Arbitrations involving states and foreign private parties are a complex phenomenon, sharing certain animating values with other forms of adjudication, particularly international arbitrations of private commercial disputes, but reflecting at the same time singular values that must be fostered if the institution is to play a beneficial role in the international community. A study of institutional forms of arbitration designed primarily to resolve commercial disputes between private parties reveals that their emphasis upon stability and upon the certainty and predictability of rules can make such institutions inappropriate for the arbitration of disputes involving states. Regimes designed specifically to regulate arbitrations between states and foreign private entities may be more successful in displaying sensitivity to the needs and aspirations of both public and private parties, but the work of the largest specialised institution, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, is hampered by its governing Treaty for it does not deal adequately with the enforcement of awards against states. Ad hoc arbitration continues to be a useful means of resolving commercial disputes between states and foreign private parties, especially because the parties are free to design or to choose a delocalised procedural law which need not hinder enforcement. The great difficulty with all forms of arbitration between states and private entities is the substantive law to be applied by such tribunals. Under the principle of the autonomy of the will, the parties are free to choose the governing law, and they may select international law. If they do so, however, the choice does not imply that the foreign private party is assimilated to a state or that the international responsibility of the state party is engaged directly vis-a-vis the private party. The enforcement of arbitral awards is also a troubling problem, but recent municipal case law reveals a growing pro-enforcement bias. Nevertheless, the experience of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal reveals the significant advantages that accrue to the parties if they agree in advance upon an independent enforcement mechanism. The political tensions inherent in most "mixed" arbitrations demand flexibility in the application of procedural and substantive rules, and require an approach to dispute resolution that emphasises the value of compromise. As such, the awards that emerge from mixed arbitrations are likely to be idiosyncratic or, at the very least, vague. Nevertheless, if one stresses the importance of process values rather than the elaboration of substantive rules, arbitration between states and foreign private parties can play an important role in the enhancement of the international rule of law.

Thesis: M.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, 1975 / Bibliography: leaves 110-112. / M.S. / M.S. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management

This thesis examines the role of necessity, as a defence to State responsibility, in international law. Necessity provides a State with a defence to the responsibility that would otherwise arise from its breach of an international obligation where the only way that State can safeguard an essential interest from a grave and imminent peril is to breach an obligation owed to a less imperilled State. It is a defence that has generated a considerable body of jurisprudence in recent years and yet it continues to be plagued by a perception that States have abused it in the past and by fears that States will abuse it in the future - 'necessity', declared the German Chancellor on the eve of World War I, 'knows no law'. This thesis contends that this perception is flawed and these fears are unfounded. The main claim of this thesis is that necessity operates as a safety valve within the law of State responsibility that mediates between the binding quality of international obligations and the harsh consequences that may follow from requiring compliance with those obligations at all costs. This safety valve promotes the reasonable application of international law and it recognises that international law must sometimes bend so that it does not break. The thesis bears out this claim by contending that necessity has a stronger pedigree than is commonly appreciated and that it is solidly grounded in, and its contours are constrained by, customary international law. It charts those contours by first examining the scope of the obligations to which necessity may provide a defence, which includes examining how necessity relates to fields of law that contain their own safety valves regulating emergency situations. It then proceeds to examine the conditions that a State must satisfy in order to establish necessity and it finally examines the consequences of necessity, including for the stability of international law. The thesis concludes that any suggestion that 'necessity knows no law' has no place in international law today.

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2002 / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Arbitration is widely regarded as an important alternative to litigation, particularly for international commercial disputes. However, concern currently exists that arbitration is becoming too slow and too expensive, partly through using procedures too similar to those in the courts. Effective arbitration requires suitable legislation, the support of the parties and their lawyers and appropriate initiatives from the arbitral tribunal. The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985 is the internationally accepted standard against which the quality of a nation's legislation for international commercial arbitration must be measured. A crucial aspect regarding suitable legislation is the role of the courts. This thesis is essentially concerned with steps which have been taken or need to be taken in Germany and South Africa to achieve effective arbitration. It commences with a brief overview of the sort of delaying tactics which are often encountered in international arbitration practice, including abuse of the court's powers of supervision and intervention. The reception in Germany and South Africa of the UNCITRAL Model Law is then discussed. In Germany it has been adopted for both domestic and international arbitration. The South African Law Commission has recommended its adoption in South Africa for international arbitration. The Law Commission has however recommended a new separate statute for domestic arbitration because of the perceived need for remedial measures to ensure improved arbitration procedures. The thesis then examines the effect of the court's powers on effective arbitration, particularly prior to the award. The current South African law is discussed as well as the changes proposed by the Law Commission in the context of domestic and international arbitration. The South African position is compared with that in Germany, both before and since the introduction of the UNCITRAL Model Law in 1998. After a general discussion of the powers of the court in the context of arbitration, two aspects are identified for special attention. The first is the power of the tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction and the interaction between the powers of the court with those of the tribunal in this regard. The second concerns the granting of interim measures in the context of arbitration proceedings, with particular attention to security for costs. In certain circumstances, and depending on the applicable rules and legislation, it may be more appropriate for a party to seek such relief from the tribunal, whereas in slightly different circumstances it may be preferable to seek such relief from the court. Finally, steps are considered, which can usefully be taken by the arbitral tribunal itself to promote effective arbitration by using the flexibility of the process. The extent to which the tribunal is "master of its procedure" and thereby able to counter delaying tactics effectively is subject to the doctrine of party autonomy. Specific techniques for more effective arbitral procedures are suggested, namely a more interventionist approach, the use of preliminary meetings, imposing timetables, improving the hearing, the effective use of documentary evidence and discovery and finally the possibility of documents-only arbitration. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Arbitrasie word wyd beskou as 'n belangrike alternatief tot litigasie, veral by internasionale handelsgeskille. Kommer bestaan egter tans dat arbitrasie te stadig en te duur word, gedeeltelik deur die gebruik van prosedures wat te veel met dié van die howe ooreenstem. Doeltreffende arbitrasie vereis geskikte wetgewing, die ondersteuning van die partye en hulle regsverteenwoordigers en toepaslike inisiatiewe deur die arbitrasietribunaal. Die "UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration" van 1985 is die internasionaal aanvaarde standaard waarteen die gehalte van 'n land se wetgewing vir internasionale kommersiële arbitrasie gemeet moet word. 'n Kritieke oorweging by geskikte wetgewing is die rol van die howe. Hierdie tesis behandel die stappe wat in Duitsland en Suid-Afrika reeds geneem is of wat nog geneem moet word om doeltreffende arbitrasie te bewerkstellig. Dit begin met 'n kort oorsig oor die soort vertragingstaktiek wat dikwels in die internasionale arbitrasiepraktyk raakgeloop word, insluitende misbruik van die hof se bevoegdhede van toesighouding en inmenging. Die ontvangs van die "UNCITRAL Model Law" in Duitsland en Suid-Afrika word bespreek. Die wet is in Duitsland vir sowel binnelandse as internasionale arbitrasie ingevoer. Die Suid-Afrikaanse Regskommissie het sy invoering vir internasionale arbitrasie in Suid-Afrika aanbeveel. Die regskommissie het egter 'n nuwe afsonderlike wet vir binnelandse arbitrasie aanbeveel weens die gewaarde behoefte aan regstellende middele om verbeterde arbitrasieprosedures te verseker. Die tesis ondersoek daarna die uitwerking van die hof se bevoegdhede op doeltreffende arbitrasie, veral voor die arbitrasietoekenning. Die huidige Suid-Afrikaanse reg en die wysigings, wat deur die Regskommissie vir internasionale en binnelandse arbitrasie voorgestel word, word oorweeg. Die Suid-Afrikaanse posisie word met dié van Duitsland, voor en na die invoering van die "UNCITRAL Model Law" in 1998, vergelyk. Na 'n algemene bespreking van die hof se bevoegdhede in die samehang van arbitrasie word twee sake vir besondere aandag gekies. Die eerste is die bevoegdheid van die arbitrasietribunaal om oor sy eie jurisdiksie te beslis en die wisselwerking tussen die hof se bevoegdhede en dié van die arbitrasietribunaal in hierdie verband. Die tweede het betrekking op die toestaan van tussentydse regshulp in die samehang van arbitrasieverrigtinge, met besondere verwysing na sekuriteit vir koste. In besondere omstandighede, met inagneming van toepaslike reëls en wetgewing, behoort 'n party verkieslik sodanige regshulp by die arbitrasietribunaal aan te vra, terwyl in effens ander omstandighede behoort die partyeerder die hof te nader. Ten slotte word stappe oorweeg wat nuttig deur die arbitrasietribunaal self geneem kan word om doeltreffende arbitrasie aan te moedig deur die buigsaamheid van die arbitrasieproses te benut. Die mate waarin die tribunaal meester van sy prosedure is en daardeur vertragingstaktiek doeltreffend kan bekamp, is onderworpe aan die leerstuk van partyoutonomie. Bepaalde tegnieke word voorgestelom meer doeltreffende arbitrasieprosedures te bevorder, naamlik 'n meer intervensionistiese benadering, die gebruik van reëlingsvergaderings, die oplegging van 'n rooster vir die arbitrasie, verbetering van die verhoorproses, die doeltreffende gebruik van skriftelike getuienis en blootlegging en laastens die moontlikheid van arbitrasie slegs op dokumente.

This thesis examines the law on international commercial arbitration in England, Japan and Russia with a view to identify those areas for which harmonisation is of the greatest practical importance. This study is a timely one, since the Arbitration Act 1996 came into effect on 1st January 1997 in England. In Japan, the Committee of Arbitration formed by Japanese experts on arbitration prepared the Draft Text of the Law of Arbitration in 1989, and preparation for amendment based on the UNCITRAL Model Law is under way. In Russia, the Law on International Commercial Arbitration was established based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on 7th July 1993. A comparative study is made of the rules of international private law relating to arbitration, especially issues on international jurisdiction. Despite of recent development of unification of law on arbitration such as the 1958 New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law, there are few rules in this area. This study goes some way towards filling this gap in the legal framework. The classification of an arbitration agreement and its influences upon international private law and law on arbitration are also considered. The issue of classification has been argued by many commentators usually to attempt to clarify the general characteristics of arbitration. However, it is the classification of an arbitration agreement that has practical significance. The classification of an arbitration agreement affects, directly or indirectly, not only the international private law but also law on arbitration. Its effects extend to the law applicable to an arbitration agreement, the law applicable to the capacity of a person to enter into an arbitration agreement, the principle of separability of an arbitration agreement, assignment of an arbitration agreement, the principle of Kompetentz-Kompetentz, and the stay of court proceedings on the basis of the existence of an arbitration agreement. Finally, this comparative study is used as a basis to put forward models for harmonisation in the interpretation of law on arbitration.

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) is a regional economic community established by Treaty in 1992 and comprising fifteen southern African countries. The Tribunal, SADC’s judicial organ, is situated in Windhoek, Namibia and became operational in 2005. The Tribunal enjoys a wide mandate to hear and determine disputes between states, states and SADC, and between natural and legal persons and states or SADC. It is mandated to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to applicable treaties, general rules and principles of public international law, and principles and rules of law of member states. Being new in the field, the Tribunal has not as yet developed a significant jurisprudence although it has delivered a number of judgments some of which are referred to in the study. The Tribunal is expected to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to the jurisprudence developed by other international courts involved in the judicial settlement of disputes. The study offers a comparative review and analysis of the jurisprudence of two selected courts: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). The focus is on four selected areas considered crucial to the functioning of the Tribunal and the selected courts. The study discusses the parties with access to the Tribunal and compares this with access to the ICJ and ECJ. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is contrasted with that of the two selected courts. The sources of law available to the Tribunal are discussed and contrasted to those of the two courts. Lastly, the enforcement of law in SADC is contrasted to what applies in relation to the selected courts. In each selected area, similarities and differences between the Tribunal and the two courts are noted and critically evaluated. Further, rules and principles developed by the two selected courts are explored in depth with a view to identifying those which could be of use to the Tribunal. Recommendations are made on rules and principles which could be of use to the Tribunal and on possible improvements to the SADC treaty regime. / Constitutional, International and Indigenous Law / LL.D.

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) is a regional economic community established by Treaty in 1992 and comprising fifteen southern African countries. The Tribunal, SADC’s judicial organ, is situated in Windhoek, Namibia and became operational in 2005. The Tribunal enjoys a wide mandate to hear and determine disputes between states, states and SADC, and between natural and legal persons and states or SADC. It is mandated to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to applicable treaties, general rules and principles of public international law, and principles and rules of law of member states. Being new in the field, the Tribunal has not as yet developed a significant jurisprudence although it has delivered a number of judgments some of which are referred to in the study. The Tribunal is expected to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to the jurisprudence developed by other international courts involved in the judicial settlement of disputes. The study offers a comparative review and analysis of the jurisprudence of two selected courts: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). The focus is on four selected areas considered crucial to the functioning of the Tribunal and the selected courts. The study discusses the parties with access to the Tribunal and compares this with access to the ICJ and ECJ. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is contrasted with that of the two selected courts. The sources of law available to the Tribunal are discussed and contrasted to those of the two courts. Lastly, the enforcement of law in SADC is contrasted to what applies in relation to the selected courts. In each selected area, similarities and differences between the Tribunal and the two courts are noted and critically evaluated. Further, rules and principles developed by the two selected courts are explored in depth with a view to identifying those which could be of use to the Tribunal. Recommendations are made on rules and principles which could be of use to the Tribunal and on possible improvements to the SADC treaty regime. / Constitutional, International and Indigenous Law / LL.D.