La collaboration entre la CCJA et les juridictions nationales de cassation, s’effectue dans le contentieux des Actes uniformes. Il met en oeuvre la supranationalité judiciaire de la CCJA qui se manifeste par sa substitution aux juridictions nationales de cassation soulevant des questions liées aux Actes uniformes. Il faut reconnaître que la complémentarité de la collaboration entre la CCJA et les juridictions nationales de cassation dans le recours en cassation devant la CCJA fait ressortir différents des problèmes : une inconstitutionnalité du Traité ou des Actes uniformes dans le processus d’intégration, des inquiétudes dans la procédure de recours en cassation (pas d’auto-saisine de la CCJA, absence de cas d’ouverture à cassation devant la CCJA, formule exécutoire sur les arrêts de la CCJA), l’évocation, la substitution des juridictions nationales de cassation créent devant la CCJA, une controverse dans l’identification du juge compétent dans les procédures de l’AUPSRVE, un risque de conflit de compétence et de lois avec des organisations régionales surtout (UEMOA). Cette collaboration se poursuit entre le juge étatique et la CCJA dans l’arbitrage, c’est le mode de règlement des litiges dans le système OHADA, à cause de l’éthique de l’arbitrage. Ce mode de règlement des litiges dans le mode des affaires ne répond plus au critère du monde des affaires. Même si l’arbitrage OHADA est dual (ad hoc et CCJA), il faut trouver des moyens dans divers droits plus adéquats pour pallier aux divers problèmes évoqués dans le monde des affaires. / The collaboration between the CCJA and the national courts of cassation, in substance, takes place in the dispute of the Uniform Acts. It implements a judicial supranationality of the CCJA that manifests itself by its substitution to the national courts of cassation of substance raising issues related to the Uniform Act. It must be recognized that the complementarity between the collaboration between the CCJA and the national courts in the cassation appeal before the CCJA brings out different problems : an unconstitutionality of the Treaty even see uniform Acts in the process of integration, Concerns in the procedure upon appeal in cassation (no self-referral of the CCJA, no case of opening to cassation before the CCJA, the executory formula on the judgments of the CCJA), the evocation, the substitution of national courts of cassation, grounds before the CCJA, controversy in identifying the judge competent in the procedures of the AUPSRVE, the risks of conflict of competence and laws with regional organizations ( UEMOA). This collaboration continues between the state judge and the CCJA in arbitration, this is the mode of dispute resolution in the OHADA system, in the face of the ethics of arbitration. This mode of dispute resolution in the business mode no longer meets the criteria of the business world. Even though the OHADA arbitration is dual (ad hoc and CCJA), it is necessary to find ways in various law more adequate to address the various problems evoking for the business world.

The thesis is dealing with prorogation and arbitration clauses in international trade, focusing on Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I bis) and on the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. In particular, the thesis aims to describe the procedure of valid negotiation and the formation of clauses, including the analysis of possible interpretation issues. The common objective of the prorogation clauses as a choice of court agreements and arbitration clauses, is to determine who and where should have the jurisdiction to resolve any dispute arising between the parties and to reinforce their legal certainty. The outcome of the work is therefore to verify the hypothesis that the conclusion of such clauses really strengthens the legal certainty of the parties. Regarding the prorogation clauses, the theoretical level is supplemented by a practical insight into the whole issue in the form of an analysis of the Court of Justice of the European Union case law. Regarding arbitration clauses, the aim is to provide a certain international overview, to outline generally applicable principles and to point...

