No description available.

Huvudtemat för den här uppsatsen är skiljeavtalets objektiva omfattning. Framställningen behandlar specifikt vilka frågor som faller inom ett skiljeavtal vid sammanhängande avtal, dvs. när samma parter har slutit två eller flera avtal. Studiet för analysen är i vilken mån en skiljeklausul i ett avtal kan ”smitta av sig” på andra avtal mellan parterna. Som uppsatsen kommer visar kan skiljebundenhet, när parterna är oense, inträda i fyra olika situationer vid sammanhängande avtal. Skiljebundenhet inträder när: a)  De omtvistade grunderna täcks av ett och samma rättsförhållande, b) De omtvistade grunderna utgör endast efterföljande rättsfakta som modifierar det ursprungliga rättsförhållandet utan att rättsförhållandets identitet förändras, c) De omtvistade grunderna omfattas inte av ett och samma (inklusive modifierade) rättsförhållande men det föreligger ett sådant samband mellan det nya och det ursprungliga rättsförhållandet att skiljeklausulen ändå äger tillämplighet i tvisten samt d) De omtvistade grunderna medför att ett nytt skiljeavtal har ingåtts som uppfyller kraven på ett giltigt skiljeavtal och som kan styrkas med tillräcklig bevisning.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Abstract  This thesis is concerned with examining the intersection between the areas of international commercial arbitration and money laundering. There are various points of connectivity between the two and the aim of this thesis is to discern how an arbitrator should conduct arbitral proceedings involving money laundering. For this purpose, a few selected topics have been examined. The practical challenges arising out of these topics, as well as the tools available to arbitrators to face them have been analysed in turn. After a brief inquiry into the nature of international commercial arbitration, money laundering and the ways that they come together, the topics of jurisdiction, the norms applicable to the substance of the dispute, and matters of evidence are subject to discussion. In studying these topics, a recurring theme, which goes to the very heart of the intersection between the seemingly odd areas of international commercial arbitration and money laundering, is discernible. In practically all of the challenges that an arbitrator will face when adjudicating a dispute involving money laundering a conflict of interest between the pivotal principle of party autonomy and other interests will arise. These interests originate from the public policy concerns vested in countering money laundering and the criminal law nature of this phenomenon. The tools which the arbitrator deem to be applicable as well as the conduct that he might choose in regards to the topics discussed, very much depend on his perception of the role that international arbitrators ought to assume in this conflict. Keeping these conceptual building blocks in mind the author, whilst examining the relevant legal instrument, case law and legal commentary, reaches the conclusion that arbitral tribunals ought to claim jurisdiction over disputes arising out of contracts tainted by money laundering in the majority of cases. The author also reaches the conclusion that there are other norms than the lex contractus that can be applied to the substance of the dispute and that the willingness to apply them will depend on the attitude of the arbitrator. Similarly, the arbitrator could, and arguably should, investigate the issue of money laundering of his own accord, albeit with a few important reservations. The rules of evidence, especially those of the burden of proof and standard of proof, should be tailored to reflect the nature of the complex offence of money laundering. Finally, the eventual possibility for an international arbitrator to report suspicions of money laundering is touched upon.

This thesis concerns the issue of injunctive relief and specific performance in arbitration. The availability of such relief varies significantly between different jurisdictions and the issue is further complicated when parties opt out of litigation in favor of arbitration, not the least in terms of enforcement. In light of this, the thesis aims to determine the consequences for parties opting for arbitration instead of litigation with regard to the availability and enforceability of specific performance and injunctive relief. This overall research question has been answered under the laws of Sweden and the United States of America. First, this thesis has concluded that there are considerable differences between the jurisdictions in the availability of specific performance and injunctive relief in litigation. In Sweden, remedies are issues of substantive law and for many kinds of contracts, the primary remedy for breach. Consequently, courts do not differentiate claims for specific performance or injunctive relief, and routinely grant such claims in no different way than granting monetary relief. Conversely, in the United States, remedies are viewed as procedural issues, not substantive. There, specific performance and injunctive relief are discretionary matters of equity and not rights at law. Hence, the availability of specific performance and injunctive relief is limited as compared to damages. Further, this thesis has concluded that the categorization of reliefs and remedies as substantive and procedural, respectively, is mirrored also in arbitration. While in Sweden, the choice of arbitration as proper contract forum does not affect the availability of the reliefs now in question, it does so in the United States. There, courts have held that the division of remedies into legal and equitable is not applicable in arbitration. Thus, parties have the freedom to by contract control which reliefs an arbitrator may grant. In absence of such agreements, courts have presumed arbitrators to have been given a broad grant of authority, allowing otherwise unavailable reliefs.Third, this thesis has concluded that, inter alia, because of the inherent contempt powers of courts in the United States, the means of enforcing arbitral awards providing specific performance and injunctive relief are more extensive in the United States than in Sweden, where comparable powers do not exist. Further, parties may by means of contract, grant arbitrators the authority to supervise such reliefs and enforce previously granted specific performance and injunctions by contractual fines and sanctions. Again, in absence of explicit contract language such authority is presumed in the United States, but not in Sweden. Overall, the choice of arbitration has consequences in both jurisdictions. In the United States, mostly for the availability of the reliefs in question and in Sweden, mostly for the enforcement.