No description available.

Note:

University of Technology, Sydney. Faculty of Law. / The paper examines the evolution of the recognition and enforcement of "foreign" arbitral awards prior to the introduction of the various international arbitration conventions by referring to court decisions of the relevant countries, primarily the United States and the United Kingdom. The scope and importance of the New York Convention will be canvassed, with specific reference to cases. The Dissertation traces the evolution of judicial and legislative attitudes towards arbitration (in particular, the issue of arbitrability), from the original position of antipathy towards arbitral processes, to the active promotion of arbitration and a "hands-off" approach to its processes by legislators as well as courts. The introduction of the arbitral process to developing countries will be discussed in the context of some recent controversial arbitrations in Indonesia and Pakistan. Public policy as the criterion for the enforcement of awards by national courts will be discussed and relevant authorities referred to. The reasoning adopted by courts in this area will be examined and discussed. The paradigm shift in the enforcement of awards and the leeway granted within the parameters of the arbitral decision making process will be highlighted by two case studies. Both demonstrate clearly the current negation of public policy considerations. The first is a decision of the English Court of Appeal which was mirrored by a subsequent arbitration awardin 'which the discarding of public policy considerations was particularly remarkable as constitutional issues were involved, which normally would have given rise to the expectation of deliberations as to the notions of public policy. NOTE CONCERNING "UNITED KINGDOM" AND "ENGLISH" LAW The title of the Dissertation inter alia refers to the " ... laws of ... the United Kingdom." Within the text, there are references to both the "United Kingdom" and "England." The constitutional and legislative position in the United Kingdom is perhaps more complex than in other jurisdictions and a brief outline is necessary. United Kingdom Parliament Parliament is called the "Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." (Great Britain is comprised of England, Scotland and Wales). The United Kingdom Parliament comprises the monarch, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Until relatively recently, Parliament was regarded as the supreme law-making body within the United Kingdom; however, European Community law is now paramount within the United Kingdom's constitutional framework. The legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament is presumed to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, although there can be an express or implied exclusion of a part of the United Kingdom from the operation of a particular Act. Legal systems England and Wales have the one legal system. As from the Sixteenth Century, "English law" has prevailed in Wales. Scotland has a distinct legal system and its own courts, with, in civil matters, rights of appeal to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Northern Island also has its own courts, with rights of appeal to the House of Lords in both civil and criminal matters. Devolution The United Kingdom Parliament has legislated for the devolution of power to regional assemblies - to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Island Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales. The Scottish Parliament has the power to pass primary legislation, subject to certain subject matters being reserved by the United Kingdom Parliament. The Northern Ireland Assembly also has power to enact primary legislation, but the Northern Ireland Assembly is also presently suspended. The National Assembly for Wales has no power to enact primary legislation - that power remains with the United Kingdom Parliament. Consequently, at present, the Scottish Parliament alone has power to pass legislation which has equal force to that of the United Kingdom Parliament. Dissertation In relation to the expressions used in the Dissertation; generally, references to legislation will be referred to as United Kingdom legislation, as Parliament is the United Kingdom Parliament. It should also be noted that it is the United Kingdom which is the contracting State to the New York Convention. References to decisions of the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal will be described as "United Kingdom" and "English" decisions respectively. As noted above, whilst each of Scotland and Northern Ireland has its own courts, there are rights (in the case of Scotland, in civil matters only). of appeal to the House of Lords. The House of Lords, consequently, hears appeals from the whole of the United Kingdom. The English Court of Appeal is the Court of Appeal for the unitary system of England and Wales. Given that "English law" was historically also the law of Wales, it is more appropriate to refer to decisions handed down by it as "English" decisions. Decisions of other Courts (such as Queen's Bench and Chancery) will also be referred to as "English" decisions.

No description available.

University of Technology, Sydney. Faculty of Law. / The paper examines the evolution of the recognition and enforcement of "foreign" arbitral awards prior to the introduction of the various international arbitration conventions by referring to court decisions of the relevant countries, primarily the United States and the United Kingdom. The scope and importance of the New York Convention will be canvassed, with specific reference to cases. The Dissertation traces the evolution of judicial and legislative attitudes towards arbitration (in particular, the issue of arbitrability), from the original position of antipathy towards arbitral processes, to the active promotion of arbitration and a "hands-off" approach to its processes by legislators as well as courts. The introduction of the arbitral process to developing countries will be discussed in the context of some recent controversial arbitrations in Indonesia and Pakistan. Public policy as the criterion for the enforcement of awards by national courts will be discussed and relevant authorities referred to. The reasoning adopted by courts in this area will be examined and discussed. The paradigm shift in the enforcement of awards and the leeway granted within the parameters of the arbitral decision making process will be highlighted by two case studies. Both demonstrate clearly the current negation of public policy considerations. The first is a decision of the English Court of Appeal which was mirrored by a subsequent arbitration awardin 'which the discarding of public policy considerations was particularly remarkable as constitutional issues were involved, which normally would have given rise to the expectation of deliberations as to the notions of public policy. NOTE CONCERNING "UNITED KINGDOM" AND "ENGLISH" LAW The title of the Dissertation inter alia refers to the " ... laws of ... the United Kingdom." Within the text, there are references to both the "United Kingdom" and "England." The constitutional and legislative position in the United Kingdom is perhaps more complex than in other jurisdictions and a brief outline is necessary. United Kingdom Parliament Parliament is called the "Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." (Great Britain is comprised of England, Scotland and Wales). The United Kingdom Parliament comprises the monarch, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Until relatively recently, Parliament was regarded as the supreme law-making body within the United Kingdom; however, European Community law is now paramount within the United Kingdom's constitutional framework. The legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament is presumed to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, although there can be an express or implied exclusion of a part of the United Kingdom from the operation of a particular Act. Legal systems England and Wales have the one legal system. As from the Sixteenth Century, "English law" has prevailed in Wales. Scotland has a distinct legal system and its own courts, with, in civil matters, rights of appeal to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Northern Island also has its own courts, with rights of appeal to the House of Lords in both civil and criminal matters. Devolution The United Kingdom Parliament has legislated for the devolution of power to regional assemblies - to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Island Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales. The Scottish Parliament has the power to pass primary legislation, subject to certain subject matters being reserved by the United Kingdom Parliament. The Northern Ireland Assembly also has power to enact primary legislation, but the Northern Ireland Assembly is also presently suspended. The National Assembly for Wales has no power to enact primary legislation - that power remains with the United Kingdom Parliament. Consequently, at present, the Scottish Parliament alone has power to pass legislation which has equal force to that of the United Kingdom Parliament. Dissertation In relation to the expressions used in the Dissertation; generally, references to legislation will be referred to as United Kingdom legislation, as Parliament is the United Kingdom Parliament. It should also be noted that it is the United Kingdom which is the contracting State to the New York Convention. References to decisions of the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal will be described as "United Kingdom" and "English" decisions respectively. As noted above, whilst each of Scotland and Northern Ireland has its own courts, there are rights (in the case of Scotland, in civil matters only). of appeal to the House of Lords. The House of Lords, consequently, hears appeals from the whole of the United Kingdom. The English Court of Appeal is the Court of Appeal for the unitary system of England and Wales. Given that "English law" was historically also the law of Wales, it is more appropriate to refer to decisions handed down by it as "English" decisions. Decisions of other Courts (such as Queen's Bench and Chancery) will also be referred to as "English" decisions.

