Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Courts’ Inquiry into Arbitral Jurisdiction at the Pre-award Stage: Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Courts' Inquiry into Arbitral Jurisdiction at the Pre-Award Stage

  • 911 Accesses

Abstract

International arbitration has become the favoured method of resolving disputes between business partners in almost every aspect of international trade, commerce, and investment. The resolution of a dispute by means of international arbitration provides the parties with an opportunity to resolve their disputes in a private, confidential, cost and time efficient manner before a neutral tribunal of their choice. However, if one was to pinpoint the single most important advantage of arbitration over litigation as means of resolving trans-border business disputes, it is the degree of certainty that the parties’ agreement to arbitrate will be respected and the end result of the arbitration, the arbitral award, recognised and enforced almost anywhere in the world. This is the great achievement of the 1958 New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    It has been suggested that nearly 90 % of transnational contracts embrace an arbitration clause. See Meijer (1996), 86. The number of disputes referred to arbitration grows constantly. E.g. in 2004 561 new cases were filed with the ICC, 123 with the SCC (out of which 50 international), less than 100 with the LCIA (accounting for both international and domestic arbitration). In 2009 it was 817 (ICC), 215 (SCC) (out of which 96 international), 272 (LCIA). See 2008 Statistical Report in (2009) 20(1) ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, 5; 2009 Statistical Report in (2010) 21(1) ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, 5; Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce SCC Statistical Report 2009; LCIA Director General’s Report 2009.

  2. 2.

    The enforceability of awards has been ranked as the single most important advantage by the highest number of respondents in the 2006 International Arbitration Study “International Arbitration: Corporate attitudes and practices”. The study was conducted by Queen Mary, University of London in cooperation with PriceWaterhouseCoopers. It is available at http://www.arbitrationonline.org/docs/IAstudy_2006.pdf.

  3. 3.

    Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards New York, 10 June 1958, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 330, 3.

  4. 4.

    See, e.g. Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedverfahrensrechts, Drucksache 13/5274, 12 April 1996, 1; Botschaft zum Bundesgesetz über das international Privatrecht (IPRG-Gesetz) vom 10. November 1982, Schweizerisches Bundesgericht, BBI 1983 I 263–519, 287; West Tankers Inc v RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA and others [2007] UKHL 4 per Lord Hoffmann at [21]; Report on the Competitiveness of Paris as a Venue for International Arbitration to the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Economy, Finance and Industry (Rapport sur Certains facteurs de renforcement de la compétitivité juridique de la place de Paris) by Michel Prada, the Honorary Inspector General of Finances, March 2011; Press release, O’Donoghue Publishes Bill Designed to Attract International Inward Investment to Ireland, 2 October 1997.

  5. 5.

    2006 International Arbitration Study: International Arbitration: Corporate attitudes and practices, 6–7.

  6. 6.

    Gotanda (2001), 13; Redfern et al (2009), 344 para. 5.91; Hoellering (1998), 53.

  7. 7.

    Graves (2012), 1.

  8. 8.

    See, in particular, Chaps. 2 and 5 at Sect. 2.1 et seq. and Sect. 5.1 et seq. respectively.

  9. 9.

    Most recently see European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 November 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), COM(2010)0748 – C7-0433/2010 – 2010/0383(COD).

  10. 10.

    See, e.g. Holtzmann and Neuhaus (1989), 478, 508; Gaillard and Savage (1999), 395 para. 650; Redfern et al (2009), 345 para. 5.91.

  11. 11.

    Briggs (2008), 478.

  12. 12.

    See, e.g. Samuel (1989); Schlosser (1992), 189; Dimolitsa (1999), 217; Cobb (2001), 313; Gotanda (2001), 11; Smit (2002), 19; III Barceló (2003), 1115; St. Germain (2005), 523; Bachand (2006), 463; Park (2007), 56; Gaillard and Banifatemi (2008), 257; Kawharu (2008), 238; Zadkovich (2008), 1; Brekoulakis (2009), 237; Jones (2009), 56; Susler (2009), 119; as well as other materials cited infra.

  13. 13.

    See infra at Sect. 4.5.2.1, para. 1.

  14. 14.

    Gutteridge (1946), 26.

  15. 15.

    Epstein (2001), 917.

  16. 16.

    Similarly Barceló (2003), 1116.

  17. 17.

    See, e.g. Graves (2012), 10; in the EU context see also Carducci (2011), 177.

  18. 18.

    See also Working Group on International Contract Practices (New York, 6–17 February 1984), ‘Model law on international arbitration: territorial scope of application and related issues: note by the secretariat’ in Yearbook of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, 1984, Volume XV.(1984), 228 para. 18.

  19. 19.

    Stelmach and Brožek (2006), 10.

  20. 20.

    Lando (1966), 24.

  21. 21.

    Ibid. 24.

  22. 22.

    Ibid. 57.

  23. 23.

    Similarly, Gutteridge identified three main questions calling for consideration when pursuing a comparative analysis: subject-matter of comparison, sources and materials. See Gutteridge (1946), 73–87. Similarly also De Cruz (1999), 235–239.

  24. 24.

    See supra at Sect. 1.2, para. 2.

  25. 25.

    Similarly also Reimann (2002), 675.

  26. 26.

    Kamba (1974), 511–512. See also De Cruz (1999), 233–234.

  27. 27.

    See also Kamba (1974), 512.

  28. 28.

    See also Zweigert and Kötz (1987), 31; Bogdan (1994), 59–60; Reimann (2002), 679.

  29. 29.

    Zweigert and Kötz (1987), 31. Similarly also Zweigert (1972), 466.

  30. 30.

    Michaels (2008), 383.

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

  32. 32.

    See, e.g. Salomon (1925), 33; Esser (1956), 354 et seq.; Zweigert(1966), 5.

  33. 33.

    See more Michaels (2008), 356–359.

  34. 34.

    Similarly also Reitz (1998).

  35. 35.

    See also Bogdan (1994), 40.

  36. 36.

    Similarly also Michaels (2008), 2.

  37. 37.

    Bogdan (1994), 40.

  38. 38.

    Similarly see also Gutteridge (1946), 74.

  39. 39.

    Ibid.

  40. 40.

    European Free Trade Association.

  41. 41.

    Zweigert and Kötz (1987), 67; Armnjon et al. (1950).

  42. 42.

    Husa (2001). For a definition of macro- and micro-comparison see also Bogdan (1994), 227–228; De Cruz (1999), 57.

  43. 43.

    Roth and Wittich (1978), 18–22.

  44. 44.

    Husa (2001), 4, citing Gerth and Mills (1993).

  45. 45.

    Husa (2001), 7.

  46. 46.

    Ibid. 4.

  47. 47.

    Zweigert and Kötz (1987), 64. Similarly, Gutteridge expressed that the difficulties associated with diversity of legal orders may be surmounted by the selection of one system of law from a group of kindred systems. Gutteridge (1946), 74.

  48. 48.

    Zweigert and Kötz (1987), 69.

  49. 49.

    See also Husa (2004).

  50. 50.

    Ibid. 14. See also Zweigert and Kötz (1987), 66, 68.

  51. 51.

    Husa (2004), 15.

  52. 52.

    E.g. René David’s classification of the genuine legal families into Romano-Germanic, common law and socialist law. He further mentioned Hindu Law, Jewish law, law of the Far East and African Law. See David (1969), 22–33. Similarly, Zweigert and Kötz presented the classification of the legal orders of the world into Romanistic, Germanic, Nordic, Common Law, Far East, Islamic and Hindu. See Zweigert and Kötz (1998), 63–73. In the older editions of the book the Socialist legal family was also mentioned. See Zweigert and Kötz (1998), 69. Bogdan divided legal systems into English law, American Law, French Law, German Law, The Socialist Legal Systems, Chinese Law and Moslem Law. See Bogdan (1994), 101 et seq.

  53. 53.

    For more recent classifications see, e.g. Mattei (1997), who classified legal systems according to their type of norms: the rule of professional law, the rule of political law, the rule of traditional law; the dynamic classification by metamorphosis based on neutral “strengthening/weakening” qualities resulting into three different types of cultural spheres: Western, non-Western and hybrid. See also Husa (2004), 25.

  54. 54.

    Husa (2001), 5. For example, Bogdan randomly mentions criteria such as substantive contents of the legal rules, formal characteristics such as the hierarchy of sources of law, legal concepts and legal terminology. Bogdan (1994), 83.

  55. 55.

    See also Bogdan who expressed that the classification is not an end in and of itself but is conducted for a particular purpose. He also admitted that a division which is appropriate for one purpose may not be useful in another connection. Ibid. 85.

  56. 56.

    Here, it is more appropriate to speak of “legal groups” as the concept of “legal family” contains and idea of historical relationship between different systems of law. See, e.g. Husa (2001), 3.

  57. 57.

    For the differences between civil law and common law legal tradition in international arbitration see generally Laeuchli (2007).

  58. 58.

    Legislation based on the Model Law has been adopted in 66 States (or separate territories forming part of such states) throughout the world. See http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/1985Model_ arbitration_status.html.

  59. 59.

    The United Kingdom has three separate legal systems; one each for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The reference to “English legal system” shall, for the purpose of the present study, be understood as a reference to the legal system of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This limitation is justified by the scope of applicability of the Arbitration Act 1996. See generally Chap. 6 at Sect. 6.1 et seq.

  60. 60.

    See also Zweigert (1972), 472.

  61. 61.

    Although cautious to avoid projecting the views of a particular legal order in the comparison, the way of thinking and basic attitudes to law developed during my legal education still unavoidably influence the general approach towards the comparison.

  62. 62.

    Bogdan (1994), 45.

  63. 63.

    See also Ibid. 46.

  64. 64.

    For a more detailed discussion of the issue, see e.g. Cownie et al. (2007), 86, 94; De Cruz (1999), 245, 251, 255; Elliot and Quinn (2008), 7, 32; Gutteridge (1946), 81–82; Simon and Funk-Baker (2009), 23–26; Voyame (2004), 7–8; Youngs (1998), 53; Zimmermann (2005), 27.

  65. 65.

    Elliot and Quinn (2008), 7 et seq.

  66. 66.

    See also Simon and Funk-Baker (2009), 23.

  67. 67.

    Bogdan (1994), 47.

  68. 68.

    Elliot and Quinn (2008), 96.

  69. 69.

    Ibid.

  70. 70.

    See Chap. 5 at Sect. 5.1 et seq.

  71. 71.

    Unofficial translations and translations made by the author herself are denoted accordingly.

  72. 72.

    Article 70 of the Federal Constitution (Bundesverfassung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft vom 18. April 1999, SR 101).

  73. 73.

    See also Voyame (2004), 11.

  74. 74.

    Ibid. 12.

  75. 75.

    Elsing and Townsend (2002).

  76. 76.

    Strong (2010). For an outline of sources of international arbitration see, e.g. Strong, Research in International Commercial Arbitration: Special Skills, Special Sources 131; Born (2009), 188–195; Gaillard and Savage (1999), 63–190.

  77. 77.

    See, e.g. Paulsson (2008), 1, who proclaimed that differences between international and other types of arbitration are “so great that their similarities are largely illusory”.

  78. 78.

    UNCITRAL Model Law, Article 1(3).

  79. 79.

    See footnote to Article 1(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

References

  • Armnjon P, Nolde B, Wolff M (1950) Traité de droit comparé I. Librarie Génerale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachand F (2006) Does Article 8 of the model law call for full or prima facie review of the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction? Arbitration Int 22(3):463

    Google Scholar 

  • III Barceló JJ (2003) Who decides the arbitrator's jurisdiction – separability and competence-competence in transnational perspective. Vanderbilt Transnational Law J 36:1115

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan M (1994) Comparative law, 1st edn. Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Born G (2009) International commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Brekoulakis S (2009) Chapter II: the arbitrator and the arbitration procedure – the negative effect of compétence-compétence: the verdict has to be negative. In: Klausegger C, Klein P et al (eds) Austrian Arbitration Yearbook 2009. C.H. Beck, Stämpfli & Manz, Munchen, p 237

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs A (2008) Agreements on jurisdiction and choice of law (Oxford private international law series). Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Carducci G (2011) Arbitration, anti-suit injunctions and lis pendens under the European jurisdiction regulation and the New York Convention. Arbitration Int 27(2):177

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb MB (2001) Domestic court's obligation to refer the parties to arbitration. Arbitration Int 17(3):313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cownie F, Bradney A, Burto M (2007) English legal system in context, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • David R (1969) Les grand systèmes de droit contemporains. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cruz P (1999) Comparative law in a changing world, 2nd edn. Cavendish , London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimolitsa A (1999) Separability and Kompetenz-Kompetenz. In: van den Berg AJ (ed) Improving the efficiency of arbitration agreements and awards: 40 years of application of the New York Convention (ICCA Congress Series No. 9). Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 217

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot C, Quinn F (2008) English legal system, 9th edn. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsing SH, Townsend JM (2002) Bridging the common law civil law divide in arbitration. Arbitration Int 18(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein J (2001) The use of comparative method in commercial international arbitration and commercial law. Tulane Law Rev 75(4):917

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser J (1956) Grundsatz und Norm in der richterlichen Rechtsfortbildung. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard E, Banifatemi Y (2008) Negative effect of competence-competence: the rule of priority in favour of the arbitrators. In: Gaillard E, Pietro DD (eds) Enforcement of arbitration agreements and international arbitral awards: the New York Convention in practice. Cameron May, London, p 257

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard E, Savage J (1999) Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerth HH, Mills CW (1993) The man and his work. In: Gerth HH, Mills W (eds) From Max Weber: essays in sociology. Routledge, London, p 59

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotanda JY (2001) An efficient method for determining jurisdiction in international arbitrations. Columbia J Transnational Law 40:13

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves J (2012) Court litigation over arbitration agreements: is it time for a new default rule? Am Rev Int Arbitration 23:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutteridge HC (1946) Comparative law: an introduction to the comparative method of legal study and research. Cambridge Studies in international and comparative Law, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoellering MF (1998) AAA administration of international arbitration proceedings. ICSID Rev Foreign Investment Law J 13(1):53

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtzmann HM, Neuhaus JE (1989) A guide to the UNCITRAL model law on international commercial arbitration: legislative history and commentary. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Husa J (2001) Legal families and research in comparative law. Global Jurist Adv 1(3):1 (Article 4)

    Google Scholar 

  • Husa J (2004) Classification of legal families today is it time for a memorial hymn? Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé 1:11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones D (2009) Competence-competence. Arbitration J Chartered Institute Arbitrators 75(1):56

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamba WJ (1974) Comparative law - a theoretical framework. Int Comp Law Q 23(3):511–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawharu A (2008) Arbitral jurisdiction. N Z Universities Law Rev 23(2):238

    Google Scholar 

  • Laeuchli UM (2007) Civil and common law: contrast and synthesis in international arbitration. Dispute Resolution J 62(3):80

    Google Scholar 

  • Lando O (1966) Komparativ ret som emne for forskning og undervisning. FJFT 24, translation in Bogdan (1994), 24

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattei U (1997) Three patterns of law: taxonomy and change in the world’s legal systems. Am J Comp Law 45(1):5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijer GJ (1996) International commercial arbitration. In: Koppenol-Laforce M (ed) International contracts: aspects of jurisdiction, arbitration and private international law. Sweet & Maxwell, London, p 86

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels R (2008) The functional method of comparative law. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 383

    Google Scholar 

  • Park WW (2007) The arbitrator’s jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction. In: van den Berg AJ (ed) International arbitration 2006: back to basics? (ICCA Congress Series No. 13) . Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 56

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulsson J (2008) International arbitration is not arbitration. Stockholm Int Arbitration Rev 2:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Redfern A et al (2009) Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimann M (2002) The progress and failure of comparative law in the second half of the twentieth century. Am J Comp Law 50:675

    Google Scholar 

  • Reitz JC (1998) How to do comparative law. Am J Comp Law 46:621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth G, Wittich C (eds) (1978) Max Weber: economy and society. University California Press, Ewing

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon M (1925) Grundlegung zur Rechtsphilosophie (1925), 2nd edn. Rotschild, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuel A (1989) Jurisdictional problems in international commercial arbitration: a study of Belgian, Dutch, English, French, Swedish, Swiss, U.S. and West German Law. Schulthess Polygraphischer, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser P (1992) The competence of arbitrators and of courts. Arbitration Int 8:189

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon H, Funk-Baker G (2009) Einführung in das deutsche Recht und in die deutsche Rechtssprache, 4th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Smit RH (2002) Separability and competence-competence in international arbitration: ex nihilo nihil fit? Or can something indeed come from nothing? Am Rev Int Arbitration 13:19

    Google Scholar 

  • St. Germain M (2005) The arbitrability of arbitrability. J Dispute Resolution 2:523

    Google Scholar 

  • Stelmach J, Brožek B (2006) Methods of legal reasoning. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Strong SI (2010) Research in international commercial arbitration: special skills, special sources. Am Rev Int Arbitration 20(2):120

    Google Scholar 

  • Susler O (2009) The jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal : a transnational analysis of the negative effect of competence-competence. Macquarie J Bus Law 6:119

    Google Scholar 

  • Voyame J (2004) Introduction. In: Dessemontet F, Ansay T (eds) Introduction to Swiss law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 7

    Google Scholar 

  • Youngs R (1998) English, French and German comparative law. Cavendish Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadkovich J (2008) Divergence and comity among the doctrines of separability and comptence-competence. Vindobona J Int Commercial Law Arbitration 12(1):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann R (2005) Characteristic aspects of German legal culture. In: Ansay T, Wallace D (eds) Introduction to German law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 27

    Google Scholar 

  • Zweigert K (1966) Des solutions identiques par des voies différentes. Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé 18:5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zweigert K (1972) Methodological problems in comparative law. Israel Law Rev 7(4):466

    Google Scholar 

  • Zweigert, Kötz (1987) An introduction to comparative law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) An introduction to comparative law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Sandra Synková

Authors
  1. Sandra Synková
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Synková, S. (2013). Courts’ Inquiry into Arbitral Jurisdiction at the Pre-award Stage: Introduction. In: Courts' Inquiry into Arbitral Jurisdiction at the Pre-Award Stage. Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00134-0_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation