Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:27:43Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Adriano Cesar Braz Caldeira.pdf: 1061457 bytes, checksum: ae0cab21c651ef05d3d78ff6ec83675f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-08-12 / This essay has as purpose a legal institution that is subject of frequent controversies amongst law scholars and case law, to wit, lis pendens between collective actions, and between the latter and individual ones. In spite of the existence of excellent works mentioned in the bibliography hereof on lis pendens among such kinds of actions, they are very limited as regards individual actions. We understood that dealing with collective action complying with merely and strictly those rules applicable to individual lawsuits is a mistake, with all due respect. This paper aims at analyzing which are those actions that may be considered as collective indeed. Thus, Civil Public Action, Popular Action, Collective Mandamus, Collective Injunction Order, Direct Unconstitutionality Action, Action for Declaration of Constitutionality, Argumentation of a Basic Principle Breach, Action against Dishonesty in Administration. This paper carries out a preliminary analysis of issues like legitimacy, the very concept of party, the internal formation of lawsuits (parties, claim, and cause of action), the effects resulting from the decision, so that the main issue may be eventually dealt with. It is concluded that there are two criteria of setting lis pendens between those institutions: one of them, traditional, characterized whenever the same internal elements of a lawsuit are present; another, that takes into account the claim s identity, although some internal elements may be different. This thesis points out further contrarily from what is observed in lis pendens for individual actions that in collective actions the lawsuit should not be dismissed, but rather gathered together, by virtue of a possible higher extent thereof, as it can occur with the cause of action, and as a way of preventing the other action s holder s free access to the Judiciary / O trabalho, que ora se apresenta, tem por objeto tratar de uma figura, objeto de constantes polêmicas na doutrina e na jurisprudência, qual seja, a litispendência entre as demandas coletivas e entre estas e as individuais. Nada obstante tenhamos na bibliografia excelentes obras, cuidando da figura da litispendência entre estas espécies de demandas, fazem-no, salvo raras exceções, restritivamente com relação ao processo individual. Entendemos que tratar do processo coletivo com olhos fixos nas regras de processo individual, data maxima venia, configura um erro. O trabalho procura analisar quais são as demandas verdadeiramente coletivas e, assim, encontramos a Ação Civil Pública, Ação Popular, Mandado de Segurança Coletivo, Mandado de Injunção Coletivo, Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade, Ação Declaratória de Constitucionalidade, Argüição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental, Ação de Improbidade Administrativa. Procura analisar de modo prévio as questões da legitimidade, do conceito de parte, da formação interna das demandas (partes, pedido e causa de pedir), os efeitos decorrentes da decisão, para que, ao final, possa tratar do tema principal. Conclui que existem dois critérios de configuração da litispendência entre estas figuras: um, tradicional, que se verifica quando da presença dos mesmos elementos internos da demanda; outro que leva em consideração a identidade de pretensão, ainda que distintos alguns dos elementos internos. Observa ainda que, diferentemente do que se verifica na litispendência entre demandas individuais, entre as demandas coletivas, o processo não deve ser extinto, mas reunido, em razão da eventual amplitude, como pode ocorrer com a causa de pedir, e como forma de negar ao titular da outra demanda a liberdade do acesso à justiça

L’essor théorique de l’arbitrage international observé dans les dernières décennies n’a pas toujours été accompagné par le développement d’instruments d’application de ses représentations conceptuelles. L’idée d’un ordre juridique arbitral détaché des ordres étatiques est défendue dans un souci de systématisation théorique du problème plutôt que de résolution pratique du litige entre les parties. En même temps, la justice choisit de s’intéresser plutôt à la solution de l’ordre qu’à celle de l’équité. Nous proposons alors d’examiner les principales distorsions résultant de l’intervention étatique dans l’arbitrage international à partir de cette perspective, soit-elles relatives à la convention (comme les mesures provisoires et référés étatiques ou les contestations de la clause compromissoire), soit-elles relatives à la sentence, spécialement autour de l’exequatur des sentences annulées. Nous présentons la litispendance, les anti-suit injunctions, la res judicata et les tentatives de dialogue entre les différents fors comme des instruments aptes au contrôle de ses déviances, lesquels sont encore trop limités par un raisonnement d’application généralisant, déductif et amoral, fondé sur la méthode du droit international privé, qui n’a plus sa place dans l’arbitrage international. Face à ces distorsions, nous proposons alors la doctrine de l’abus de droit pour permettre un retour vers l’intérêt des parties dans l’arbitrage international. Sans négliger l’importance du « droit », correspondant aux représentations théoriques de l’arbitrage international, cette notion peut néanmoins en saisir les « abus ». La doctrine de l’abus apporte alors une conception matérielle, flexible et finaliste aux mécanismes de contrôle de l’arbitrage international. On ne parlera alors plus de distorsions de l’ordre juridique arbitral, mais d’abus de l’ordre juridique arbitral. / The academic success of international arbitration in the last decades has not always been followed by the consequent development of concrete instrument for its practical applications. The concept of an arbitral legal order detached from national legal systems is defended by doctrine not so much as an useful instrument for practical case resolution, but firstly as a problem of raising a logic and coherent legal scheme. We propose to analyze the main distortions caused by the conflict between this theoretical perspective of an autonomous legal order and the practical matters involved in the pragmatic courts intervention in international arbitration, either relating to the arbitral convention (provisional measures, violation of the arbitration clause) or to the arbitral award, specifically regarding the problem of recognizing annulled awards. We present lis pendens, anti-suit injunctions, res judicata and the efforts of dialogue between jurisdictions judging the sentence regularity as the main instruments contributing to a dialogue, and thus, as instruments to control its possible distortions. However, those mechanisms are deployed through a reasoning that is still too generic, amoral and based in principles of private international law, in a state-centered perspective that cannot serve the international arbitration scheme today. From this finding, we suggest the abuse of rights doctrine as a group of different objectives and subjective standards allowing implementing those mechanisms to control international arbitration in a much more appropriate way, considering its autonomous and material characteristics, embodied in the doctrinal pursuit of an arbitral legal order. This doctrine brings a more flexible, material and finalistic perspective to the international arbitration instruments, approaching the parties interests and leaving a purely conflictual method which is not anymore appropriate in this field. There will be not anymore only distortions of an arbitral legal order, but abuses of that same arbitral legal order.

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).

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).

Dans la nouvelle ère de la mondialisation, les règles du droit international privé sont passées de la rigidité à la flexibilité, et la tendance à la modernisation et à la codification a commencé à fusionner. Toutefois, pour des raisons historiques, les systèmes juridiques de la plupart des pays asiatiques sont moins développés que ceux des pays occidentaux. Afin de répondre à la demande croissante de relations civiles et commerciales internationales, le droit international privé asiatique doit être amélioré. Lorsque des différends internationaux sont soumis à la Cour, la compétence est la première question que celle - ci doit examiner. Dans la pratique des procédures internationales, le demandeur, afin d'obtenir de meilleurs résultats, soumet le différend au tribunal compétent, généralement dans son pays de résidence. Afin de réduire au minimum les intérêts du demandeur, le défendeur soumettra le différend à ses tribunaux nationaux. Par conséquent, une procédure parallèle entre les deux tribunaux entraînerait un conflit de compétence. En Amérique du Nord, dans l'Union Européenne et au Royaume - Uni, les mécanismes de traitement des litiges parallèles sont plus développés et devancent les pays asiatiques. La présente étude fournit donc une évaluation objective et complète des systèmes juridiques des pays asiatiques, à savoir la Chine, la Corée du Sud et le Japon, qui traitent des litiges internationaux parallèles. Par rapport aux États - Unis, au Canada, à l'Union Européenne, au Royaume - Uni et à d'autres pays développés, cette thèse vise à trouver une voie favorable au développement du droit international privé Chinois et à promouvoir l'unification des règles de compétence civile internationale. Tout d'abord, la Chine devrait continuer à améliorer la législation sur le forum non conveniens, et à assouplir les exigences trop strictes. Deuxièmement, la Chine devrait mettre en oeuvre la pratique judiciaire du droit de la propriété intellectuelle en matière d'injonction reconventionnelle de cesser de poursuivre à l'étranger dans la législation ou l'interprétation judiciaire, en limitant strictement les conditions et la portée de son application. Troisièmement, il est suggéré d'adopter un système à double modes pour la litipendance et d'inclure la première saisie et le pronostic de reconnaissance dans la condition de tribunal première saisie. Quatrièmement, il convient d'élargir le champ d'application de l'accord d'élection de for, d'en réduire progressivement les restrictions en ce qui concerne les liens matériels, les moyens écrits, la compétence, et d'y inclure le principe de la protection des droits et intérêts des faibles. Afin de mieux intégrer les tribunaux Chinois sur le marché international des tribunaux facultatifs, la Chine devrait promouvoir activement le processus de ratification de la Convention de la Haye de 2005 sur l'accord d'élection de for. Cinquièmement, dans le domaine de la reconnaissance et de l'exécution, la Chine conciliera les exigences de réciprocité au niveau de l'exécution et encouragera les procédures de reconnaissance. La politique de réciprocité de la Chine à ce stade est relativement conservatrice. Elle met davantage l'accent sur la protection de la souveraineté nationale que sur la promotion de la circulation des jugements internationaux. La Chine doit donc passer progressivement de la réciprocité matérielle à la réciprocité formelle et traiter les jugements étrangers avec plus d'ouverture d'esprit. Enfin, la Chine devrait promouvoir activement le processus d'adhésion à la Convention de la Haye de 2019. / In this new Era of globalization, the rules of Private International Law change from rigid to flexible, and the trends of modernization and codification begin to merge. The legal systems in a majority of Asian countries, however, are not as well developed as western countries due to historical reasons. To meet the increasing demands of international civil and commercial relationship, Asian Private International law has to be ameliorated. Jurisdiction is the first subject that a court must deal with when an international dispute is submitted before it. In the practice of international litigation, the plaintiff will bring dispute before his favorable court, usually in his resident country, in order to get a better result. To minimize the advantage of the plaintiff, the defendant will submit the dispute to a court in his own resident country. Therefore, the parallel proceedings running between these two courts will cause conflict of jurisdictions. In North America, the EU and the U.K., mechanisms dealing with parallel proceedings are more developed and are keeping ahead of Asian countries. Hence, this research provides an objective and comprehensive assessment of legal system dealing with international parallel proceedings in Asian countries, namely China, Korea and Japan. Through comparing them with the developed countries, such as the United States, Canada, the EU and the U.K., this thesis aims at finding a way to benefit the development of Chinese Private International Law, and to promote the unification of rules in international civil jurisdiction. This thesis proposes that, firstly, China should continue to improve the legislation of forum non conveniens, supplement and improve the definition of “more convenient court”, and relax the requirements that are too harsh. Secondly, China should implement the breakthrough judicial practice of intellectual property law on anti-suit injunction in the legislation or judicial interpretation, and strictly limit its application conditions and scope. Thirdly, it is suggested to adopt a dual mode system for lis pendens, and integrate first seized and recognition prognosis into the provisions of lis pendens in China. Fourthly, in terms of the choice of court agreement, we should expand its scope of application, reduce the restrictions on the choice of court agreement concerning substantive connection, “written method” and jurisdiction by level, and integrate the principle of protecting the rights and interests of the weak party into it. In order to better integrate Chinese courts into the international market of optional courts, China should actively promote the process of ratifying the 2005 Convention on the Choice of Court Agreement. Fifthly, in the field of recognition and enforcement, China in this regard is to reconcile the requirement of reciprocity at the enforcement level and facilitate the recognition procedure. China’s reciprocity at this stage is relatively conservative. It focuses more on the protection of national sovereignty rather than promoting the circulation of international judgments. Therefore, China needs to slowly transit from substantive reciprocity to formal reciprocity, and deal with foreign judgments with a more open mind. Finally, China should actively promote the process of acceding to the 2019 Judgment Convention.