In Europe of the Middle Ages, there existed an autonomous regime of truly private international business law based upon the customs and usages of merchants, the Law Merchant, administered in lay tribunals. The courts and legislators usurped the jurisdiction of the lay tribunals, and subverted the Law Merchant to municipal law. Arbitration was similarly subverted to municipal courts and strict legal controls. The courts continued to guard their jurisdiction jealously into the 20th century, when nations came to realize the inadequacy of national legal systems for international business problems, and the desire of business to escape parochial legal concerns and municipal courts. Canada adopted the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law in 1986, which maximize party and arbitral autonomy and restrict court interference with arbitration. These new laws would permit the resurrection of an autonomous regime of international commercial dispute settlement largely divorced from national law and court controls, if the courts cooperate. This thesis is the first comprehensive, up-to-date study (of which I am aware) of Canadian case law on arbitration in the context of the history of autonomous commercial dispute resolution from the its zenith in the Middle Ages through its nadir, to its present attempted resurrection. This thesis shows that the courts of Canada continue to guard their jurisdiction jealously, finding the means in old notions and precedents to justify their refusal to cede jurisdiction to arbitrators. The courts have ignored the policies underlying the new laws, have failed to apply international precedents and standards, and have continued to apply notions and precedents from an era hostile to arbitration.

This thesis analyses three issues raised by the application of the general principles of law to commercial arbitration. First, it is essential to assess the core and the substance of the general principles of law. Our first hypothesis purports that the UPICC reduces considerably the uncertainty of the general principles of law in international trade. Secondly, an analysis of the nature of the UPICC is needed, in order to determine whether they have the essential features of a transnational norm and can thus escape the application of national legal norms. We will thus analyse the existing mechanisms to assure the autonomy, of PUCCI, from national law. Thirdly, we will analyse the legitimacy of the UPICC. In doing so, we shall refer to the concept of reflexive legimitacy, a legitimacy obtained through the consensus of the merchant community. This reflexive legitimacy over the UPICC is generally admitted. Two rules within the UPICC, however, raise doubts and concerns over their acceptability in the merchants' community: the hardship and the gross disparity provisions. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

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.

Zugl.: Diss.

Thesis (LL. M.)--University of Toronto, 2007. / Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 45-06, page: 2918.

Thesis (M.A.)--City University of Hong Kong, 2008. / "The School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, dissertation." "Programme: MAADR, LW6409A" Title from PDF t.p. (viewed on June 1, 2009) Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (LL.M.). / Written for the Faculty of Law. Title from title page of PDF (viewed 2009/09/07). Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D.) - University of Queensland, 2005. / Includes bibliography.

In Europe of the Middle Ages, there existed an autonomous regime of truly private international business law based upon the customs and usages of merchants, the Law Merchant, administered in lay tribunals. The courts and legislators usurped the jurisdiction of the lay tribunals, and subverted the Law Merchant to municipal law. Arbitration was similarly subverted to municipal courts and strict legal controls. The courts continued to guard their jurisdiction jealously into the 20th century, when nations came to realize the inadequacy of national legal systems for international business problems, and the desire of business to escape parochial legal concerns and municipal courts. Canada adopted the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law in 1986, which maximize party and arbitral autonomy and restrict court interference with arbitration. These new laws would permit the resurrection of an autonomous regime of international commercial dispute settlement largely divorced from national law and court controls, if the courts cooperate. This thesis is the first comprehensive, up-to-date study (of which I am aware) of Canadian case law on arbitration in the context of the history of autonomous commercial dispute resolution from the its zenith in the Middle Ages through its nadir, to its present attempted resurrection. This thesis shows that the courts of Canada continue to guard their jurisdiction jealously, finding the means in old notions and precedents to justify their refusal to cede jurisdiction to arbitrators. The courts have ignored the policies underlying the new laws, have failed to apply international precedents and standards, and have continued to apply notions and precedents from an era hostile to arbitration. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

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.