. Part five explores the tensions and intersections between the international regulation of trade and investment, international human rights and state sovereignty."--Bloomsbury Publishing

The concept of public international law -- Sources of international law -- International law and municipal law -- States -- State jurisdiction -- International organizations -- International dispute settlement -- The rights of individuals-international law of human rights -- The law of armed conflict -- The law of the sea -- Air and space law -- International environmental law -- International criminal law.

This research systematically examines how the Chinese arbitration law system responds to the application of the public policy exception in the judicial review of arbitral awards, particularly those awards that are foreign-related and international. The discussion is based on a general understanding of the legal concept of public policy in international arbitration practice, and the understanding developed in Chinese arbitration law and judicial practice. In focusing on both international developments and Chinese arbitral and judicial practice, this thesis provides some lessons from and for China. Based on a review of both legislation and cases in China, in comparison with the international trends and consensuses, the author concludes that China's performance in defining and applying public policy in the judicial review of international commercial arbitral awards is not satisfactory. Though the emergence and progress of international arbitration practice has encouraged China to restrict the application of the public policy exception in the judicial review of arbitral awards, a review of current judicial practice in identifying and applying public policy illustrates the limited progress made to date in defining and applying the legal concept of public policy. Some key questions have not yet been properly addressed or answered, including: the international/national nature of public policy, the key elements of public policy, and the appropriate boundaries of judicial review. A lack of experience in dealing with the public policy exception has given rise to insufficient and problematic judicial analysis and decisions. Further steps are expected to be taken by the Chinese legal system in order to achieve a more comprehensive view of the public policy exception that is in line with the recent developments in the leading jurisdictions, and consistent with the globalised trend of a converging understanding of public policy in international arbitration.

Abstract: There is a diffuse sentiment that international arbitration is more apt in understanding the interests of the parties than national courts are. Does this mean that arbitrators are more disposed than national courts to relying on the language of the contract and to disregarding possible interference from national law - including also principles such as the principle of good faith? Alternatively, do they more readily rely on considerations of good faith, on the economic interests that are at stake, on trade usages and the like than national courts do? Considering the impact of different legal traditions on the interpretation of contracts, the limited harmonizing effect of transnational sources in this context, the peculiar drafting style adopted in international contract practice and the rationale therefor, as well as the legal framework for international commercial arbitration, this article highlights the interpretation dilemma faced by arbitrators. It concludes that within arbitration there is no unitary approach to interpretation of contracts. Resumé: Il existe un sentiment diffus selon lequel l'arbitrage international est plus apte à comprendre les intérêts des parties que les cours et tribunaux nationaux. Cela signifie-t-il que les arbitres sont plus disposés que les cours et tribunaux nationaux à se baser sur le langage du contrat et à ne pas tenir compte des interférences possibles du droit national - y compris également des principes tels que celui de la bonne foi? Ou bien s'appuient-ils plus facilement sur des considérations de bonne foi, sur les interest économiques en jeu, sur les usages du commerce et autres usages similaires, que les cours et tribunaux nationaux? Prenant en considération l'impact des différentes traditions juridiques sur l'interprétation des contrats, l'effet limité d'harmonisation des sources transnationales dans ce contexte, le style particulier de rédaction adopté dans la pratique des contrats internationaux et sa justification, ainsi que le cadre légal de l'arbitrage commercial international, le présent article souligne le dilemme de l'interprétation auquel les arbitres doivent faire face. Il conclut qu'au sein de l'arbitrage, il n'y a pas d'approche unitaire pour interpréter les contrats.