A tese discute o problema dos terceiros na arbitragem. Ela distingue os planos substantivo (contratual) e processual (jurisdicional) da arbitragem e, portanto, o status de parte e terceiro com relação, respectivamente, à convenção de arbitragem e ao processo arbitral. Depois de desenvolver as premissas teóricas na Parte 1, a Parte 2 expõe as teorias contratuais e societárias por meio das quais um não-signatário pode ficar vinculado à convenção de arbitragem, com destaque para a extensão a todos os acionistas da companhia da cláusula compromissória estatutária, bem como para a aplicação do princípio da boa-fé objetiva (teoria dos atos próprios, estoppel) para impedir com que determinados signatários burlem a convenção de arbitragem ao incluir terceiros no polo passivo da demanda ou, ainda, para impor a arbitragem a não-signatários que derivaram um benefício do contrato inter alios. Na Parte III, a atenção volta-se para o processo e a sentença arbitral. Expõe-se uma teoria dos efeitos da sentença, buscando-se explicar a sua potencial eficácia ultra partes com base: a) na necessidade de realizar o direito da contraparte à tutela jurisdicional (adquirente do direito litigioso, sucessores post rem judicatam); e b) na identificação de nexos de prejudicialidade-dependência permanente entre as relações jurídicas no plano do direito material (terceiro titular de situação dependente). Refutam-se, em passo seguinte, teorias que preconizam o valor absoluto da sentença. Oferece-se, como núcleo da tese, uma reconstrução dogmática das modalidades de intervenção de terceiro, buscando adaptá-las à arbitragem para alcançar, em cada situação, um justo equilíbrio entre as expectativas contratuais das partes originárias e a natureza privada da arbitragem, de um lado, e os efeitos da sentença perante terceiros, de outro. Conclui-se que, em alguns casos, legitima-se o terceiro a intervir voluntariamente, mesmo contra ou independentemente da vontade das partes, se ele estiver sujeito aos efeitos da sentença. Em hipótese excepcionalíssimas, ademais, a parte pode sujeitar um terceiro aos efeitos de intervenção, provocando a sua assistência no processo arbitral. / The thesis addresses the problems of third parties in arbitration. It distinguishes the substantive (contractual) and procedural dimensions of arbitration and, hence, the status of parties and third parties in connection with, respectively, the arbitration agreement and the arbitral proceedings. After spelling out theoretical premises in Part 1, Part 2 covers the contractual and corporate theories by which a non-signatory may be bound by the arbitration agreement, highlighting the extension to all shareholders of the agreement in the corporate bylaws, as well as the application of the equitable doctrine of estoppel to bar certain signatories from avoiding the arbitration agreement by including third parties as defendants or even to impose arbitration onto non-signatories who derived a benefit from the contract inter alios. In Part III, my attention turns to the proceedings and the arbitral award. I set out a doctrine of the effects of judgments, seeking to explain their potential effects on third parties based: a) on the prevailing need to preserve the counterpartys right to a binding declaration on its asserted claims (acquirers, successors post rem judicatam); b) the identification of substantive ties between legal relationships that make the third parties rights permanently dependent on the situation between the parties. I then refute theories ascribing absolute value to the award vis-à-vis third parties. As the core of the thesis, I offer a doctrinal reconstruction of third party interventions, seeking to adapt them to arbitration in order to achieve, in each situation, a fair balance between the contractual expectations of the original parties and the private nature of arbitration, in one hand, and the effects of the award on third parties, on the other. I conclude that a third party should be allowed to intervene, albeit against the will of the parties, if it is subject to the concrete effects of the arbitral award. In exceptional situations, moreover, a party may vouch in a third party, who will then be bound by the determinations of factual and legal issues made in the award.

