Principen jura novit curia anses vedertagen i svensk processrätt. Det har dock ansetts osäkert om, och i så fall hur, principen ska tillämpas i internationella skiljeförfaranden. Uppsatsen utreder därför gränserna för hur jura novit curia får tillämpas i internationella skiljeförfaranden i Sverige utan att skiljedomen kan klandras framgångsrikt. I uppsatsen definieras principen enligt följande: 1) Rättstillämpningsfriheten: Rätten/skiljenämnden är inte bunden av de rättsregler (rättsliga kvalifikationer) som parterna åberopat eller diskuterat under processen. 2) Rättsutredningsplikten: Parterna behöver inte bevisa innehållet i gällande rätt och rätten/skiljenämnden är omvänt skyldig att ex officio utreda hur gällande rätt ska förstås oaktat vilka rättskällor parterna presenterat. 3) Överraskningsfriheten: Rätten/skiljenämnden är inte skyldig att genom materiell processledning låta parterna yttra sig över ”nya” rättsregler eller rättsliga kvalifikationer som rätten/skiljenämnden överväger att göra. Inledningsvis djupanalyseras principens ställning i svenska domstolsförfaranden och rent svenska skiljeförfaranden. Därefter analyseras hur principen diskuteras i svensk doktrin, i svensk klanderdomspraxis och enligt SCC-regelverket. Vidare följer en översiktlig komparativ analys med studier av hur jura novit curia tillämpas i bland annat England, Schweiz, Danmark och Argentina samt under ett antal internationella instrument och institut såsom ICSID, UNCITRAL, ALI/UNIDROIT och ILA. Sammantaget är slutsatserna i uppsatsen följande: Rättstillämpningsfriheten gäller i internationella skiljeförfaranden i Sverige. En skiljedom torde alltså inte kunna klandras enbart för att en skiljenämnd ex officio tillämpat andra rättsregler än de parterna hänfört sig till. Nämnden har dock möjlighet att ålägga parterna att presentera bevisning om rättens innehåll, vilket innebär någon absolut rättsutredningsplikt inte finns. Analysen visar slutligen att någon absolut överraskningsfrihet inte finns, men att det är oklart hur stor oförutsebarhet i rättstillämpningen som krävs för att det ska vara fråga om ett klanderbart handläggningsfel. Givet att LSF kräver att handläggningsfelet ska ha ”inverkat på utgången” i målet för att skiljedomen ska åsidosättas torde det dock i praktiken vara endast i undantagsfall som överraskande rättstillämpning de facto leder till ett åsidosättande av en skiljedom. / The principle jura novit curia is considered a fundament of Swedish Procedural Law. Yet there are doubts as to whether, and if so how, the principle applies in international arbitration. In this thesis it is investigated how jura novit curia can be applied in international arbitration taking place in Sweden without the award being annulled. In the thesis, the principle is defined as follows: 1) Freedom to apply the law: A court/tribunal is not bound by the legal arguments and qualifications made by the parties in the case. 2) Duty to investigate the law: The parties do not have to prove the law and consequently a court/tribunal is obliged to research and ascertain the law ex officio. 3) Freedom to surprise: A court/tribunal is not obliged to let the parties comment on the legal sources or rules of law that it considers to apply on the case. Initially the application of jura novit curia in Swedish courts and domestic arbitrations is deeply analyzed. Furthermore, the discussion among Swedish scholars and the application in case law and under the SCC framework is presented. Thereafter follows a brief comparative analysis on how jura novit curia is applied in England, Switzerland, Denmark and Argentina, as well as its application under a number of international instruments and institutions such as ICSID, UNCITRAL, ALI/UNIDROIT and ILA. In short, the conclusions of the thesis are: The freedom to apply the law applies in international arbitration in Sweden since an arbitral award can most likely not be annulled only because a rule of law that was not invoked by the parties was applied. However, an arbitral tribunal has the power to require the parties to present legal arguments and legal investigations, which means there is no absolute duty to investigate the law. The analysis shows that there is no absolute freedom to surprise, although it is uncertain how much unpredictability is needed for an award to be annulled due to procedural error. However, given that the Swedish Arbitration Act additionally requires a procedural error to have “influenced the outcome of the case” in order for an award to be annulled, it is likely that it is only exceptional examples of unpredictable application of law that would actually lead to an annulment.

Is it advisable for a State to eliminate the annulment action of its Law of Arbitration? Can the parties, by virtue of their party autonomy, waive the annulment action?.In the present article, the author demonstrates that the annulment action has a psychological and a legal-political basis, since, on the one hand, it satisfies the psychological need to challenge or contradict, which is inherent of human beings and; on the other, within the framework of Constitutional State it constitutes a democratic tool that guarantees the control of power. / ¿Es aconsejable que un Estado elimine el recurso de anulación de su Ley de Arbitraje? ¿Pueden las partes en virtud de su autonomía privada renunciar al recurso de anulación?.En el presente artículo, el autor demuestra que el recurso de anulación tiene un sustento psicológico y un sustento jurídico-político, puesto que satisface, por un lado, la necesidad psicológica de impugnar o contradecir, la cual es inherente el ser humano y; por el otro, en el marco de un Estado Constitucional constituye una herramienta democrática que garantiza el control de poder.

O presente trabalho tem por objeto o fenômeno dos procedimentos paralelos em arbitragem internacional, uma realidade decorrente do aumento dos fluxos econômicos e relações comerciais entre empresas originárias de diferentes países ou entre empresas e entes estatais originários de diferentes países. Essa multiplicidade de procedimentos se traduz na existência de duas arbitragens entre as mesmas partes, sobre a mesma relação jurídica e decorrente da mesma cláusula compromissória; de duas ou mais arbitragens relativas a um grupo de contratos, com diferentes cláusulas compromissórias, envolvendo as mesmas partes; ou ainda uma arbitragem e uma ação judiciais simultâneas relativas à mesma relação jurídica, entre as mesmas partes, decorrente de cláusula compromissória e cláusula de eleição de foro respectivamente. A arbitragem de investimento, sobretudo, é campo fértil para essa proliferação de procedimentos paralelos oriundos do mesmo investimento, envolvendo investidores diretos ou seus acionistas, com base em tratados bilaterais de investimento (TBIs) ou em contratos. Entretanto, sendo a arbitragem o mecanismo de solução de controvérsias comumente utilizado em contratos internacionais, surgem questões complexas para a regulação dessa problemática. A fim de sistematizar o estudo e responder às indagações sobre a maneira de solucionar e regular os efeitos negativos dos procedimentos paralelos (por exemplo, o risco de decisões contraditórias, a multiplicidade de procedimentos contra o mesmo réu e o excessivo custo despendido nesses procedimentos), dividimos o trabalho da seguinte maneira. Preliminarmente, o tema é introduzido pela conceituação dos procedimentos paralelos e de seus tipos, conflitantes e não-conflitantes. Posteriormente, divide-se o trabalho em duas partes. Na Primeira Parte, são examinados os clássicos princípios da litispendência (Capítulo I) e da coisa julgada (Capítulo II) como medidas para evitar o risco de procedimentos paralelos entre as mesmas partes, mesma causa de pedir e mesmo pedido adotados em países de Civil Law e suas variáveis em países de Common Law, tais como forum non conveniens para a hipótese de litispendência e pleas of estoppel para os efeitos da coisa julgada. Na Segunda Parte, é analisada a possibilidade ou não da transposição da litispendência (Capítulo I) e da coisa julgada (Capítulo II) à arbitragem internacional, além de outros mecanismos mitigadores dos efeitos decorrentes dos procedimentos paralelos em arbitragem internacional, como a conexão de procedimentos e o joinder de uma nova parte; e, em arbitragem de investimento, waiver, fork in the road clause e parallel treaty arbitrations (Capítulo III). / This thesis aims to analyze the phenomenon of parallel proceedings in international arbitration, a reality that emerges from the increase in economic activity and business transactions among companies from different countries or among companies and State entities whose business places are located in different countries. This multiplicity of proceedings can be manifested in a number of scenarios: the existence of two arbitrations between the same parties concerning the same legal relationship and arising out of the same arbitration agreement; two or more arbitrations related to a group of contracts, providing for different arbitration agreements, involving the same parties; or even an arbitration and a court action based on an arbitration agreement and a choice of fórum clause, respectively, simultaneously pending related to the same legal relationship, between the same parties. Investment arbitration, especially, is a breeding ground for the proliferation of parallel proceedings arising out of the same investment, involving direct investors or their shareholders, based on bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or on contracts. However, the regulation of such problematic scenarios raises complex questions, since arbitration is the mechanism for settlement of disputes commonly used in international contracts. In order to systematize this study and to answer questions of how to overcome and regulate the negative effects of parallel proceedings (such as the risk of contradictory decisions, the multiplicity of proceedings against the same respondent and the high costs incurred in these proceedings), this thesis is divided as follows: Preliminarily, the subject matter is introduced by the definition of parallel proceedings and its different types, such as conflicting and non-conflicting parallel proceedings. Subsequently, this thesis is divided into two parts. In the First Part, the classical principles of lis pendens (Chapter I) and res judicata (Chapter II) will be examined as measures to avoid the risk of parallel proceedings between the same parties, the same cause of action and the same object as adopted in the Civil Law countries and its variations in Common Law countries, such as forum non conveniens to the hypothesis of lis pendens and pleas of estoppel to the res judicata effects. The Second Part presents an analysis of the possibility of the transposition of lis pendens (Chapter I) and res judicata (Chapter II) to the field of international arbitration, as well as other mechanisms to mitigate the effects related to parallel proceedings in international arbitration for instance, the consolidation of two arbitrations and joinder of a new party to the arbitration and, in investment arbitration, waiver, fork in the road clause and parallel treaty arbitrations (Chapter III).

No description available.

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.

International investment agreements largely cover today’s transnational investments. These agreements confer certain substantive rights to foreign investors while simultaneously obliging host-states to act in a given manner so as to not interfere with the investments. Most international investment agreements further contain an arbitration clause which provides the investor with the means to enforce the substantive rights of the agreement by directly bringing a claim against the host-state before an arbitral tribunal. Consequently, privately contracted arbitrators have the authority to scrutinize and overrule essentially any sovereign act of the host-state that may affect the investment – judicial and legislative acts included. This practice affects not only the parties of the dispute; when the arbitral award claims superiority to the state’s electoral choices, it further constrains the exercise of sovereignty by the population of the host-state. As a result, the arbitrators who manage the disputes and the investors who initiate them have become central power-holders in the context of both international and domestic law. Meanwhile, the arbitrators and investors alike seem to be unaccountable to the states and individuals who are adversely affected by their power assertions. A commonly accepted feature of democracy is that those who govern and wield power should be accountable to those who are governed and subjected to this power. This thesis relates this notion to a Foucauldian understanding of power, domination and resistance. The primary aim of the thesis is to examine the interplay between the prominent subjects involved in investor-state arbitration and to what degree these subjects hold power in the form of transformative capacity. After this investigation into the relations of power, the thesis scrutinizes the subjugated subjects’ ability to exercise effective resistance through institutionalized accountability mechanisms. The thesis detects an accountability deficit in the regime and concludes that foreign investors and arbitrators hold a dominant position within the context of investor-state arbitration, while states and individuals find themselves in a state of domination. The international investment regime, as it currently stands, is thus found to suffer from a democracy deficit, while it concurrently seems to undermine domestic democratic institutions.

The thesis answers the question "How does the change in effective control affect investment protection mechanisms in the Ukraine - Russia BIT against the temporal scope of when investment was made?". The essence of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, territorial and temporal scope of the Ukraine - Russia BIT were analyzed according to the rules of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Relevant case law, doctrine and available information on the awards in "Crimean cases" were also parts of the analysis. A conclusion was made that changes in effective control activate BIT protection for Ukrainian investors in Crimea against actions of Russian Federation. As a result, investment arbitral tribunals have jurisdiction in cases where investment has not been initially made in the territory of the host state. The date of Russian Federation consent to arbitrate with Ukrainian investors in Crimea is the date of actual change in effective control.

L’arbitrage public international est demeuré un domaine exclusif aux États souverains jusqu’à la fin des années 50, alors que sont apparus les traités bilatéraux relatifs aux investissements (TBI). La principale caractéristique de ces TBI est sans conteste le recours direct de l’investisseur étranger en arbitrage international contre des États récalcitrants, une alternative aux tribunaux locaux souvent inefficaces. Plus récemment, en 1998, l’organe d’appel de l’OMC est allé jusqu’à accepter l’opinion d’amicus curiae dans un différend opposant des États et aujourd’hui, l’admission de ce type d’opinion est expressément prévue dans plusieurs TBI de nouvelle génération. Mais si l’investisseur bénéficie d’un recours devant une instance arbitrale neutre, il en va tout autrement pour la population locale qui se trouve souvent lésée par la présence, sur son territoire, d’investisseurs étrangers. Le droit de présenter une opinion ne peut remplacer le droit de faire valoir une réclamation. Se pose donc la question : est-ce que, dans le contexte actuel du droit de l’investissement international, des tiers (par rapport aux parties signataires de TBI et par rapport aux parties au différend) peuvent prétendre à une voie de recours direct en arbitrage international? Nous sommes d’avis qu’une telle voie de recours est actuellement possible et que le contexte de l’arbitrage relatif à l’investissement constitue un terrain fertile pour la mise en place de ce droit, étant donné la place déjà faite aux investisseurs. Nous verrons que les principales objections à l’admission de tiers à l’arbitrage international peuvent être rejetées. L’objection de l’absence du consentement des parties intéressées tombe quand on constate les nombreux cas d’arbitrage international où la portée du consentement a été étendue pour inclure des non-parties ou encore pour soumettre à l’arbitrage des matières non envisagées au départ. Par ailleurs, l’absence de qualité pour agir en droit international est un problème théorique, car les investisseurs y ont déjà accès malgré l’absence de cette qualité. Reste donc à déterminer quelle pourrait être la base d’un recours en droit substantiel international pour qu’un tiers puisse faire valoir une réclamation. Nous verrons qu’il existe des instruments juridiques et des principes internationaux dont la contravention pourrait très bien engager la responsabilité de l’État ou de l’investisseur fautif, tout comme il est possible de bien circonscrire les critères d’admissibilité des tiers à la procédure d’arbitrage international. / International arbitration has remained an exclusive domain sovereign states until, in the late 50s, came the first bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The main feature of these BITs is undoubtedly the right, granted to investors, to direct international arbitration against recalcitrant States, an alternative to often ineffective local justice. More recently, in 1998, the appellate body of the WTO went to accept the opinion of an independent amicus curiae in a dispute between State members. Today, the admission of such opinions is clearly provided for in several recent BITs. But if investors benefit from a right of action before a neutral international arbitration body, the situation is quite different for the local population, who is often affected by the presence of foreign investors on its territory. The right to submit an opinion cannot replace the right to legal action. This therefore raises one question: in the current context of international investment law, is it possible for third parties (non signatories of BITs and not parties to the dispute) are entitled to a remedy direct international arbitration? We are of the opinion that the answer to this question is: yes. And the context of investment arbitration, because of the right to direct arbitration against States already granted to investors, constitutes a fertile ground for the implementation of this right of action in favour of third parties. The objection based on the absence of the parties’ consent to such right of action has been set aside in many international arbitration cases where the scope of consent has been extended to include non-parties or to submit to arbitration matters not contemplated at first. Also, the objection based on the absence of legal standing of third parties in International Law proves to be theoretical as foreign investors already have access to international justice despite the lack of this quality. There remains to determine what substantial International Law will constitute a valid legal basis for a third party claim. We will see that there exists legal instruments and international principles and that their violation by States or investors may result in the obligation to compensate the prejudice suffered, as well as it is possible to clearly define and indentify who the third parties could be.

La délimitation des frontières maritimes revêt une importance capitale pour un grand nombre États, que cela soit d’un oint de vue symbolique, culturel, stratégique ou économique. Néanmoins, le droit international conventionnel reste au mieux largement ambigu, au pire entièrement silencieux sur la question de savoir quelles sont les méthodes précises pour résoudre les éventuels différends entre États pouvant surgir lors de la délimitation de leurs espaces maritimes. Face à ces ambiguïtés et silences conventionnels et face aussi à une pratique étatique incohérente et dépourvue d’une opinio juris, c’est principalement dans leur propre vision que les juridictions internationales ont puisé la règle de l’équidistance/circonstances pertinentes, en vertu de laquelle toute délimitation maritime décidée, quel que soit l’espace maritime considéré, y inclus le plateau continental étendu, et quelle que soit la configuration côtière, débute par la construction d’une ligne d’équidistance provisoire. Cette ligne pourra éventuellement être modifiée pour tenir compte descirconstances particulières de chaque affaire dans une deuxième phase de la délimitation. En dépit de la consécration claire et – une première dans l’histoire de la CIJ – unanime de la règle de l’équidistance/circonstances pertinentes dans l’affaire de la Délimitation maritime en mer Noire en 2009, de nombreuses zones d’ombre et difficultés d’ordre technique existent dans sa mise en œuvre pratique par les cours et tribunaux internationaux, notamment en ce qui concerne le risque d’une part trop importante de subjectivité, voire d’arbitraire, particulièrement en ce qui concerne le choix des points de base et le rôle joué par la proportionnalité. De même, afin de garantir une « matérialisation » efficace de la frontière maritime décidée sur le « terrain », une collaboration étroite entre le juriste d’une part et le cartographe, l’hydrographe, le géologue et le géographe d’autre part s’impose. / The delimitation of maritime boundaries is of utmost importance for many states, whether on a symbolic, cultural, strategic or economic level. Nevertheless, international treaty law is at best largely ambiguous, at worst entirely silent as to what the precise methods for resolving possible disputes that might surface during the delimitation process are. Confrontedwith these ambiguities and silences, but also with incoherent state practice devoid of any opinio juris, it is primarily from their own vision that international jurisdictions have drawn the equidistance/relevant circumstances rule, according to which, regardless of the maritime zone concerned, including the extended continental shelf, and regardless of the coastalconfiguration, every decided maritime delimitation begins with the establishment of a provisional equidistance line. This line can later be modified in a second phase of the delimitation to take into account the particular circumstances of each case. In spite of the unequivocal and – a premiere in the history of the Court – unanimous consecration of theequidistance/relevant circumstances rule by the ICJ in the Delimitation in the Black Sea case in 2009, numerous unsettled areas and technical difficulties remain in the delimitation process, notably regarding the risk of too great a degree of subjectivity, if not arbitrariness, particularly regarding the choice of the base points and the role to be played by proportionality. Likewise, in order to guarantee a smooth “materialisation” of the border on the “ground”, a close collaboration between the jurist on the one hand and the cartographer, geologist, hydrologist and geographer on the other hand is indispensable.

L’outre-mer comprend des régions, des pays et des territoires aux statuts divers et au passé hérité en grande partie des grandes puissances européennes, ce qui les a placés dans une communauté d’intérêts avec les Etats auxquels ils sont rattachés mais aussi avec l’Union européenne (UE).Néanmoins, ces régions, pays et territoires n’ont eu cesse de reconstruire entre eux des liens historiques et culturels et de tisser des relations avec l’ensemble de l’outre-mer afin de présenter une cohérence d’ensemble dans leur négociation avec l’Union européenne.Les régions ultrapériphériques appliquent le droit communautaire tandis que les pays et territoires d’outre-mer, situés en dehors du territoire communautaire, connaissent un régime d’association avec l’Union européenne.Le Danemark, l’Espagne, la France, les Pays-Bas, le Portugal et le Royaume-Uni ont procédé aux réformes constitutionnelles autorisant de multiples évolutions statutaires dans le respect du droit à l’autodétermination des populations.Forts d’une évolution statutaire et d’un développement économique et social continu, les régions, pays et territoires d’outre-mer souhaitent maintenant faire valoir leurs droits et défendre leurs intérêts au niveau européen et sur la scène internationale.La globalisation des politiques les incite à se regrouper au sein d’institutions internationales. Le rattachement de ces territoires à des Etats de droit leur a ouvert la voie à des systèmes juridiques bien structurés mais aussi aux valeurs européennes. Leur ultrapériphérité les a placés dans une situation géopolitique qui les a fait accéder aux relations internationales.L’objet de cette thèse est de démontrer l’interdépendance entre ces différents ordres juridiques et l’influence du droit européen et du droit international sur l’évolution statutaire de l’outre-mer vers davantage d’autonomie, mais aussi de responsabilisation et de prise en charge de son développement au moyen d’une implication dans son environnement régional, d’une coopération inter-régionale ou transnationale et d’une participation aux travaux des organisations internationales. / The Overseas regions, countries and territories present various statuses inherited mainly from the major European Powers which placed them in a relationship of a common interest not only with their mother countries but also with the European Union (EU).However, these territories have continuously re-built between them historical and cultural links, and weaved relationship within the entire Overseas to appear as a constituted whole while negotiating with the EU.The outermost regions (OR) apply Community Law while the Overseas Countries and territories (OCT) situated outside the territory of the Community, have Association Arrangements with the EU.Denmark, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom have proceeded to necessary constitutional reforms to allow numerous articles amendments in respect of right to self-determination of peoples.At the light of statutory amendments and of a continuous economic and social development, the Outermost regions (OR) and the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT), now wish to assert their rights and to defend their interests at European and International level.Globalisation of policies encourages OR and OCT to gather within International bodies. The rule of law of the related countries opens them to well-structured legal systems and to European values. The outermost geopolitical localisation makes them to have access to international relations.The purpose of this thesis is to demonstrate the interdependence between these different legal systems and the impact of European and International Law on the statutory amendments of the Overseas towards more autonomy, but also liabilities and involvement on their own development by using their regional environment, inter-regional and transnational cooperation and taking part at the works of international organisations.