Search results

Preliminary Material /E. Gaillard -- Introduction /E. Gaillard -- Chapter I. The Representations Of International Arbitration /E. Gaillard -- Chapter II. The Consequences Of The Representations Of International Arbitration /E. Gaillard -- Conclusion /E. Gaillard -- About The Author /E. Gaillard -- Bibliography /E. Gaillard -- Table Of Abbreviations /E. Gaillard -- Index /E. Gaillard.

Le droit de l'arbitrage, plus encore que le droit international privé, se prête à une réflexion de philosophie du droit. Les notions, essentiellement philosophiques, de volonté et de liberté sont au coeur de la matière. La liberté des parties de préférer aux juridictions étatiques une forme privée de règlement des différends, de choisir leur juge, de forger la procédure qui leur paraît la plus appropriée, de déterminer les règles de droit applicables au différend, quitte à ce qu'il s'agisse de normes autres que celles d'un système juridique donné, la liberté des arbitres de se prononcer sur le

On July 2, 1986, the Dutch Parliament adopted a statute modernizing Dutch law on arbitration. Although it does not technically distinguish between domestic and international arbitration, this statute, following the trend initiated by the United Kingdom [1979 Arbitration Act, 18 I.L.M. 1249 (1979)], France [Decree of May 12, 1981, 20 I.L.M. 917 (1981)], and Belgium [March 27, 1985 Statute, 25 I.L.M. 725 (1986)], clearly purports to liberalize Dutch law on international arbitration. The travaux preparatoires states that it does not substantially depart from the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration [24 I.L.M. 1302 (1985)]. The statute came into force on December 1, 1986, and applies to pending arbitration cases.

On January 6, 1987, the French Court of Cassation denied the petition for annulment of the decision rendered by the Paris Court of Appeals on July 12, 1984 [23 I.L.M. 1048 (1984)] which set aside the award rendered by an ICC Arbitral Tribunal on March 11, 1983 in the SPP v. The Arab Republic of Egypt case [22 I.L.M. 752 (1983)].Ruling on the question of their own competence, the arbitrators accepted jurisdiction over the Arab Republic of Egypt on the ground that by affixing the words "approved, agreed and ratified" by the Minister of Tourism and the signature of the Minister of Tourism to a contract entered into "between" SPP and the Egyptian General Organization for Tourism and Hotels (EGOTH), the State had agreed to be bound by the ICC arbitration clause contained in that contract.