Abstract As international trade is constantly increasing, the number of disputes between international parties is greater than ever. In view of the fact that it is difficult to get court judgments recognized and enforced, arbitration has gained a great foothold in international commercial disputes. The leading international legal framework for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards is the New York Convention of 1958 with 142 Member States as of today. It simplifies recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in foreign countries. Nevertheless, certain criterions are required to be fulfilled and a much-debated criterion is the writing requirement for arbitration agreements. The writing requirement is found in Article II(2) of the New York Convention and it stipulates that an arbitration clause or an arbitration agreement must be signed by the parties or contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams to constitute a valid arbitration agreement, which is the foundation of a recognizable and enforceable arbitral award. The requirement in itself is clear, but the development of electronic communication and the fact that national courts interpret the writing requirement differently, leads to dissimilar requirements in various countries. Moreover, numerous new ways of how to conclude contracts have been established during the 50 years that has passed since the adoption of the New York Convention and the ever increasing number of disputes has questioned the function of the writing requirement. The UNCITRAL has, by adopting a model law, tried to accomplish a uniform interpretation and establish what it takes to fulfill the writing requirement. The starting point for the work of the UNCITRAL was to modify national arbitration legislation and thus reach the objective of harmonizing the writing requirement. The thesis undertakes an international outlook in three countries, Australia, Italy and Sweden. These countries are all Member States of the New York Convention but there are great differences in their legislation. Sweden imposes no writing requirement and Italy has applied a very restrictive interpretation. Australia has incorporated the UNCITRAL Model Law. The international outlook illustrates how the interpretation depends on national arbitration legislation and attitude towards the writing requirement. An analysis of the current general legal context shows a weakening threshold for fulfillment of the writing requirement. It is also evident that the writing requirement is not in line with how international trade is practiced today. The writing requirement frequently constitutes a formalistic problem regarding conclusion of contracts, as it comprise a requirement with-out function. In addition to this, the attempts of the UN have failed to eliminate uncer-tainty and the divergence in interpretation. To reach a uniform interpretation, an immense overhaul of the New York Convention is needed, alternatively that additional States adhere to the UNCITRAL Model Law and thus eliminate the national differences of today. / Sammanfattning En ständigt ökande internationell handel leder till en ökning i antalet tvister mellan parter från olika länder. Då nationella domslut är svåra att få erkända och verkställda i en främmande stat har skiljedomsförfaranden ökat i antal. Regelverket kring att få en skiljedom erkänd och verkställd i en främmande stat utgörs främst av New Yorkkonventionen från 1958 med 142 fördragsslutande stater till dags dato. New Yorkkonventionen möjliggör att en internationell skiljedom lättare kan erkännas och verkställas i en främmande stat. Dock måste vissa kriterier vara uppfyllda och ett av de mest omdebatterade och domstolsprövade kriterierna är det skriftliga formkravet för skiljeavtal. Skriftlighetskravet regleras i Artikel II(2), New Yorkkonventionen och påvisar att skiljeavtalet måste vara undertecknat av parterna eller inkluderat i brev- eller telegramväxling för att vara giltigt. Ett giltigt skiljeavtal formar grunden för en verkställbar skiljedom. Kravet i sig är relativt tydligt men med teknologins frammarsch och det faktum att nationella domstolar tolkar skriftlighetskravet olika har kraven för att uppnå skriftlighetskravet skiftat från land till land. Framförallt har olika sätt att sluta avtal tillkommit under de 50 år som New Yorkkonventionen har existerat och även det ökande antalet internationella skiljedomsförfaranden har ifrågasatt grunden för skriftlighetskravet. UNCITRAL har genom en modellag om kommersiella skiljeförfaranden försökt skapa enhetlighet om hur skriftlighetskravet skall tolkas och vad som krävs för att uppnå kravet. Utgångspunkten för UNCITRAL’s arbete har varit att förändra nationell lagstiftning och därmed uppnå målet om harmonisering av skriftlighetskravet. Uppsatsen gör en internationell utblick i tre länder, Australien, Italien och Sverige. De tre länderna är fördragsslutande stater till New Yorkkonventionen men deras nationella lagstiftning skiftar markant. Sverige påvisar inte något skriftlighetskrav för skiljeavtal och Italien har tolkat skriftlighetskravet restriktivt. Australien har fullt ut inkorporerat den modellag som UNCITRAL har utarbetat gällande kommersiella skiljeförfaranden. Utblicken visar även i flera rättsfall hur olika tolkningen av skriftlighetskravet blir beroende på den nationella lagstiftningen och inställningen till skriftlighetskravet. En analys av rättsläget påvisar att tröskeln för att uppnå skriftlighetskravet tenderar att luckras upp. Det framkommer även att skriftlighetskravet inte är i fas med hur internationell handel praktiseras idag. Skriftlighetskravet är ofta ett formalistiskt problem vad gäller avtalsslut och konstituerar ett krav utan funktion. Därtill har de försök som gjorts från överstatligt håll misslyckats med att undanröja osäkerheten och skiftningar i tolkningen. För att uppnå enhetlighet krävs en genomarbetning av New Yorkkonventionen, alternativt att fler stater anammar UNCITRAL’s modellag och därmed undanröjer de nationella olikheter som existerar idag.

<p>Abstract</p><p>As international trade is constantly increasing, the number of disputes between international parties is greater than ever. In view of the fact that it is difficult to get court judgments recognized and enforced, arbitration has gained a great foothold in international commercial disputes. The leading international legal framework for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards is the New York Convention of 1958 with 142 Member States as of today. It simplifies recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in foreign countries. Nevertheless, certain criterions are required to be fulfilled and a much-debated criterion is the writing requirement for arbitration agreements.</p><p>The writing requirement is found in Article II(2) of the New York Convention and it stipulates that an arbitration clause or an arbitration agreement must be signed by the parties or contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams to constitute a valid arbitration agreement, which is the foundation of a recognizable and enforceable arbitral award. The requirement in itself is clear, but the development of electronic communication and the fact that national courts interpret the writing requirement differently, leads to dissimilar requirements in various countries. Moreover, numerous new ways of how to conclude contracts have been established during the 50 years that has passed since the adoption of the New York Convention and the ever increasing number of disputes has questioned the function of the writing requirement. The UNCITRAL has, by adopting a model law, tried to accomplish a uniform interpretation and establish what it takes to fulfill the writing requirement. The starting point for the work of the UNCITRAL was to modify national arbitration legislation and thus reach the objective of harmonizing the writing requirement.</p><p>The thesis undertakes an international outlook in three countries, Australia, Italy and Sweden. These countries are all Member States of the New York Convention but there are great differences in their legislation. Sweden imposes no writing requirement and Italy has applied a very restrictive interpretation. Australia has incorporated the UNCITRAL Model Law. The international outlook illustrates how the interpretation depends on national arbitration legislation and attitude towards the writing requirement.</p><p>An analysis of the current general legal context shows a weakening threshold for fulfillment of the writing requirement. It is also evident that the writing requirement is not in line with how international trade is practiced today. The writing requirement frequently constitutes a formalistic problem regarding conclusion of contracts, as it comprise a requirement with-out function. In addition to this, the attempts of the UN have failed to eliminate uncer-tainty and the divergence in interpretation. To reach a uniform interpretation, an immense overhaul of the New York Convention is needed, alternatively that additional States adhere to the UNCITRAL Model Law and thus eliminate the national differences of today.</p> / <p>Sammanfattning</p><p>En ständigt ökande internationell handel leder till en ökning i antalet tvister mellan parter från olika länder. Då nationella domslut är svåra att få erkända och verkställda i en främmande stat har skiljedomsförfaranden ökat i antal. Regelverket kring att få en skiljedom erkänd och verkställd i en främmande stat utgörs främst av New Yorkkonventionen från 1958 med 142 fördragsslutande stater till dags dato. New Yorkkonventionen möjliggör att en internationell skiljedom lättare kan erkännas och verkställas i en främmande stat. Dock måste vissa kriterier vara uppfyllda och ett av de mest omdebatterade och domstolsprövade kriterierna är det skriftliga formkravet för skiljeavtal.</p><p>Skriftlighetskravet regleras i Artikel II(2), New Yorkkonventionen och påvisar att skiljeavtalet måste vara undertecknat av parterna eller inkluderat i brev- eller telegramväxling för att vara giltigt. Ett giltigt skiljeavtal formar grunden för en verkställbar skiljedom. Kravet i sig är relativt tydligt men med teknologins frammarsch och det faktum att nationella domstolar tolkar skriftlighetskravet olika har kraven för att uppnå skriftlighetskravet skiftat från land till land. Framförallt har olika sätt att sluta avtal tillkommit under de 50 år som New Yorkkonventionen har existerat och även det ökande antalet internationella skiljedomsförfaranden har ifrågasatt grunden för skriftlighetskravet. UNCITRAL har genom en modellag om kommersiella skiljeförfaranden försökt skapa enhetlighet om hur skriftlighetskravet skall tolkas och vad som krävs för att uppnå kravet. Utgångspunkten för UNCITRAL’s arbete har varit att förändra nationell lagstiftning och därmed uppnå målet om harmonisering av skriftlighetskravet.</p><p>Uppsatsen gör en internationell utblick i tre länder, Australien, Italien och Sverige. De tre länderna är fördragsslutande stater till New Yorkkonventionen men deras nationella lagstiftning skiftar markant. Sverige påvisar inte något skriftlighetskrav för skiljeavtal och Italien har tolkat skriftlighetskravet restriktivt. Australien har fullt ut inkorporerat den modellag som UNCITRAL har utarbetat gällande kommersiella skiljeförfaranden. Utblicken visar även i flera rättsfall hur olika tolkningen av skriftlighetskravet blir beroende på den nationella lagstiftningen och inställningen till skriftlighetskravet.</p><p>En analys av rättsläget påvisar att tröskeln för att uppnå skriftlighetskravet tenderar att luckras upp. Det framkommer även att skriftlighetskravet inte är i fas med hur internationell handel praktiseras idag. Skriftlighetskravet är ofta ett formalistiskt problem vad gäller avtalsslut och konstituerar ett krav utan funktion. Därtill har de försök som gjorts från överstatligt håll misslyckats med att undanröja osäkerheten och skiftningar i tolkningen. För att uppnå enhetlighet krävs en genomarbetning av New Yorkkonventionen, alternativt att fler stater anammar UNCITRAL’s modellag och därmed undanröjer de nationella olikheter som existerar idag.</p>

The globalized world demands increasingly complex contractual operations. In that context, businesses have implemented multiple related contracts with the aim of achieving a common goal.In this paper, the authors analyze the complex situation of the arbitration regarding multiple contracts. Through the review of relevant case-law, the various solutions that characterize arbitration between multiple contracts are described. Finally, the authors address the overlap of non-signatory parties in the context of multiple contracts. / El mundo globalizado exige operaciones contractuales cada vez más complejas. En ese contexto, los negcios han implementado multiples contratos conexos con el objetivo de conseguir un fin común.En el presente artículo, los autores analizan la compleja situación del arbitraje en el contexto de múltiples contratos. A través de la revisión de la jurisprudencia relevante, se describen las diversas soluciones que caracterizan un arbitraje frente a múltiples contratos. Finalmente, los autores abordan la superposición de partes no signatarias en el contexto de múltiples contratos.

A tese discute o problema dos terceiros na arbitragem. Ela distingue os planos substantivo (contratual) e processual (jurisdicional) da arbitragem e, portanto, o status de parte e terceiro com relação, respectivamente, à convenção de arbitragem e ao processo arbitral. Depois de desenvolver as premissas teóricas na Parte 1, a Parte 2 expõe as teorias contratuais e societárias por meio das quais um não-signatário pode ficar vinculado à convenção de arbitragem, com destaque para a extensão a todos os acionistas da companhia da cláusula compromissória estatutária, bem como para a aplicação do princípio da boa-fé objetiva (teoria dos atos próprios, estoppel) para impedir com que determinados signatários burlem a convenção de arbitragem ao incluir terceiros no polo passivo da demanda ou, ainda, para impor a arbitragem a não-signatários que derivaram um benefício do contrato inter alios. Na Parte III, a atenção volta-se para o processo e a sentença arbitral. Expõe-se uma teoria dos efeitos da sentença, buscando-se explicar a sua potencial eficácia ultra partes com base: a) na necessidade de realizar o direito da contraparte à tutela jurisdicional (adquirente do direito litigioso, sucessores post rem judicatam); e b) na identificação de nexos de prejudicialidade-dependência permanente entre as relações jurídicas no plano do direito material (terceiro titular de situação dependente). Refutam-se, em passo seguinte, teorias que preconizam o valor absoluto da sentença. Oferece-se, como núcleo da tese, uma reconstrução dogmática das modalidades de intervenção de terceiro, buscando adaptá-las à arbitragem para alcançar, em cada situação, um justo equilíbrio entre as expectativas contratuais das partes originárias e a natureza privada da arbitragem, de um lado, e os efeitos da sentença perante terceiros, de outro. Conclui-se que, em alguns casos, legitima-se o terceiro a intervir voluntariamente, mesmo contra ou independentemente da vontade das partes, se ele estiver sujeito aos efeitos da sentença. Em hipótese excepcionalíssimas, ademais, a parte pode sujeitar um terceiro aos efeitos de intervenção, provocando a sua assistência no processo arbitral. / The thesis addresses the problems of third parties in arbitration. It distinguishes the substantive (contractual) and procedural dimensions of arbitration and, hence, the status of parties and third parties in connection with, respectively, the arbitration agreement and the arbitral proceedings. After spelling out theoretical premises in Part 1, Part 2 covers the contractual and corporate theories by which a non-signatory may be bound by the arbitration agreement, highlighting the extension to all shareholders of the agreement in the corporate bylaws, as well as the application of the equitable doctrine of estoppel to bar certain signatories from avoiding the arbitration agreement by including third parties as defendants or even to impose arbitration onto non-signatories who derived a benefit from the contract inter alios. In Part III, my attention turns to the proceedings and the arbitral award. I set out a doctrine of the effects of judgments, seeking to explain their potential effects on third parties based: a) on the prevailing need to preserve the counterpartys right to a binding declaration on its asserted claims (acquirers, successors post rem judicatam); b) the identification of substantive ties between legal relationships that make the third parties rights permanently dependent on the situation between the parties. I then refute theories ascribing absolute value to the award vis-à-vis third parties. As the core of the thesis, I offer a doctrinal reconstruction of third party interventions, seeking to adapt them to arbitration in order to achieve, in each situation, a fair balance between the contractual expectations of the original parties and the private nature of arbitration, in one hand, and the effects of the award on third parties, on the other. I conclude that a third party should be allowed to intervene, albeit against the will of the parties, if it is subject to the concrete effects of the arbitral award. In exceptional situations, moreover, a party may vouch in a third party, who will then be bound by the determinations of factual and legal issues made in the award.

This thesis aims to provide the reader with an overview and understanding of arbitration proceedings and conclusion of arbitration agreements within the context of the Czech legal framework. Arbitration clauses in various forms are often an integral part of trade agreements but are also regularly included in consumer contracts such as loan or insurance agreements. The first part of the thesis provides a general overview of the financial market regulation which serves as the common framework allowing various legal entities to operate within the local market environment. The topic of regulation is discussed within the second section of the thesis which is structured into 4 stand-alone chapters. These chapters describe the institute of arbitration, its requisites and the various forms of arbitration agreements while also analyzing the changes of the statutory legal framework in the context of the current amendment which came into effect in April 2012. The analysis of the arbitration clauses is especially consumer-focused, searching to elaborate on questions such as what consequences can entering into an arbitration agreement have on a subject in a legal relationship, what are the obligations stemming from entering into such agreement and what are the options of withdrawing from such agreements.

