<p>Abstract</p><p>As international trade is constantly increasing, the number of disputes between international parties is greater than ever. In view of the fact that it is difficult to get court judgments recognized and enforced, arbitration has gained a great foothold in international commercial disputes. The leading international legal framework for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards is the New York Convention of 1958 with 142 Member States as of today. It simplifies recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in foreign countries. Nevertheless, certain criterions are required to be fulfilled and a much-debated criterion is the writing requirement for arbitration agreements.</p><p>The writing requirement is found in Article II(2) of the New York Convention and it stipulates that an arbitration clause or an arbitration agreement must be signed by the parties or contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams to constitute a valid arbitration agreement, which is the foundation of a recognizable and enforceable arbitral award. The requirement in itself is clear, but the development of electronic communication and the fact that national courts interpret the writing requirement differently, leads to dissimilar requirements in various countries. Moreover, numerous new ways of how to conclude contracts have been established during the 50 years that has passed since the adoption of the New York Convention and the ever increasing number of disputes has questioned the function of the writing requirement. The UNCITRAL has, by adopting a model law, tried to accomplish a uniform interpretation and establish what it takes to fulfill the writing requirement. The starting point for the work of the UNCITRAL was to modify national arbitration legislation and thus reach the objective of harmonizing the writing requirement.</p><p>The thesis undertakes an international outlook in three countries, Australia, Italy and Sweden. These countries are all Member States of the New York Convention but there are great differences in their legislation. Sweden imposes no writing requirement and Italy has applied a very restrictive interpretation. Australia has incorporated the UNCITRAL Model Law. The international outlook illustrates how the interpretation depends on national arbitration legislation and attitude towards the writing requirement.</p><p>An analysis of the current general legal context shows a weakening threshold for fulfillment of the writing requirement. It is also evident that the writing requirement is not in line with how international trade is practiced today. The writing requirement frequently constitutes a formalistic problem regarding conclusion of contracts, as it comprise a requirement with-out function. In addition to this, the attempts of the UN have failed to eliminate uncer-tainty and the divergence in interpretation. To reach a uniform interpretation, an immense overhaul of the New York Convention is needed, alternatively that additional States adhere to the UNCITRAL Model Law and thus eliminate the national differences of today.</p> / <p>Sammanfattning</p><p>En ständigt ökande internationell handel leder till en ökning i antalet tvister mellan parter från olika länder. Då nationella domslut är svåra att få erkända och verkställda i en främmande stat har skiljedomsförfaranden ökat i antal. Regelverket kring att få en skiljedom erkänd och verkställd i en främmande stat utgörs främst av New Yorkkonventionen från 1958 med 142 fördragsslutande stater till dags dato. New Yorkkonventionen möjliggör att en internationell skiljedom lättare kan erkännas och verkställas i en främmande stat. Dock måste vissa kriterier vara uppfyllda och ett av de mest omdebatterade och domstolsprövade kriterierna är det skriftliga formkravet för skiljeavtal.</p><p>Skriftlighetskravet regleras i Artikel II(2), New Yorkkonventionen och påvisar att skiljeavtalet måste vara undertecknat av parterna eller inkluderat i brev- eller telegramväxling för att vara giltigt. Ett giltigt skiljeavtal formar grunden för en verkställbar skiljedom. Kravet i sig är relativt tydligt men med teknologins frammarsch och det faktum att nationella domstolar tolkar skriftlighetskravet olika har kraven för att uppnå skriftlighetskravet skiftat från land till land. Framförallt har olika sätt att sluta avtal tillkommit under de 50 år som New Yorkkonventionen har existerat och även det ökande antalet internationella skiljedomsförfaranden har ifrågasatt grunden för skriftlighetskravet. UNCITRAL har genom en modellag om kommersiella skiljeförfaranden försökt skapa enhetlighet om hur skriftlighetskravet skall tolkas och vad som krävs för att uppnå kravet. Utgångspunkten för UNCITRAL’s arbete har varit att förändra nationell lagstiftning och därmed uppnå målet om harmonisering av skriftlighetskravet.</p><p>Uppsatsen gör en internationell utblick i tre länder, Australien, Italien och Sverige. De tre länderna är fördragsslutande stater till New Yorkkonventionen men deras nationella lagstiftning skiftar markant. Sverige påvisar inte något skriftlighetskrav för skiljeavtal och Italien har tolkat skriftlighetskravet restriktivt. Australien har fullt ut inkorporerat den modellag som UNCITRAL har utarbetat gällande kommersiella skiljeförfaranden. Utblicken visar även i flera rättsfall hur olika tolkningen av skriftlighetskravet blir beroende på den nationella lagstiftningen och inställningen till skriftlighetskravet.</p><p>En analys av rättsläget påvisar att tröskeln för att uppnå skriftlighetskravet tenderar att luckras upp. Det framkommer även att skriftlighetskravet inte är i fas med hur internationell handel praktiseras idag. Skriftlighetskravet är ofta ett formalistiskt problem vad gäller avtalsslut och konstituerar ett krav utan funktion. Därtill har de försök som gjorts från överstatligt håll misslyckats med att undanröja osäkerheten och skiftningar i tolkningen. För att uppnå enhetlighet krävs en genomarbetning av New Yorkkonventionen, alternativt att fler stater anammar UNCITRAL’s modellag och därmed undanröjer de nationella olikheter som existerar idag.</p>

