This study is concerned with the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the relevant regimes in the GCC states, both local law and international conventions. The easy enforceability of arbitral awards is considered one of the main factors in the success of international commercial arbitration. Thus this thesis not only attempts a comprehensive analysis of the requirements of and procedures for recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in the GCC States, but also evaluates whether the GCC’s laws and practices comply with best international practice standards, especially as embodied in the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The thesis comprises of seven chapters. The first chapter examines the legal framework of the GCC States, and provides a brief history of the rules governing arbitration and the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Chapter two looks at general principles regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Chapter three covers jurisdictional elements in the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in the GCC States. Chapter four examines the procedural steps demanded by each state for the enforcement of an award, looking particularly at the impact of relevant international conventions on these issues. Chapter five deals with the evidence which must be tendered and the conditions that must be satisfied in order to obtain the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the GCC States. Chapter six examines the grounds on which a respondent may apply to dismiss an application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. Chapter seven then deals with the grounds on which a foreign arbitral award must be refused enforcement. The concluding chapter summarises the problems thrown up by the study, and suggests a common way forward for the legal systems of the states of the Arabian Gulf in dealing with these issues.

Benché ampiamente studiata con riferimento al contenzioso interno, la res judicata ha ricevuto minore attenzione nella sua “dimensione internazionale”. Il presente lavoro si propone di esplorare i profili incerti degli effetti di giudicato delle “decisioni non domestiche”, intese come decisioni non provenienti dalle corti del foro, e in particolare delle sentenze straniere e dei lodi arbitrali internazionali. Nel tentativo di superare almeno parte delle incertezze e dei problemi della prassi attuale, in relazione alle sentenze straniere si sostiene che i relativi effetti di giudicato vengano determinati sulla base della teoria dell’estensione assoluta degli effetti, la quale assicura certezza giuridica transnazionale ed è consona alla moderna evoluzione liberale delle norme sul riconoscimento. Quanto ai lodi arbitrali, si propone che le istituzioni arbitrali adottino, nei propri regolamenti, ampie regole preclusive che riflettano la natura e gli obiettivi del procedimento arbitrale. Le soluzioni proposte condividono l’idea che gli effetti di giudicato di una “decisione non domestica” dovrebbero essere determinati in linea di principio dal “sistema” a cui la decisione appartiene, sebbene l’adozione di un approccio unitario risulti problematica quando questioni di giudicato sorgono tra corti statali e tribunali arbitrali in maniera da compromettere l’autonomia dell’arbitrato internazionale. / Although extensively studied in domestic litigation, res judicata has received less attention in its “international dimension”. This work seeks to navigate the uncharted waters of the res judicata effects of “non-domestic decisions”, understood as decisions that are not rendered by the courts of the forum, and in particular of foreign judgments and international arbitral awards. In an attempt to overcome at least part of the uncertainties and problems of the current practice, as regards foreign judgments it is proposed that their res judicata effects be determined based on the theory of the absolute extension of effects, which ensures cross-border legal certainty and accords with the modern liberal evolution of recognition rules. As regards arbitral awards, it is suggested that arbitral institutions adopt, in their regulations, broad preclusive rules that reflect the nature and objectives of the arbitral process. The proposed solutions share the idea that the res judicata effects of a “non-domestic decision” should be in principle determined according to the “system” to which the decision belongs, although the adoption of a unitary approach is challenged when res judicata issues arise between state courts and arbitral tribunals so to jeopardize the autonomy of international arbitration.

En arbitrage international comme dans la majorité des systèmes de droit, la réparation du dommage est une question essentielle dans la résolution des litiges et implique la détermination d’un dommage réparable et de l’étendue de la réparation, ainsi que l’évaluation de ce dommage. L’arbitrage d’investissement, qui tranche les litiges entre Etats et investisseurs étrangers, personnes privées, est au carrefour entre les droits nationaux et le droit international, entre responsabilité contractuelle et responsabilité internationale des Etats, entre droit commercial et droit public, et reflète ainsi l’ensemble des problématiques récurrentes soulevées par la réparation du dommage. La publicité fréquente des sentences rendues en la matière permet d’analyser les solutions qu’y apportent les tribunaux arbitraux, révélant l’existence d’une réelle pratique cohérente et développée. L’étude de la jurisprudence arbitrale d’investissement montre une coexistence de questions de fait et de droit, de problématiques juridiques et économiques, tout au long du processus de détermination du dommage et de l’étendue de la réparation, puis de celui de la détermination du montant accordé à la victime. Les exigences juridiques de certitude, prévisibilité et causalité du dommage, de même que les principes de réparation intégrale et adéquate, sont influencés de manière significative par des considérations économiques et d’équité. Dans le mouvement inverse, les règles financières qui sont appliquées par les arbitres pour l’évaluation du dommage, indépendamment du droit applicable, sont de plus en plus juridicisées. Identifier ce corps de règles applicables à la réparation du dommage et l’application qui en est faite dans l’arbitrage d’investissement constitue une clarification nécessaire pour permettre aux acteurs internationaux de connaître l’étendue de leurs droits et obligations. / In international arbitration, as in most legal systems, compensation of damage is a key part of dispute resolution. It is a threefold process: the arbitral tribunal decides on compensable damage, then on the extent of compensation, and finally, evaluates damage. Investment arbitration, which settles disputes between states and foreign investors - private entities - is at the crossroads between national and international law, between contractual liability and international state liability, between commercial and public law, thus covering the wide scope of issues raised by compensation of damage. The awards given in this field are often made public, allowing for an analysis of the – thoroughly consistent – solutions brought forward by arbitral tribunals. This study shows how, throughout the process of compensation of damage, questions of fact and law as well as legal and economic issues are raised. The legal requirements of certainty, foreseeability and remoteness of damage are significantly impacted by the economic context and by the notion of fairness. Conversely, the financial rules applied throughout the process of damage evaluation, without taking into account applicable law, are increasingly governed by law. Identifying the corpus of rules that are applied throughout the process of compensation of damage, and studying the way these rules are applied in investment arbitration therefore represents a useful tool for international bodies seeking to understand their own rights and duties.

Arbitration proceedings as a means of dispute resolution in international law with regard to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards Resumé Arbitration as a method of settlement of disputes settlement has enjoyed growing popularity in recent several years. Arbitration stands between other alternative means of dispute settlement and the common court trial as a alternative dispute resolution. Although negotiation, good offices, mediation, conciliation, inquiry, mini-trial, medarb or meadaloa are often used forms of the dispute settlement their awards cannot be enforced by the state authority. Those means are popular mainly in the business field where the parties are interested in the cooperation and where they aim to clear up some misunderstanding or technical problems rather than solve major disputes between them. While the dispute should be solved by the binding way the parties would choose the arbitration as a legally framed procedure. Arbitral awards are then able to be enforced and the parties also have more exact boundaries for the whole procedure. However, there is no unified definition of the arbitration, it could be described as a legal technique where the parties bring claim before one or more neutral persons (arbiters or arbitral tribunal) by whose award the parties agree to be...

Le principe du contradictoire post-arbitral en matière d’arbitrage international est établi dans la majorité des systèmes juridiques. Toutefois, les décisions des juges étatiques montrent que l’adhésion générale à ce concept masque d’importantes différences concernant sa portée et son application. Cette thèse ne vise point à établir une description théorique du contenu du principe, elle propose une analyse qualitative, dont l’objectif essentiel est la vérification de son individualité, et non le fait qu’il est une simple application du principe civiliste classique. Loin de constater l’adoption définitive d’un concept arbitral autonome, la solution retenue démontre l’opportunité et, donc, le besoin de sa légitimation, ayant un impact direct sur la circulation des sentences arbitrales internationales. En fin de compte, hors de tout encadrement statique, il y a lieu de détecter, à travers la progression de l’étude, une évolution logique et une activité d’apurement au niveau du droit comparé. Cette évolution, d’un principe classique vers un concept arbitral international, à lecture contractuelle et non-statutaire, contenant une règle d’égalité, puis vers un outil technique en état de disparition, ne peut que dévoiler la période d’agonie dans laquelle se place le concept en cause. Cet aboutissement ne contribue pas seulement à souligner les errements conceptuels préjudiciables en jurisprudence comparée, il concourt également à marquer l’un des traits les plus émancipatoires du processus arbitral international. Dans cette optique, une telle conjoncture participerait à l’accélération de la privatisation de la justice arbitrale internationale. / The post-arbitral adversarial principle in international arbitration is established in most legal systems. However, decisions of state judges show that general support for this concept masks significant differences in terms of its scope and application. This thesis does not aim to outline a theoretical description of the principle’s content ; it provides a qualitative analysis, the main objective of which is to ascertain its individuality, and not the fact that it is a mere application of the classic civil principle. Far from establishing the definitive adoption of an autonomous arbitral concept, the solution demonstrates the appropriateness and, therefore, the need for its legitimation, and has a direct impact on the movement of international arbitral awards. Ultimately, beyond any static framework, through the progress of the study, a logical development and regularisation activity with respect to comparative law should be detected. This development, from a classical principle to an international arbitration concept, to a contractual and non-statutory reading, containing a rule of equality, and thereafter to a technical tool which is disappearing, can only reveal the death throes in which the concept in question finds itself in. This outcome not only serves to highlight the detrimental conceptual errors in comparative case law, it also helps to mark one of the most emancipatory features of the international arbitration process. In this respect, such a situation would contribute to the accelerated privatisation of international arbitration proceedings.

1/3 ABSTRACT STATE IMMUNITY AT THE DAWN OF THE 21ST CENTURY: TWILIGHT OR RENAISSANCE? JAROSLAV KUDRNA, ESQ., LL.M. State immunity is a foundation of public international law. Sovereign immunity is based on the fundamental principle of international law, namely the equality of states - par in parem non habet imperium. State immunity is thus a manifestation of state sovereignty and states demonstrate respect for the sovereignty of other states by according immunity to foreign states appearing before their courts. The principle of state immunity is a dynamic area of public international law. State practice is continually evolving through national laws and court rulings. The aim of this thesis is to describe the current development of state immunity and to identify possible future trends. Another objective is to draw from current developments and offer practical recommendations on state immunity for both investors and states. The 20th century can be described as a twilight of state immunity: an absolute theory of state immunity shifted towards a restrictive one. That century witnessed the decline and fragmentation of state immunity. In contrast, if the UN Convention on jurisdictional immunities of states and their property enters into force and is ratified by a large number of states, state immunity might...

Dans un contexte où le recours au mécanisme des lois de police apparaît de plus en plus fréquent et facilité sur le plan des conflits de lois, la perte d’impérativité que connaissent ces dispositions du fait des solutions libérales retenues sur le plan des conflits de juridictions, conduit à s’interroger sur la possibilité d’apporter des correctifs. En droit positif, l’admission généralisée des clauses de prorogation de for, étatique et arbitral, malgré l’applicabilité d’une loi de police, associée à un système de reconnaissance pratiquement automatique des jugements étrangers et des sentences arbitrales au stade du contentieux de l’exequatur, conduit à rendre ces dispositions globalement semi-nécessaires dans les rapports internationaux. Alors que la mise en œuvre des lois de police devant un for étatique étranger ou arbitral apparaît très incertaine et que la violation de ces