The creation of a binding adjudication system under the Dispute Settlement Understanding ("DSU") is one of the major successes of the WTO. However, while the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") has experienced a high level of compliance with its rulings, there have been enough failures to raise concerns about compliance with WTO rulings. This in turn endangers the long term viability and legitimacy of the WTO as a decision-making body. This thesis explores the possibility of more effective integration of arbitration as a means of dealing with a small number of problematic cases where compliance with a ruling is doubtful. It considers arbitration as an alternative to what has effectively become an institutionalized litigation system involving panels and the Appellate Body, and as an adjunct to the diplomatic resolution of disputes, particularly for policy driven cases where compliance with WTO rulings is more doubtful. While proposals for the use of arbitration made during the Uruguay Round of negotiations leading to the creation o f the WTO have been realized in the provisions of the DSU, arbitration has never been effectively tested as a true alternative. Further, arbitration as an alternative to the litigation system has been almost entirely ignored in the context of the current debate over reform of the WTO dispute settlement system. After over a decade of WTO decision making, it is now an opportune point to consider meaningful institutional reform that more fully incorporates arbitration as an alternative form of dispute settlement at the WTO in politically difficult cases, and that builds on the existing but underused arbitration provision in Article 25 of the DSU. This thesis challenges the predominant bias towards the litigation system involving panels and the Appellate Body as a one-size-fits-all solution. It explores the potential role of arbitration, in the context of compliance theories, a historical review of the negotiations during the Uruguay Round, and an analysis of the shortcomings of the current DSU that contribute to the problems of non-compliance. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

This thesis analyses how and to what extent the contractual and treaty instruments interact in protecting upstream energy contracts against political interference by the host state. The study considers whether the interaction between the upstream contracts and international investment treaties provide effective protection for the upstream investors and whether the interaction between them prevents the host state from exercising its regulatory rights. By examining both jurisdictional and substantive aspects of the interaction between these two instruments, the study found that political risks in the upstream industry are not effectively mitigated and managed. The study therefore calls for a higher degree of interaction between these two instruments. This can be achieved by drafting the relevant upstream contracts and investment treaties in a more interactive manner so that they would together provide maximum protection for the upstream investors.

Arbitration is the preferred method of dispute resolution in international trade. Naturally, a set of rules is necessary to govern the conflict&rsquo / s resolution. For cultural, political, economical or other reasons the parties&rsquo / national laws may not serve the individual interests and needs of that particular contract well. If one wants to avoid the application of both parties&rsquo / national laws, one can choose that the contract be governed by an a-national legal standard, e.g. general principles of International Trade Law or the general usages of a particular trade. These internationally accepted principles of law governing contractual relations are called lex mercatoria (law merchant).<br /> <br /> Lex mercatoria already existed in the Middle Ages and can even be dated back to antiquity. Later it disappeared through the nationalization of International Trade Law and was rediscovered in the 1950s, when international traders were again creating their own law and disputes were increasingly resolved outside of the national jurisdictions and applying a-national law. Lex mercatoria is being applied more and more by arbitrators and is therefore becoming increasingly important for dispute resolution in International Trade. Numerous different concepts and theories of lex mercatoria have been developed. Its being an autonomous legal system is questioned by some authors and the doctrine in favour of it called unfounded. The critics also argue that the authority to apply lex mercatoria may be a recipe for amateurism and the substitution of the arbitrator&rsquo / s private preferences for the parties&rsquo / intentions, for itis easy to proclaim common principles on the basis of limited knowledge. The lex mercatoria is said only to exist because scholars talk about it. However, these and other allegations can be refuted by critically analyzing the arguments that are supposed to underline those assumptions. Applying lex mercatoria to solve international trade disputes has many advantages. By choosing lex mercatoria the parties avoid rules which are unfit for international contracts, e.g. peculiar formalities, brief cut-off periods and special difficulties created by domestic laws. In addition to that, neither of the parties has the advantage of having the dispute governed by his own law. Since one of the central rules is the principle of good faith and fair dealing, lex mercatoria neither leads to arbitrary results nor does it favour the rich. Is it possible for the arbitrators to apply lex mercatoria if no law has been chosen by the parties? The failure of the parties to indicate a choice could well mean that they did not wish to have their contract governed by any of their national laws. In some awards arbitrators applied lex mercatoria as they considered the community of international merchants to be autonomous and to exist beyond national legislation. However, it cannot be deduced from the absence of such a choice that the parties have impliedly chosen lex mercatoria to be the law governing the conflict. Lex mercatoria is applicable only as a subsidiary law in cases where no national law has been chosen and seems apt.

No description available.

Thesis (LL.M.)--Victoria University of Wellington, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references.