L'arbitrage étant une institution basée sur la volonté des parties, le consentement à la procédure arbitrale multipartite soulève de nombreuses questions relativement à la manière dont les parties expriment leur intention de faire partie d'une instance unique. Cette étude vise à déterminer les conditions dans lesquelles l'arbitre peut arriver à unifier la résolution des litiges qui impliquent les groupements de sociétés. Le plus naturel des moyens pour aboutir à une procédure multipartite est de prévoir cette possibilité à travers la convention d'arbitrage. Cela peut notamment provenir de la signature d'une convention d'arbitrage unique par toutes les parties concernées. Dans certains cas précis, l'arbitrage multipartite peut également résulter de plusieurs conventions d'arbitrage spécialement lorsque les parties participent à la réalisation d'un même ouvrage. Cependant, il arrive souvent qu'une partie qui n'a pas signé la convention d'arbitrage soit obligée à participer à l'instance. Même sans y être obligée, une partie non-signataire de la convention d'arbitrage peut aussi demander de participer à l'arbitrage pour défendre ses intérêts. Pour pouvoir admettre la participation à la procédure d'un tiers non-signataire de la convention d'arbitrage, les arbitres ont recours à plusieurs notions prévues par les droits internes. C'est ainsi que la levée du voile corporatif, la théorie de la réalité économique et le principe de l'estoppel constituent les meilleurs outils pour les arbitres d'amener à la procédure, par force ou sur demande, un non-signataire de la convention d'arbitrage. Enfin, les mécanismes du Code civil servent efficacement à neutraliser les effets du principe de relativité de la convention d'arbitrage. Il s'agit notamment de la bonne foi, du mandat, de la stipulation pour autrui et de la cession. / Arbitration as an institution based on the intention of the parties, the consent on the multi-party arbitration procedure raises many problems relating to the way in which the parties express their intention to participate in a unique arbitration forum. This study aims to determinate the manner in which the arbitrator can join disputes resolution involving the groups of companies. The normal way to get a multi-party procedure is to provide it in an arbitration clause. This can be by signing a single arbitration agreement by all the parties involved. In certain cases, the multi-party arbitration can also be possible with several arbitration agreements especially when the parties took part in carrying out ofthe same economic operation. However, in other situations, the multi-party arbitration procedure is unrelated to consent. A non-signatory party can nevertheless be bound by an arbitration agreement signed by an other party. To allow the participation in the arbitration procedure of a third party non-signatory of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrators use several concepts provided chiefly by the national laws. 80, the lifting of the corporate veil, the doctrine of economic reality and estoppel, are the best tools for the arbitrators to bring to the arbitration procedure, by force or on request, a non-signatory of the arbitration agreement. Lastly, the mechanisms of the Civil code are used with efficiency by arbitrators to neutralize the effects of the relativity principle of the arbitration agreement. Those mechanisms are in particular the good faith, mandate, stipulation for another and assignment. / "Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des Études supérieures En vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit (LL.M.) option : Droit des affaires". Ce mémoire a été accepté à l'unanimité et classé parmi les 15% des mémoires de la discipline.

Die reg tot 'n vrye en regverdige verhoor is een van die mees gevestigde internasionale fundamentele regte.1 Die reg om verhoor te word deur 'n onafhanklike en onpartydige hof of tribunaal vorm deel van die reg tot 'n vrye en regverdige verhoor. Beide Suid-Afrika en Groot Brittanje erken hierdie reg as 'n fundamentele reg. Alhoewel dit duidelik is dat hierdie reg afdwingbaar is in die gewone howe van state wat die relevante konvensies geratifiseer het, bly die vraag steeds tot watter mate die reg tot 'n onafhanklike en onpartydige tribunaal toepassing vind in internasionale kommersiele arbitrasie verrigtinge. Verder is die vraag hoe die toepassing daarvan vergelyk met die toepassing van die reg in die gewone howe. Is dit dus moontlik om te se dat dieselfde toets wat in die gewone howe gebruik word om die onpartydigheid en onafhanklikheid van 'n voorsittende beampte te bepaal, ook gebruik word om die onpartydigheid en onafhanklikheid van 'n arbiter te bepaal? In die nasionale sfeer verwys onafhanklikheid na twee onderskeibare konsepte. Eerstens verwys dit na die onafhanklikheid van die regsprekendegesag met betrekking tot die wetgewende- en uitvoeren-degesag soos vervat in die leerstuk van die skeiding van magte. Tweedens verwys dit na die persoonlike onafhanklikheid van 'n voorsittende beampte. In internasionale kommersiele arbitrasie is slegs die tweede konsep van toepassing. Internasionale kommersiele arbitrasie funksioneer normaalweg onafhanklik van enige regerings-instelling. Slegs die persoonlike onafhanklikheid en onpartydigheid van die arbiter is dus van belang. Wanneer die toetse, om die persoonlike onpartydigheid en onafhanklikheid van regters en arbiters te bepaal, met mekaar vergelyk word, is daar drie verskillende toetse wat van belang is. Sover dit menseregte op 'n intemasionale vlak betref, pas die Europese Hof vir Menseregte die geregverdigde twyfel (legitimate doubt) toets toe. Die arbitrasie instellings wat ingesluit is in hierdie verhandeling2 pas die regverdigbare twyfel Qustifiable doubt) toets toe. Op nasionale vlak pas beide Suid-Afrika en Groot Brittanje die redelike vrees van vooroordeel (reasonable apprehension of bias) toets toe. Die gevolgtrekking word gemaak dat die toetse vir onpartydigheid en onanhanklikheid wat toegepas word in die nasionale howe van Suid-Afrika en Groot Brittanje, die toetse wat op intemasionale vlak toegepas word in die Europese Hof vir Menseregte en die toetse wat toegepas word deur die onafhanklike intemasionale arbitrasie instellings wat in die verhandeling bestudeer is, tot dieselfde resultaat lei. Gevolglik sal arbitrasie verrigtinge wat in Suid-Afrika die toets van onafhanklikheid en onpartydigheid slaag in alle waarskynlikheid ook die toets in Engeland slaag. Net so sal arbitrasie verrigtinge wat plaasvind in terme van die belangrikse arbitrasie tribunale en arbitrasie reels, synde UNCITRAL, die ICC, die LCIA, die AAA en die ICSID, ook na alle waarskynlikheid die toets van onafhanklikheid en onpartydigheid van arbiters in beide Suid-Afrika en Engeland slaag indien die toets wat toegepas word deur hierdie reels en instansies dieselfde is as die toets wat in Suid-Afrika en Engeland toegepas word. / Thesis (LL.M.)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2008.

Economic globalization, the liberalization of markets, and the opening of once closed societies have all heralded the remarkable emergence of the current system of investment treaty arbitration. The current system, however, has attracted significant criticism and calls for reform. This thesis reviews the historical employment of arbitration in international society and the circumstances that lead to the emergence of the current system of investor-state dispute settlement. Following this, two recent proposals for reform of the current system are outlined: the creation of an international court of investment and the implementation of appellate mechanisms for investment treaty arbitration. The thesis concludes by offering an assessment of these proposals and argues for the rejection of the proposal to replace the current system with an international investment court, but offers a cautious endorsement of appellate mechanisms. / Graduate

Die reg tot 'n vrye en regverdige verhoor is een van die mees gevestigde internasionale fundamentele regte.1 Die reg om verhoor te word deur 'n onafhanklike en onpartydige hof of tribunaal vorm deel van die reg tot 'n vrye en regverdige verhoor. Beide Suid-Afrika en Groot Brittanje erken hierdie reg as 'n fundamentele reg. Alhoewel dit duidelik is dat hierdie reg afdwingbaar is in die gewone howe van state wat die relevante konvensies geratifiseer het, bly die vraag steeds tot watter mate die reg tot 'n onafhanklike en onpartydige tribunaal toepassing vind in internasionale kommersiele arbitrasie verrigtinge. Verder is die vraag hoe die toepassing daarvan vergelyk met die toepassing van die reg in die gewone howe. Is dit dus moontlik om te se dat dieselfde toets wat in die gewone howe gebruik word om die onpartydigheid en onafhanklikheid van 'n voorsittende beampte te bepaal, ook gebruik word om die onpartydigheid en onafhanklikheid van 'n arbiter te bepaal? In die nasionale sfeer verwys onafhanklikheid na twee onderskeibare konsepte. Eerstens verwys dit na die onafhanklikheid van die regsprekendegesag met betrekking tot die wetgewende- en uitvoeren-degesag soos vervat in die leerstuk van die skeiding van magte. Tweedens verwys dit na die persoonlike onafhanklikheid van 'n voorsittende beampte. In internasionale kommersiele arbitrasie is slegs die tweede konsep van toepassing. Internasionale kommersiele arbitrasie funksioneer normaalweg onafhanklik van enige regerings-instelling. Slegs die persoonlike onafhanklikheid en onpartydigheid van die arbiter is dus van belang. Wanneer die toetse, om die persoonlike onpartydigheid en onafhanklikheid van regters en arbiters te bepaal, met mekaar vergelyk word, is daar drie verskillende toetse wat van belang is. Sover dit menseregte op 'n intemasionale vlak betref, pas die Europese Hof vir Menseregte die geregverdigde twyfel (legitimate doubt) toets toe. Die arbitrasie instellings wat ingesluit is in hierdie verhandeling2 pas die regverdigbare twyfel Qustifiable doubt) toets toe. Op nasionale vlak pas beide Suid-Afrika en Groot Brittanje die redelike vrees van vooroordeel (reasonable apprehension of bias) toets toe. Die gevolgtrekking word gemaak dat die toetse vir onpartydigheid en onanhanklikheid wat toegepas word in die nasionale howe van Suid-Afrika en Groot Brittanje, die toetse wat op intemasionale vlak toegepas word in die Europese Hof vir Menseregte en die toetse wat toegepas word deur die onafhanklike intemasionale arbitrasie instellings wat in die verhandeling bestudeer is, tot dieselfde resultaat lei. Gevolglik sal arbitrasie verrigtinge wat in Suid-Afrika die toets van onafhanklikheid en onpartydigheid slaag in alle waarskynlikheid ook die toets in Engeland slaag. Net so sal arbitrasie verrigtinge wat plaasvind in terme van die belangrikse arbitrasie tribunale en arbitrasie reels, synde UNCITRAL, die ICC, die LCIA, die AAA en die ICSID, ook na alle waarskynlikheid die toets van onafhanklikheid en onpartydigheid van arbiters in beide Suid-Afrika en Engeland slaag indien die toets wat toegepas word deur hierdie reels en instansies dieselfde is as die toets wat in Suid-Afrika en Engeland toegepas word. / Thesis (LL.M.)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2008.

Universiẗat, Diss., 2006--Regensburg.

In the present article, the authors give us an overview about the advantages of institutional arbitration over ad hoc arbitration, on public procurement matter. Thus, starting by describing the present situation of arbitration on that field, they describe the advantages of institutional arbitration, in favor of reaching a more efficient and transparent arbitration system, which is the desired goal. / En el presente artículo, los autores nos dan un panorama de las ventajas del arbitraje institucional sobre el arbitraje ad hoc, en materia de contratación pública. Así, partiendo del panorama actual del arbitraje en dicha materia, describen las ventajas del arbitraje institucional, en aras de tener un sistema más eficiente, transparente, que es el objetivo deseado.

The globalized world demands increasingly complex contractual operations. In that context, businesses have implemented multiple related contracts with the aim of achieving a common goal.In this paper, the authors analyze the complex situation of the arbitration regarding multiple contracts. Through the review of relevant case-law, the various solutions that characterize arbitration between multiple contracts are described. Finally, the authors address the overlap of non-signatory parties in the context of multiple contracts. / El mundo globalizado exige operaciones contractuales cada vez más complejas. En ese contexto, los negcios han implementado multiples contratos conexos con el objetivo de conseguir un fin común.En el presente artículo, los autores analizan la compleja situación del arbitraje en el contexto de múltiples contratos. A través de la revisión de la jurisprudencia relevante, se describen las diversas soluciones que caracterizan un arbitraje frente a múltiples contratos. Finalmente, los autores abordan la superposición de partes no signatarias en el contexto de múltiples contratos.

O presente trabalho tem como objeto a comparação entre a arbitragem comercial brasileira envolvendo a administração pública e a arbitragem de investimento no âmbito do International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID, sigla em inglês) - fórum mundialmente mais utilizado para resolver controvérsias entre investidor estrangeiro e Estado hospedeiro. Para cumprir este objetivo contextualiza-se o investimento estrangeiro no cenário global e como ele vem sendo tratado pela legislação brasileira, verifica-se a forma de operacionalização das arbitragens no âmbito do ICSID. Ainda, discute-se a arbitrabilidade, o direito aplicável e a forma de execução de sentenças pela referida Instituição, tanto de forma teórica como por meio de análise de casos. Foram selecionados casos paradigmas decididos no ICSID. Apresenta-se a legislação brasileira, no que tange a arbitragem envolvendo a administração pública e comparam-se as seguintes características com as da arbitragem ICSID: arbitrabilidade, direito aplicável; consentimento; procedimento arbitral, execução de sentença. Com a análise resultante deste estudo, revela-se que em termos de procedimento, consentimento e execução de sentença não há relevantes diferenças entre ambas as arbitragens. As características com as maiores diferenças de aplicação em ambos os sistemas são o direito aplicável e a arbitrabilidade. E, demonstrou-se que o sistema ICSID e os tratados ou acordos internacionais oferecem maior proteção ao investidor estrangeiro, enquanto a arbitragem com a administração pública brasileira, oferece mais instrumento de proteção ao Estado, como obrigatoriedade de utilização da lei local. / The object of this study is the comparison between the Brazilian commercial arbitration involving the public administration and the investment arbitration under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which is the most utilized forum to resolve disputes among foreign investor and the host State. In order to fulfill this objective the foreign investment is placed in context within the global scenario and how it has been treated in Brazilian legal framework, identifying the arbitration operationalization under the ICSID. Also is discussed the arbitrability, the applicable law and the form of award enforcement by the said institution, both theoretically and through case laws. Model cases decided by the ICSID were selected. Brazilian legislation regarding arbitration involving the public administration is presented. and following features was compared with the ICSID arbitration characteristics: arbitrability, applicable law; consent; arbitral proceeding, award enforcement. The resulting analysis of this study reveal that there are no relevant differences in terms of proceeding, consent and award enforcement between both arbitrations models. The features that presented larger application differences on both systems are the applicable law and arbitrability. Moreover, ICSID system and the international treaties or agreements offer higher protection to the foreign investor, the arbitration with the Brazilian public administration, can be more protective to the state, especially because of the use os local laws.

O presente trabalho tem como objeto a comparação entre a arbitragem comercial brasileira envolvendo a administração pública e a arbitragem de investimento no âmbito do International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID, sigla em inglês) - fórum mundialmente mais utilizado para resolver controvérsias entre investidor estrangeiro e Estado hospedeiro. Para cumprir este objetivo contextualiza-se o investimento estrangeiro no cenário global e como ele vem sendo tratado pela legislação brasileira, verifica-se a forma de operacionalização das arbitragens no âmbito do ICSID. Ainda, discute-se a arbitrabilidade, o direito aplicável e a forma de execução de sentenças pela referida Instituição, tanto de forma teórica como por meio de análise de casos. Foram selecionados casos paradigmas decididos no ICSID. Apresenta-se a legislação brasileira, no que tange a arbitragem envolvendo a administração pública e comparam-se as seguintes características com as da arbitragem ICSID: arbitrabilidade, direito aplicável; consentimento; procedimento arbitral, execução de sentença. Com a análise resultante deste estudo, revela-se que em termos de procedimento, consentimento e execução de sentença não há relevantes diferenças entre ambas as arbitragens. As características com as maiores diferenças de aplicação em ambos os sistemas são o direito aplicável e a arbitrabilidade. E, demonstrou-se que o sistema ICSID e os tratados ou acordos internacionais oferecem maior proteção ao investidor estrangeiro, enquanto a arbitragem com a administração pública brasileira, oferece mais instrumento de proteção ao Estado, como obrigatoriedade de utilização da lei local. / The object of this study is the comparison between the Brazilian commercial arbitration involving the public administration and the investment arbitration under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which is the most utilized forum to resolve disputes among foreign investor and the host State. In order to fulfill this objective the foreign investment is placed in context within the global scenario and how it has been treated in Brazilian legal framework, identifying the arbitration operationalization under the ICSID. Also is discussed the arbitrability, the applicable law and the form of award enforcement by the said institution, both theoretically and through case laws. Model cases decided by the ICSID were selected. Brazilian legislation regarding arbitration involving the public administration is presented. and following features was compared with the ICSID arbitration characteristics: arbitrability, applicable law; consent; arbitral proceeding, award enforcement. The resulting analysis of this study reveal that there are no relevant differences in terms of proceeding, consent and award enforcement between both arbitrations models. The features that presented larger application differences on both systems are the applicable law and arbitrability. Moreover, ICSID system and the international treaties or agreements offer higher protection to the foreign investor, the arbitration with the Brazilian public administration, can be more protective to the state, especially because of the use os local laws.