<p>Trots principen om avtalets subjektiva begränsning kan det finnas skäl till att utöka ett aktieägaravtals verkningar mot förvärvande tredje man för att skydda beaktansvärda intressen. Då rättsläget är oklart är det av intresse att undersöka huruvida en tolkning med laganalogins hjälp mot sakrättens samt skiljerättens område kan klargöra rättsläget.</p><p>För att ge läsaren tillräcklig bakgrund för analysen beskrivs rättsläget vad gäller aktieägaravtal och de bakomliggande teorierna rörande den analogiska tillämpningen.<strong> </strong>Därefter analyseras undantag till avtalets subjektiva begränsning, varefter en diskussion följer där frågan huruvida analogier kan dras besvaras.<strong></strong></p><p>Resultatet av denna framställning är att en analogisk tillämpning kan göras mot de två undersökta rättsområdena, dock endast i begränsad utsträckning vad gäller skiljerättens område. En kombinerad applicering av möjliga analogier från sakrättens och skiljerättens områden på aktieägaravtal leder till ett resultat där aktieägaravtalets bundenhet mot både förvärvande tredje man samt kvarstående parter klargörs.</p> / <p>Despite the doctrine about privity of contract, there can be reasons to recognise effects of a shareholder’s agreement against acquiring third party to protect legitimate interests. Since the legal position is uncertain, it is of interest to examine whether an analogy of law towards indefeasible rights and arbitration agreements can clarify this uncertainty.</p><p>To give the reader enough background information for the analysis, the legal position regarding shareholder’s agreement and the basic theories about the application of analogies are described. Thereafter exceptions to the privity of contracts are analysed, after which a discussion where the question whether analogies can be made is answered.         <strong></strong></p><p>The result of this thesis is that an application by analogy can be made towards the two examined areas, but only to a limited extent regarding arbitration agreements. A combined application of analogies possible from indefeasible rights and arbitration agreements creates a result where the validity of a shareholder’s agreement towards both acquiring third party and remaining parties is clarified.</p>

Trots principen om avtalets subjektiva begränsning kan det finnas skäl till att utöka ett aktieägaravtals verkningar mot förvärvande tredje man för att skydda beaktansvärda intressen. Då rättsläget är oklart är det av intresse att undersöka huruvida en tolkning med laganalogins hjälp mot sakrättens samt skiljerättens område kan klargöra rättsläget. För att ge läsaren tillräcklig bakgrund för analysen beskrivs rättsläget vad gäller aktieägaravtal och de bakomliggande teorierna rörande den analogiska tillämpningen. Därefter analyseras undantag till avtalets subjektiva begränsning, varefter en diskussion följer där frågan huruvida analogier kan dras besvaras. Resultatet av denna framställning är att en analogisk tillämpning kan göras mot de två undersökta rättsområdena, dock endast i begränsad utsträckning vad gäller skiljerättens område. En kombinerad applicering av möjliga analogier från sakrättens och skiljerättens områden på aktieägaravtal leder till ett resultat där aktieägaravtalets bundenhet mot både förvärvande tredje man samt kvarstående parter klargörs. / Despite the doctrine about privity of contract, there can be reasons to recognise effects of a shareholder’s agreement against acquiring third party to protect legitimate interests. Since the legal position is uncertain, it is of interest to examine whether an analogy of law towards indefeasible rights and arbitration agreements can clarify this uncertainty. To give the reader enough background information for the analysis, the legal position regarding shareholder’s agreement and the basic theories about the application of analogies are described. Thereafter exceptions to the privity of contracts are analysed, after which a discussion where the question whether analogies can be made is answered.          The result of this thesis is that an application by analogy can be made towards the two examined areas, but only to a limited extent regarding arbitration agreements. A combined application of analogies possible from indefeasible rights and arbitration agreements creates a result where the validity of a shareholder’s agreement towards both acquiring third party and remaining parties is clarified.