The Law Governing Arbitrability

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Law Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University of Tehran

Abstract

The non-arbitrability of the subject matter of a dispute may arise at various points in the procedure: from the outset until the recognition and enforcement stage. Since this issue might be raised at different stages of the procedure and before different fora, it is essential to examine what law should govern the issue of arbitrability.
The determination of the law applicable to objective arbitrability depends, in the first place, on whether it is decided by an arbitral tribunal, by a state court to which one of the parties has concurrently submitted the dispute or in the course of a setting-aside or enforcement procedure. While different opinions exist on the applicable law at each of these stages, many commentators have expressed a preference for applying the lex loci arbitri by the arbitral tribunal and lex fori by state courts. The aim of this paper is to review different approaches toward the applicable law on arbitrability and to demonstrate how the strict application of lex loci arbitri and lex fori may result in drawbacks. Having in mind that the rationale behind arbitrability doctrine is to protect exclusive jurisdiction of national courts in certain areas, the lex loci arbitri and lex fori would only be relevant to the extent that the exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts of the lex loci arbitri or lex fori is at stake.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

الف) فارسی
1. جنیدی، لعیا (1376)، قانون حاکم در داوری‌های تجاری بین‌المللی، تهران: نشر دادگستر.
2. طباطبائی‌نژاد، سید محمد (1394)، «داوری تجاری بین‌المللی و چالش اعمال قواعد آمره؛ مطالعۀ موردی داوری در حقوق رقابت»، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، دورۀ 6، ش 1، ص 300-277.
 
ب) خارجی
3. Arcangeli V. (1992), Les notions d’arbitrabilité, d’ordre Public et de Public Policy Comme Moyens de Contrôle de l’arbitrage Commercial International au Canada, Thèse De doctorat, Université de Montréal.
4. Arfazadeh H. (2001), "Arbitrability under the New York Convention: the Lex Fori Revisited", Arbitration International, Vol. 17, No. 1, p.73-87.
5. Blessing, M. (1996), "Arbitrability of Intellectual Property Disputes", Arbitration International, Vol. 12, No. 2, p.191-222.
6. Böckstiegel K.H. (1987), "Public Policy and Arbitrability", ICCA Congress Series, No. 3, 177- 204.
7. Born, G. (2014),International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International.
(a) Brekoulakis S. (2009), "On Arbitrability: Persisting Misconceptions and New Areas of Concern", in Mistelis, L. and Brekoulakis S (eds), Arbitrability- International and Comparative Perspectives, Kluwer Law International, p.19-45.
(b) Brekoulakis S (2009), "Law Applicable to Arbitrability: Revisiting the Revisited lex fori" in Mistelis L. and Brekoulakis, S.(eds),Arbitrability- International and Comparative Perspectives, Kluwer Law International, 00. 99-119.
8. Chiariny-Daudet A. (2006), Le Règlement Judiciaire et Arbitral des Contentieux Internationaux Sur Brevets d’invention, Groupe Lexis Nexis.
9. Cook T. and García A. (2010), International Intellectual Property Arbitration, Kluwer Law International.
10. Cordero-Moss G. (2014), International Commercial Contracts: Applicable Sources and Enforceability , Cambridge University Press.
11. Fouchard Ph. (1977), ‘les conflits de lois en matière d'arbitrabilité des litiges de propriété industrelle’, revue de l'arbitrage.
12. Gaillard E. and Banifatemi Y. (2008), "Negative effect of Competence-Competence: The Rule of Priority in Favour of the Arbitrators" in Gaillard E and Pietro DD (eds), Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement andInternational Arbitral Awards, the New York Convention in Practice,Cameron May.
13. Gaillard E. and Savage J.(eds.), (1999), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International.
14. Gottschalk  E. (2007), "The Law Applicable to Intellectual Property Rights: Is the Lex Loci Protectionis a Pertinent Choice-of-Law Approach?" in Gottschalk E. et al (eds.),Conflict of Laws in a Globalized World, Cambridge University Press.
15. Halket T. (2009), "Choice of Law in International Intellectual Property Arbitrations: A Three-Dimensional Chess Game?" in Rovin A. (eds.), Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
16. Hanotiau B. (2003), L’Arbitrabilité’, in Recueil des Cours, Académie de Droit International de la Haye(2002), Tome 296, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
17. Hanotiau B. (1996), "What Law Governs the Issue of Arbitrability?", Arbitration International, Vol.12, No. 4, p.391-404..
18. Jacquet J., Delebecque, Ph.et Corneloup, S. (2007), Droit du Commerce International, Dalloz, 1e éd.
19. Kirry A. (1996), "Arbitrability: Current Trends in Europe", Arbitration International, Vol. 12, No. 4, p.373-390.
20. Mistelis L. (2009), "Is Arbitrability a National or an International Law Issue?", in Mistelis L. and Brekoulakis S.(eds),Arbitrability- International and Comparative Perspectives, Kluwer Law International.
21. Poudret J. and Besson, S. (2007), Comparative Law of International Arbitration, Sweet & Maxwell, 2nd ed.
22. Racine J. (2000), L’arbitrage Commercial International et l’Ordre Public, LGDJ.
23. Vicente D. (2009), La propriété intellectuelle en droit international privé, Recueil des Cours 2008, Vol. 335, Martinus Njjhoff Publishers.
 
ج) رویۀ قضایی و داوری
24. Dalico c. Khoms et El Mergeb, Cour de Cassation, 20 Decembre 1993, Revue de l’Arbitrage, 1994
25. Compagnia Generale Costruzioni COGECO SpA  v. Piersanti, Corte di Cassazione, 27 April 1979, no. 2429, Yearbook VI (1981) p.229-230
26. Company M v. M SA, Cour d'appel de Brussels, 4 October 1985, Yearbook XIV, 1989, p.618-620
27. Fincantieri-Cantieri navali italiani SpA and Oto Melara SpA V. M. et Le Tribunal Arbitral, Tribunal Fédéral, 23 June 1992, Revue de l’Arbitrage, 1993, N.4, p.691
28. ICC Arbitral Award, Case 6106, 1988, ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1994
29. ICC Interim Award, Case 6097, 1989, ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Vol. 4, No.2, 1993
30. Meadows Indemnity Company Limited v. Baccala & Shoop Insurance Services, Inc., et al., 760 F. Supp. 1036, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 29 March 1991, LEXIS 4144.
31. Mitsubishi v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U.S. 614 (1985): <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/614/case.html > last visited February 6, 2015.
32. Société Labinal c. Sociétés Mors et Westland Aerospace, Cour d'appel de Paris, 19 mai 1993, Revue de l'Arbitrage, 1993
33. Swiss Fed. Trib., 29 April 1996, Fondation M. v. Banque X., ATF 122 m 139,1996(3) ASA Bull. 527; see also the note by C.U. Mayer at 1996(3) ASA Bull. 531.
Comparative Law Review
Volume 9, Issue 2
Autumn & Winter
October 2018
Pages 545-570

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics