Tarptautinio arbitražo atveju susiduriama su arbitražo sprendimo pripažinimo procedūra ne jo priėmimo valstybėje. Svarbiausias tarptautinis instrumentas, reglamentuojantis užsienio arbitražų sprendimų pripažinimo tvarką, yra 1958 m. Niujorko konvencija dėl užsienio arbitražų sprendimų pripažinimo ir vykdymo. Pagal 1958 m. Niujorko konvenciją funkcija pripažinti užsienio arbitražų sprendimus valstybėse paprastai priskiriama konkrečiam nacionaliniam teismui arba teismams. Pripažinimo klausimas sprendžiamas vadovaujantis Niujorko konvencijos V straipsnyje įtvirtintais atsisakymo pripažinti užsienio arbitražo sprendimą pagrindais. Siekiant efektyvaus ir vieningo pripažinimo mechanizmo veikimo, stengiamasi vienodinti nacionalines teisės normas Susitariančiose šalyse. Prie šio siekio svarbia dalimi prisidėjo 1985 metais Jungtinių Tautų Tarptautinės prekybos teisės komisijos (UNCITRAL) priimtas Tarptautinio komercinio arbitražo pavyzdinis įstatymas, kurio paskirtis – būti orientyru valstybėms priimant nacionalinius aktus šiuo klausimu. Jame, be kita ko, integruotos ir nuostatos dėl užsienio arbitražo sprendimų pripažinimo, parengtos vadovaujantis Niujorko konvencija. Ne mažiau svarbus ir vieningos teismų praktikos pripažįstant užsienio arbitražų sprendimus veiksnys. Tai kaip teismai taiko ir aiškina Niujorko konvenciją padeda įvertinti jos nuostatų efektyvumą, nustatyti ar tinkamai parengta nacionalinė teisinė bazė, reglamentuojanti užsienio arbitražų sprendimų pripažinimą. Šiuo... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / In a case of foreign arbitration it is inevitable to face the procedure of recognition of foreign arbitral award in a country where it was not enacted. 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards is the fundamental international instrument, which establishes the order of recognition of foreign arbitral awards. Pursuant to the 1958 New York Convention, the function to recognise foreign arbitral awards is attached to certain national court or courts. The question of recognition is solved following grounds on refusal to recognise foreign arbitral awards, which are set in the Article V of New York Convention. Due to the effective and united function of the recognition mechanism, it is endeavoured to uniform national law rules in the Contracting States. Contribution to this objective was added by 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on Commercial Arbitration, adopted by United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. The mission of this Law is to be a guide for the states in establishing their national laws on the subject. The Model law, among other regulations, integrates the provisions on recognition of foreign arbitral awards, which are laid in accordance with New York Convention. Unanimous practice of courts also is a factor of significant importance. The way national courts apply and interpret New York Convention helps to evaluate the efficiency of its provisions, identify whether the national legal base regulating recognition of foreign... [to full text]

Through this paper, the authors comment on the application of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, approved in New York on June 10, 1958, through the review of the most relevant case-law of the main jurisdictions in arbitration in Latin America. The following article provides a review of the different ground for refusal of recognition that a party can use to oppose the recognition of an award, revealing the criteria used by the courts to enforce or deny recognition of a foreign award. / A través de este artículo, los autores comentan la aplicación de la Convención sobre el Reconocimiento y la Ejecución de Sentencias Arbitrales Extranjeras, aprobada en Nueva York el 10 de junio de 1958, a través de la revisión de la jurisprudencia más relevante de las principales jurisdicciones en materia arbitral de América Latina. El siguiente artículo aporta una revisión de las diferentes causales que puede utilizar una parte para oponerse al reconocimiento de un laudo evidenciándose los criterios que emplean las cortes para amparar o denegar el reconocimiento de un laudo extranjero.

Le droit français a développé une politique législative et jurisprudentielle largement favorable à l’arbitrage dans tous ses aspects, notamment relativement à l’exécution d’une sentence arbitrale. La dernière réforme majeure du droit français de l’arbitrage a été adoptée en 2011. Dans le contexte de l’harmonisation mondiale du droit et de la pratique de l’arbitrage, la Convention de New York, destinée à faciliter la reconnaissance et l’exécution des sentences étrangères, a simplifié considérablement l’exécution de celles-ci. Néanmoins, l’exécution des sentences internationales est soumise à un contrôle judiciaire du tribunal étatique qui doit être en conformité avec son propre droit. Ainsi, dans la pratique, l’application du régime juridique peut largement varier d’un pays à l’autre. Une étude sur la Chine est un bon exemple dans ce contexte, puisque ses règlements d’arbitrage ont fait l’objet de réformes annuelles successives. À l’inverse des critiques concernant l’exécution des sentences étrangères sur le territoire chinois de la part des investisseurs et des auteurs étrangers, la doctrine et les rapports des chercheurs chinois se montrent plus positifs. L’objectif de cette thèse est d’offrir aux praticiens une vision claire et une image objective de la question d’exécution des sentences arbitrales en Chine. Elle est basée sur des analyses théoriques du régime juridique, des statistiques et de la pratique des tribunaux et présente l’état actuel du droit de l’arbitrage en Chine à travers une étude comparative (incluant Hong Kong et Taïwan). Dans ce vaste contexte social chinois, nous essayons de comprendre l’histoire, la pratique actuelle, les obstacles juridiques, les positions judiciaires et les perspectives de l’exécution des sentences arbitrales étrangères en Chine. Nous espérons que la prochaine réforme du droit de l’arbitrage en Chine trouvera inspiration dans la récente réforme du droit Français. / France revealed its long-awaited new arbitration law in January 2011. France had forged a legal and judicial framework that is significantly favorable to arbitration in every respect, particularly in the field of enforcement arbitral award. In the context of harmonisation of arbitration law and practice worldwide, the central purpose of the New York Convention was to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. It considerably simplifies the enforcement of foreign awards. Nonetheless, the enforcement of an international arbitral award always takes place through a national court operating under its own legislations. In practice, the application of this legal regime can vary significantly from one country to another. China provides a good case study on this background, its arbitration rules has gone through continuous process of reform every year. While the foreign investors and researchers have often claimed that enforcement in China is problematic, the Chinese authors and researchers present a more positive view. The aim of this research endeavours to present a unique insight and an objective picture of the enforcement of arbitral awards in China, based on a combination of theoretical analysis of legal regime, statistical information and practical insights. It explains the current arbitration law in China with a comparative approach (including Hong Kong and Taiwan). Setting Chinese arbitration in its wider social context, we try to understand the history, the contemporary practice, the legal obstacles, the judicial attitudes and the possible future trends in the field of enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. We hope that the recent French Arbitration Law would be an inspiration for the next reform of the PRC Arbitration Law.

No description available.

Le principe de coopération est considéré depuis longtemps comme l’une des pierres angulaires du droit international, toutefois, l’existence d’une obligation de coopérer en droit international reste encore controversée. Les ressources en eau, à cause de leur fluidité et de leurs multiples usages, démontrent toujours l’interdépendance humaine. En matière de cours d’eau transfrontaliers, la Convention de New York inclut explicitement dans son texte l’obligation générale de coopérer comme l’un de ses trois principes fondamentaux. Il nous incombe alors de voir quelle obligation de coopérer les États souverains s’imposent dans leurs pratiques ? Pour répondre à cette question, nous procédons tout d’abord à une étude positiviste du contenu normatif de l’obligation de coopérer. Nous constatons que l’incorporation de la notion de l’obligation de coopérer dans le principe de la souveraineté est une tendance manifeste du droit international qui a évolué du droit de coexistence composé principalement des règles d’abstention, au droit de coopération qui comporte essentiellement des obligations positives de facere, dont la plus représentative est l’obligation de coopérer. Néanmoins, il n’existe pas de modèle unique d’application pour tous les États, chaque bassin disposant de son propre régime coopératif. Pour mesurer l’ampleur des régimes coopératifs, nous étudions cinq paramètres : le champ d’application, les règles substantielles, les règles procédurales, les arrangements institutionnels et le règlement des différends. Quatres modèles de coopération ressortent : le mécanisme consultatif (l’Indus), le mécanisme communicateur (le Mékong), le mécanisme de coordination (le Rhin) et le mécanisme d’action conjointe (le fleuve Sénégal). Pour ce qui est de la Chine, il s’agit de l’État d’amont en voie de développement le plus important dans le monde qui a longtemps été critiqué pour son approche unilatérale dans le développement des eaux transfrontières. Nous ne pouvons pas cependant passer sous silence les pratiques de coopération qu’elle a développées avec ses voisins. Quelle est son interprétation de cette obligation générale de coopérer ? Notre étude des pratiques de la Chine nous aide, en prenant du recul, à mieux comprendre tous les aspects de cette obligation de coopérer en droit international. Afin d’expliquer les raisons qui se cachent derrière son choix de mode de coopération, nous introduisons une analyse constructiviste qui est plus explicative que descriptive. Nous soutenons que ce sont les identités de la Chine qui ont déterminé son choix de coopération en matière de cours d’eau transfrontaliers. Notre étude en vient à la conclusion que même s’il y a des règles généralement reconnues, l’obligation de coopérer reste une règle émergente en droit international coutumier. Ses modes d’application sont en réalité une construction sociale qui évolue et qui peut varier énormément selon les facteurs culturels, historiques ou économiques des États riverains, en d’autres mots, selon les identités de ces États. La Chine est un État d’amont en voie de développement qui continue à insister sur le principe de la souveraineté. Par conséquent, elle opte pour son propre mécanisme consultatif de coopération pour l’utilisation des ressources en eau transfrontalières. Néanmoins, avec l’évolution de ses identités en tant que superpuissance émergente, nous pouvons probablement espérer qu’au lieu de rechercher un pouvoir hégémonique et d’appliquer une stratégie unilatérale sur l’utilisation des ressources en eau transfrontalières, la Chine adoptera une stratégie plus coopérative et plus participative dans l’avenir. / The principle of international cooperation has been one of the cornerstones of international law. However, the existence of an obligation to cooperate in international law is still controversial. Like air, water is fundamental to life. As a flowing resource, the use of water in any one place is affected by its use in other places. It always marks the interdependence between human beings. The New York Convention includes expressly a general obligation to cooperate which is one of the three fundamental principles. We should then look into the practices of the states in order to find out the answer to one question : what obligation to cooperate needs to be imposed ? To answer this question, we start with a positive study of the normative content of the obligation to cooperate. We notice that the incorporation of the obligation to cooperate in the principle of sovereignty is a clear trend in international law which has already evolved from the law of coexistence to the law of cooperation. If the law of coexistence is composed of the obligations of non facere, then the law of cooperation is mainly about the positive obligations of facere, among which, the obligation to cooperate is probably the most important one. However, there is no panacea for the management of transboundary rivers in the world, every basin having its own cooperative regime. In order to evaluate the depth and breadth of the cooperative regimes, we study five parameters : the scope, the substantive rules, the procedural rules, the institutional arrangements and the dispute settlement mechanisms. Four models of cooperation are thus identified : the consultative mechanism (Indus River Basin), the communicative mechanism (Mekong River Basin), the coordinative mechanism (Rhine River Basin) and the joint action mechanism ( Senegal River Basin). As the most important developing upstream country in the world, China has been criticized for its unilateral approach in the development of transboudary waters. However, we can not neither ignore its recent efforts in establishing the cooperation with its neighbors. An analysis of China’s practice serves not only to reveal its interpretation of the general obligation to cooperate, but also helps us to better understand different aspects of this obligation to cooperate in international law. In order to explain the reasons behind the Chinese choice of mode of cooperation, then we introduce a constructivist analysis which is more explanatory than descriptive. We argue that the identities of China determine its choice of cooperation in the field of transboudary waters. Our study comes to the conclusion that despite the fact that most of the concerned rules are genarally accepted by the international community, the obligation to cooperate is still coming into being in customary international law. The modes of application of the obligation to cooperate are actually the result of the evolving process of social construction which varies according to cultural, historic or economic differences, in other words, according to the identities of states. Mainly due to its different view of sovereignty, China has adopted a consultative mechanisme of cooperation in its own style. However, we have reason to expect that China, with the evolution of his identities as a rising superpower in the world, rather than searching for a hegemonic control and adopting a unilateral strategy in the utilization of transboundary waters, would opt for a more cooperative and participative strategy in the near future.

Esta tese analisa as normas processuais aplicáveis à arbitragem. O reconhecimento da prevalência da autonomia da vontade das partes e, subsidiariamente, dos árbitros para estabelecer regras para condução do procedimento arbitral, afastou a aplicação das regras processuais do local da realização da arbitragem. A ausência de uma lei processual de regência ou da aplicação mandatória das regras processuais da lex fori possibilitou, por um lado, a harmonização da prática processual arbitral e, por outro lado, embates recorrentes sobre a forma adequada para a condução do procedimento. A ausência de uma lei de regência não significa que o processo arbitral possa ser discricionário. Existe uma pluralidade de fontes normativas que influenciam a tomada de decisão processual nas arbitragens. Propõe-se a análise destas fontes normativas à luz do direito transnacional. O método transnacional adotado inclui normas nacionais e internacionais, bem como outras fontes normativas que não se enquadram tipicamente em uma categoria tradicional, admitindo que o quadro regulatório do processo arbitral seja formado por uma confluência de fontes que operam em ordens jurídicas e planos normativos diversos. Diante dessa pluralidade de fontes normativas, defende-se a necessidade de maior normatização in concreto, incentivando que as partes e os árbitros realizem uma conferência preliminar para definir a melhor forma de conduzir o procedimento em cada arbitragem. / This thesis analyzes the procedural rules that apply to arbitration. The recognition that the parties and, subsidiarily, the arbitrators are free to establish the rules for conducting the arbitral proceedings has prevented the procedural rules of the place where the arbitration is held from being applied. The absence of a governing procedural law or the mandatory application of the procedural rules of the lex fori has, on the one hand, made the harmonization of arbitration procedure possible and, on the other, led to recurrent conflicts regarding the appropriate way to conduct an arbitration. The absence of a governing law does not mean that the arbitration procedure could be discretionary. The existence of a plurality of normative sources that influence procedural decision-making in arbitration is verified. The analysis of these normative sources in light of transnational law is proposed. The transnational method adopted includes domestic and international rules, as well as other normative sources that do not typically fit in a traditional category, allowing the regulatory framework of an arbitration proceeding to be formed by a confluence of sources that operate in different legal systems and on various normative planes. In light of this plurality of normative sources, the need for more active case management and rule-making is defended, encouraging the parties and the arbitrators to hold a preliminary conference to determine the best method for conducting the arbitration in each arbitration proceeding.

During an arbitration, a party may need to request the arbitral tribunal to order interim measuresto secure a meaningful award. However, the parties may face issues relating to enforceabilityand hence the effectiveness of the arbitral tribunal’s interim decision. If the arbitral tribunal isseated in Sweden, under the current Swedish Arbitration Act (SAA), a decision on interimmeasures is not enforceable in the form of an order. This raises the issue whether such a decisioncould be made enforceable if issued in the form of an arbitral award. The SAA is currently undergoing a revision with the aim to increase the attractiveness ofSwedish arbitration, for both Swedish and foreign parties. The Government Commission(Commission) proposed in its report in 2015 that an express legislative provision be introducedspecifically empowering an arbitral tribunal to order an interim measure in the form of an orderor an award. This would be consistent with relevant Arbitral Rules. A decision in form of anaward would potentially be enforceable. The Government decided not to follow theCommission’s proposal in the proposed legislation referred to the Law Council on Legislation.The Commission implied that interim measures may be enforceable in Sweden, if made in theform of an award. Through the use of a legal dogmatic and legal analytical method this thesis concludes that thereis an uncertainty as to whether interim measures, in the form of an award, can be enforced inSweden. Parties can probably give the arbitral tribunal such authority to grant interim measuresthat are final and binding in character, if this is provided for in their arbitration agreement. Forexample, parties could vest the arbitral tribunal with such power by referring to arbitration rulesthat provide for such interim relief, as is provided in SCC and ICC Arbitral Rules. It is alsoconcluded that the enforceability depends on whether the award was rendered by a tribunalsitting in/outside of Sweden. The Swedish Supreme Court has stated that “award” within themeaning of the New York Convention (NYC) should, as a rule, be construed according to thelaw of the seat of the arbitration. This may allow for enforcement of interim measures in theform of an award. However, due to the general, but not conclusive, view that the NYC does notapply to interim measures, no certain conclusions can be made. Furthermore, it is argued, because of this ambiguity, that Sweden fails to offer parties andarbitrators a modern and effective arbitral regime, which may hamper Sweden’s ambitions inattracting foreign parties to arbitrate in Sweden. Therefore, Sweden should introduce apossibility for the arbitral tribunal to grant enforceable interim measures.

Is the choice of the arbitral seat still an important decision in international arbitration? Should arbitral awards be subject to greater judicial scrutiny? Should the appeal be in international arbitration? Is it possible that an annulled arbitral award is recognized under the New York Convention? Should the New York Convention be amended to achieve CNY 2.0? Is investment arbitration a system that works? Are the criticisms of investment arbitration valid? In this interview, Gary Born responds to each of these questions by addressing many controversial current issues in international arbitration. / ¿Es la elección de la sede del arbitraje todavía una decisión importante en el arbitraje internacional? ¿Deberían los laudos estar sometidos a un mayor escrutinio judicial? ¿Debería existir la apelación en el arbitraje internacional? ¿Es posible que en virtud de la Convención de Nueva York se reconozca un laudo anulado? ¿Debería enmendarse la Convención de Nueva York para lograr una CNY 2.0? ¿Es el arbitraje de inversiones un sistema que funciona? ¿Son las críticas al arbitraje de inversiones válidas? En la presente entrevista, Gary Born responde cada una de estas interrogantes tratando muchos temas polémicos de actualidad en el arbitraje internacional.

Esta tese analisa as normas processuais aplicáveis à arbitragem. O reconhecimento da prevalência da autonomia da vontade das partes e, subsidiariamente, dos árbitros para estabelecer regras para condução do procedimento arbitral, afastou a aplicação das regras processuais do local da realização da arbitragem. A ausência de uma lei processual de regência ou da aplicação mandatória das regras processuais da lex fori possibilitou, por um lado, a harmonização da prática processual arbitral e, por outro lado, embates recorrentes sobre a forma adequada para a condução do procedimento. A ausência de uma lei de regência não significa que o processo arbitral possa ser discricionário. Existe uma pluralidade de fontes normativas que influenciam a tomada de decisão processual nas arbitragens. Propõe-se a análise destas fontes normativas à luz do direito transnacional. O método transnacional adotado inclui normas nacionais e internacionais, bem como outras fontes normativas que não se enquadram tipicamente em uma categoria tradicional, admitindo que o quadro regulatório do processo arbitral seja formado por uma confluência de fontes que operam em ordens jurídicas e planos normativos diversos. Diante dessa pluralidade de fontes normativas, defende-se a necessidade de maior normatização in concreto, incentivando que as partes e os árbitros realizem uma conferência preliminar para definir a melhor forma de conduzir o procedimento em cada arbitragem. / This thesis analyzes the procedural rules that apply to arbitration. The recognition that the parties and, subsidiarily, the arbitrators are free to establish the rules for conducting the arbitral proceedings has prevented the procedural rules of the place where the arbitration is held from being applied. The absence of a governing procedural law or the mandatory application of the procedural rules of the lex fori has, on the one hand, made the harmonization of arbitration procedure possible and, on the other, led to recurrent conflicts regarding the appropriate way to conduct an arbitration. The absence of a governing law does not mean that the arbitration procedure could be discretionary. The existence of a plurality of normative sources that influence procedural decision-making in arbitration is verified. The analysis of these normative sources in light of transnational law is proposed. The transnational method adopted includes domestic and international rules, as well as other normative sources that do not typically fit in a traditional category, allowing the regulatory framework of an arbitration proceeding to be formed by a confluence of sources that operate in different legal systems and on various normative planes. In light of this plurality of normative sources, the need for more active case management and rule-making is defended, encouraging the parties and the arbitrators to hold a preliminary conference to determine the best method for conducting the arbitration in each arbitration proceeding.

(ENG) Refusal to recognize and enforce arbitral award under Article V, paragraph 2 (b) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 Public policy exception is a deeply rooted instrument used in international documents governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign dispute resolution decisions. It was included in the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 since its very first draft, which actually aimed to reform the system of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards at the time governed by Geneva Protocol and Geneva Convention. Article V section 2 b) of the New York Convention which embodies the public policy exception is quite commonly described as the weakest and the most problematic part of the Convention. In the thesis at hand, the author analyses this provision and conducts a research to find out whether and why the provision is problematic in the practice of the courts. In the first part of the thesis, the author describes the legislative process of the scrutinized provision. In the second part, author describes and analyses interpretation and application difficulties of the scrutinized provision using mainly various court decisions rendered by the relevant states' courts. In the last...