dispositions ne fait pas obstacle à la reconnaissance d’un jugement ou d’une sentence qui les aurait négligées, les clauses de prorogation de for apparaissent comme des instruments à la disposition des parties pour se livrer au forum shopping et contourner les impérativités étatiques. Cette solution, paradoxale et peu satisfaisante, compte tenu de l’importance et de la nature des intérêts par principe mis en cause à travers ces dispositions, incite à envisager une solution permettant de restaurer l’impérativité des lois de police dans les conflits de juridictions. Dès lors que ce résultat apparaît comme la conséquence du maintien du principe traditionnel de l’indépendance des compétences législative et juridictionnelle malgré le lien existant entre forum et jus en matière de lois de police, ce constat conduit à s’interroger sur la possibilité de déroger exceptionnellement à ce principe pour consacrer un forum legis impératif et exclusif, fondé sur l’applicabilité d’une telle disposition. Cette solution, restaurant efficacement l’impérativité des lois de police dans leur for d’origine, devrait néanmoins être associée à la mise en place d’un mécanisme de coordination des systèmes permettant de prolonger son efficacité devant les fors étrangers. Il pourrait trouver ses fondements dans certains procédés préexistants, susceptibles d’être adaptés à la réalisation de l’objectif de protection des impérativités étatiques poursuivis. La mise en place de différents mécanismes, apparentés à celui du forum non conveniens, fondés sur un système de coopération interjuridictionnelle ou inspirés de la méthode de référence à l’ordre juridique compétent envisagée par P. Picone, pourrait permettre d’assurer, à l’étranger, le respect des lois de police du for dans des hypothèses différentes. De manière transversale, la restauration de l’impérativité des lois de police pourrait être assurée grâce à un recours à la notion d’ordre juridique prépondérant. Désignant un ordre juridique dont une loi de police mettant directement en cause un intérêt étatique réellement fondamental serait applicable au fond du litige, elle devrait pouvoir fonder la reconnaissance de la vocation plus forte de celui-ci à faire valoir ses vues pour la résolution d’un litige. Elle pourrait fonder à la fois la revendication de compétence juridictionnelle prioritaire de celui-ci pour trancher le différend et un effacement des fors étrangers pour faire prévaloir le point de vue qu’il retient. Une telle solution, étroitement délimitée et justifiée au regard de l’importance des intérêts mis en cause, assurerait une solution satisfaisante permettant à la fois d’articuler harmonieusement la poursuite de la politique libérale qui s’impose dans les conflits de juridictions avec le respect des lois de police et de réconcilier la protection des impérativités étatiques avec la coordination des systèmes. / In times of mandatory provisions becoming more and more prevalent, based on conflict of law, the concept of mandatory enforcement appears to be somehow diluted regarding the liberal solutions found in conflicts of jurisdictions. In positive law, mandatory rules do not prevent the enforcement of a forum clause, no more than they are considered during the enforcement stage of decisions. While the application of these rules before foreign courts and arbitrators is very uncertain and does not raise obstacles to the recognition of foreign judgments or arbitral judgment which overlook them, choice of forum clauses has become an instrument of forum shopping in order to avoid mandatory regulations. This solution paradoxically induces a search for a solution to restore there international imperativity. This result has appeared as a consequence of the principle of separation of conflicts of law and conflicts of jurisdictions. That observation leads to ask questions about the possibility of an exemption to this general principle. Indeed, this encourages to consider the possibility to admit a correlation between forum and jus in order to establish imperative and exclusive competence, based on the applicability of such mandatory rules. This forum legis would require to maintain the litigation in its courts and could ensure their application in international relations. However, unilateralism that governs rules of judicial competence should involve the establishment of a mechanism of different legal systems coordination. Depending on the type of mandatory rules concerned, it could be based on an adapted form of forum non conveniens, on international judicial Co-operation processes, or be inspired by the method of reference to the competent legal order envisaged by P. Picone. The deployment of these solutions could be based on using preponderant state notion, that would be the one with the most widely public policy involved. It would lead to the recognition of the strong vocation of it to assert its views for the resolution of a dispute and would justify both the priority jurisdiction of its courts and circumspection of the other jurisdictional authorities to exercise their competence. Such a solution, tightly defined and justified in view of the importance of the interests involved, would provide a satisfactory solution to both harmoniously articulate the pursuit of liberal politics required in conflicts of jurisdictions with respect of public policy, and reconcile the protection of imperativities with the coordination of legal systems.