Везде
Lex Facit Arbitrum? Philosophical and Legal Notes on Arbitration
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Lex Facit Arbitrum? Philosophical and Legal Notes on Arbitration
Annotation
PII
S1605-65900000622-5-1
DOI
10.61205/S160565900030821-7
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Oleg Skvortsov 
ORCID: 0000-0001-9697-5264
Occupation: Dr. Sci. (Law), Prof., Professor, Department of Commercial Law, SPbSU
Affiliation: Saint-Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Edition
Volume 28 Issue 11
Pages
33-45
Abstract

The article discusses the controversial issue of the relationship between arbitration and law, initiated at the time by the famous jurist F. Mann. The formulation of this problem seems paradoxical: either law creates arbitration, or arbitration creates law. One or another development of the discussion has important practical consequences, consisting in determining the direction of law enforcement and possible regulation. The author, based on the analysis of the theory of arbitration delocalization, aims to identify trends in the development of international arbitration and the role of arbitrators in this process. The delocalization theory taking root in international practice and the practice of individual legal systems leads to the separation of arbitrators from national legal systems, which stimulates their almost unlimited discretion, and this in turn becomes a source of instability in law enforcement. An analysis of the relationship between international commercial arbitration and international investment arbitration provides grounds for concluding that investment arbitration arbitrators are more independent of national legal systems. As a result, in the absence of appropriate regulation, investment arbitration arbitrators are more inclined to create law, sometimes disregarding established approaches. At the same time, their discretion is limited only by self-censorship. This situation has led to a crisis in investment arbitration, the need for reform of which has been under discussion for a long time. Conclusion: objectively, the concept of delocalization reflects the trend of globalism of the world order and to a certain extent contributes to the destruction of the centuries-old Westphalian system on which the established international relations rest.

Keywords
arbitration, international commercial arbitration, international investment arbitration, theory of arbitration delocalization, arbitration and law, lex arbitri, lex mercatoria, lex facit arbitrum
Date of publication
18.11.2024
Number of purchasers
0
Views
22
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf 100 RUB / 1.0 SU

To download PDF you should pay the subscribtion

Full text is available to subscribers only
Subscribe right now
Only article and additional services
Subscription benefits
100 RUB / 1.0 SU
Whole issue and additional services
Subscription benefits
0 RUB / 0.0 SU
All issues and additional services for 2024
Subscription benefits
800 RUB / 80.0 SU

References



Additional sources and materials

1. Soloveva A. V. International legal doctrines of investment law. Cand. diss. Moscow, 2020. 526 p. (In Russ.) 
2. Ferrari F. Lex facit arbitrum 2.0. Diritto del commercio internazionale, 2022. Pp. 915—959. 
3. Franck S. The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law through Inconsistent Decisions. Fordham Law Review, 2005, vol. 73, pp. 1521— 1625. 
4. Gaillard E. Aspects philosophiques du droit de l’arbitrage international. Leiden, 2008. 432 p. 
5. Gaillard E. Legal Theory International Arbitration. Leiden; Boston, 2010. 104 p. 
6. Good R. The Role of the Lex Loci Arbitri in International Commercial Arbitration. Arbitration International, 2001, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 19—40. 
7. Heiskanen V. Aspects philosophiques du droit de l’arbitrage international. European Journal of International Law, 2009, vol. 20, iss. 3, pp. 842—947. 
8. Mann F. A. English Procedural Law and Foreign Arbitrations. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1969, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 997—1001. 
9. Mann F. A. Lex Facit Arbitrum. In: Sanders P. (ed.). International Arbitration. Liber Amicorum for Martin Domke. The Hague, 1967 [1968]. Pp. 157—183. 
10. Roberts A. Incremental, Systemic, and Para-digmatic Reform of Investor-State Arbitration. American Journal of International Law, 2018, vol. 112, iss. 3, pp. 410—432. 
11. Treves T. Aspects of Legitimacy of Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals. In: Wolfrum R., Röben V. (eds). Legitimacy in International Law. Berlin, 2008. Pp. 169—188. 
12. Van Haersolte-van Hof J. J., Koppe E. V. International arbitration and the lex arbitri. Arbitration International, 2015, vol. 31, iss. 1, pp. 27—62. 
13. Anurov V. N. Competence of the arbitral tribunal. Vol. 2. Moscow, 2022. 352 p. (In Russ.) 
14. Anurov V. N. Conflict of jurisdiction when challenging an arbitration agreement. Moscow; Berlin, 2013. 196 p. (In Russ.) 
15. Asoskov A. V. Conflict of laws regulation of contractual obligations. Moscow; Berlin, 2012. 640 p. (In Russ.) 
16. Astakhova D. O. The Impact of the Theory of Delocalization of International Commercial Arbitration on the Competence of the French Authority for Assistance to Arbitration. Moscow University Bulletin. Series 11: Law, 2017, no. 4, pp. 111—120. (In Russ.) 
17. Astakhova D. O. Enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards set aside by the state court where they were made. Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel’stve, 2014, no. 3. Pp. 100—103. (In Russ.) 
18. Astakhova D. O. The trend towards delocalization of international commercial arbitration. Cand. diss. Moscow, 2019. 228 p. (In Russ.) 
19. Audzevichius R., Parkhaev D. The EU Court of Justice’s decision in Slowakishe Republik v. Achmea BV and the future of investment arbitration in Europe. Novye gorizonty mezhdunarodnogo arbitrazha. Iss. 5. Moscow, 2019. Pp. 348—375. (In Russ.) 
20. Bakhin S. V. Delocalization of International Commercial Arbitration: Fiction and Reality. Treteiskii sud, 2020, no. 1/2 (121/122). Pp. 68—73. (In Russ.) 
21. Belov V. A., Skvortsov O. Yu. Justice vs. Freedom = Law: An Antagonistic Contradiction and Its Solution (Part Two). Zakon, 2023, no. 3, pp. 114—125.(In Russ.) 
22. Belov S. A. Re-globalization and Its Impact on Law. Journal of Russian Law, 2023, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 54—67. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.61205/jrp.2023.138. 
23. Bessonova A. I. Recognition and enforcement of international investment arbitration awards. Moscow, 2020. 224 p. (In Russ.) 
24. Born G. B. International Arbitration: Law and Practice. Transl. from English. Moscow, 2020. 928 p. (In Russ.) 
25. Burova E. S. Investment Arbitration as a Two-Way Road: Counterclaims by States against Foreign Investors in Light of Recent Practice and the New Generation of International Investment Treaties. New Horizons in International Arbitration. Iss. 6. Moscow, 2020. Pp. 344— 379. (In Russ.)
26. Burova E. S., Koroteeva K. V. Winds of Change: Current Discussions on Investor-State Dispute Resolution Reform. Zakon, 2018, no. 5, pp. 153—163. (In Russ.) 
27. Golskiy D. G. Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards set aside by the court of the place where they were made. Moscow, 2019. 159 p. (In Russ.) 
28. Grebelskiy A. V. End of an Era? The Fate of Investment Arbitration in Light of Attempts to Establish a System of an EU Investment Court. In: Muranov A. I. (ed.). V. A. Kabatov, S. N. Lebedev. In Memoriam. Recollections, Articles, Other Materials. 2nd ed. Moscow, 2017, pp. 476—502. (In Russ.) 
29. Evseev E. E. Limits of jurisdiction of states in relation to international commercial arbitration. Pravovedenie, 2019, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 440—459. (In Russ.) 
30. Ispolinov A. S., Anufrieva A. A. Bilateral treaties of EU Member States on the protection of foreign investments and EU law. Rossijskoe pravosudie, 2012, no. 8(76), pp. 5—22. (In Russ.) 
31. Karabelnikov B. R. Lex Arbitri — the English and Russian courts have their own track. Zakon, 2021, no. 3, pp. 143—154. (In Russ.) 
32. Kurochkina E. M. Enforcement of Annulled Awards of International Commercial Arbitration: Assessment from the Point of View of General Principles of Law. Journal of Russian Law, 2023, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 54—65. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.61205/jrp.2023.103. 
33. Litvinskiy D. V. On the issue of the possibility of enforcing an arbitration award that was overturned by the judicial authorities of the state in whose territory it was made (new trends in international commercial arbitration law). Zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava, 2000, no. 4(40), pp. 3—23. (In Russ.) 
34. Polsson Ya. The idea of arbitration. Moscow, 2021. 528 p. (In Russ.) 
35. Rachkov I. V. Reform of the international legal settlement of disputes between foreign investors and states. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2016, no. 3(19), pp. 118—136. (In Russ.) 
36. Skvortsov O. Yu. Investment Arbitration Crisis. In: Bublik V. A. (ed.). Civilistic Process: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. Liber Amicorum. In Honor of Professor I. V. Reshetnikova. Moscow, 2023. Pp. 480—500. (In Russ.) 
37. Skvortsov O. Yu. Private (contractual) jurisdiction and its ideological origins. Rossiyskiy ezhegodnik grazhdanskogo i arbitrazhnogo protsessa, 2005, no. 4, pp. 499—532. (In Russ.) 
38. Kostin A. A. (ed.). Modern International Commercial Arbitration. Moscow, 2012. 337 p. (In Russ.) 
39. Soloveva A. V. New approaches to investment arbitration reform. Moskovskiy zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, 2019, no. 1, pp. 27—39. (In Russ.) 
40. Belov V. A. (ed.). Trade (commercial) law: current issues of theory and practice. Moscow, 2019. 718 p. (In Russ.) 
41. Khodykin R. M. The End of Investment Arbitrage? Legal Insight, 2014, no. 6(32), pp. 30— 34. (In Russ.) 
42. Efremov I. (ed.). International Court of Arbitration. St. Petersburg, 1909. (In Russ.)

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate