Search

One significant concern in the current international investment is the imbalance between foreign investors' interests and the host state's right to regulate in the public interest. Broad investment protections are enjoyed by foreign investors, such as the protection of legitimate expectations included in fair and equitable treatment, whereas the host state's regulatory power for the public interest is somewhat restricted. How to strike a balance in such an imbalanced investor-state relationship is being considered by states, including China, to deliver their sustainable foreign investment. Proportionality, which first originated in Germany, has been noted by scholars as an appropriate tool to strike a balance between private rights and the state's regulatory power by three consecutive assessments of suitability, necessity, and proportionality stricto sensu, respectively. However, how to bring this method into the settlement of investor-state disputes and how to apply it to balance conflicting values between foreign investors and the host state raise debates. Due to its failure to fulfil the requirements of Article 38 (1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the application of proportionality depends on the interpretation of each case. Proportionality can be applied if it is expressed in the case-related treaty or included in the host state's domestic law, which is the applicable legal instrument of the case. A systemic interpretative method is then needed to apply proportionality in investor-state arbitration. This research tests the possibility and practicability of applying proportionality in striking a balance between the investor-state relationship from the international and Chinese perspectives to ascertain an appropriate method to balance the investor-state relationship in international investment, particularly in Chinese international investment. Due to its dual role in international investment, a balanced investor-state relationship is in China's interest. The approach it adopts may also benefit the capital importer and exporter.

This thesis will examine whether Saudi Arabia's adoption of New York Convention 1958 will improve the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral award in the country, and consequently provide a better investment environment for non-Saudi investors. The examination will be carried out against Saudi conservative approach toward the grounds of refusal of international arbitral award listed in the Convention, with examples from French and English legal systems. The thesis is intended to provide an in-depth criticism and analysis on how the role of sharia in Saudi legal system has affected implementation of these grounds. However, the research will only cover three out of seven grounds for the refusal of recognition and enforcement of convention awards provided by Article V of the Convention. Namely, the thesis will cover the capacity, the enforcement of award that has been set aside the country of origin and the public policy grounds. These three Grounds are unlike the rest of the grounds, they significantly affected by the Islamic rules. The thesis concludes that the Saudi legislators should have codified the Islamic rules, whether by adopting one of the schools of thought to be the country official Islamic rules or by gathering all Islamic principles applied by Saudi courts under one Act. It also suggests a reconsideration of the judges' requirements, as only Islamic background is not enough to make the judge able to deal with international treaties. Finally, the thesis emphasizes that Saudi Arabia shall fund researches and provide scholarships to its judges to study in different countries, in order to have better understand of the legal issues in different legal systems.

This thesis aims to provide a critical appraisal of the validity and enforcement of arbitration agreements and clauses in the context of administrative contracts. The proposed thesis will consider the potential impacts of Shariah on arbitration proceedings initiated in Saudi Arabia, with particular attention focused on the requirements of the applicable procedural and substantive laws. Drawing on the administrative systems of France and Egypt, this thesis will consider how other civil law systems have balanced the rights of private parties with the unilateral authority of public administration, and the extent to which these systems have recognised the rights of private parties to resolve disputes through the mechanisms of arbitration.

The dynamics of our globalised world open the way for international trade and transactions between different countries; this may lead to conflicts in laws where transactions and trade may be subject to different legal systems. One of the biggest issues in international commercial law is disputes over the charging of interest, for example with regard to late payment, interest-based loans, or compensation for damages. Interest disputes are considered to be a complex area of law and even more complex in the international field. At the international level, interest claims may be connected to many areas of commerce and thus governed by various laws, which are different from one country to another; moreover, each country has its own interest rate and such rates are changeable according to the nature of law and economics under some jurisdictions. Furthermore, the concept of interest itself is affected by influences such as religious beliefs and economic, political and cultural trends. Interest can be treated as a substantive or a procedural matter. The settlement of these disputes therefore faces difficulties. Arbitration, as a method for settlement of disputes, is characterised by special features that assist in resolving these issues; but it faces some obstructions, especially in international commercial arbitration. The practices of arbitral tribunals and national courts in this regard are different. The results of different interpretations, approaches, and theories with regard to arbitration, at the pre-arbitration, during arbitration and post-arbitration stages, may also differ widely due to the diversity of financial and legal systems such as Common Law, Civil Law and the Islamic legal system – Sharia Law – across different countries. Each legal system has a different methodology and theories, even within an individual country under one legal system, and a state within a federal system has its own laws, which may have different interpretations in this respect. The New York Convention of 1958 on enforcing foreign arbitral awards was established in favour of arbitral awards and for the purpose of unifying international rules of arbitration. This Convention provides some procedural and substantive rules for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, but also provides some grounds for refusal. These rules have been affected by different interpretations under different jurisdictions and legal systems, which lead to different perspectives on the matter of charging interest and settlement by arbitration. The outcome of applying the NYC under these interpretations often has the opposite of its intended effect: the rejection of foreign arbitral awards. Due to such ambiguities, courts occasionally intervene in arbitration in all its stages. The interventions of national courts occur in three stages: enforcement of the arbitration agreement, enforcement of the contract under the applicable law to the agreement, and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award. The confusion between substantive and procedural laws also creates confusion with respect to public policy, non-arbitrability and enforceability. In addition, there may be a lack of clarity on the scope of arbitration with respect to the parties’ agreement, whether or not the parties have agreed to the interest rates and periods and whether or not they have agreed to the authority of the arbitrator. These issues affect the enforceability of an arbitration agreement, the law applicable to the disputed contract, the freedom of parties, the authority of the arbitrators and the enforceability of the awarded interest. The thesis studies how arbitral awards containing interest have been interpreted across the three aforementioned legal systems under the NYC 1958 in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, England, France, and the US and the enforceability of such awards.

Today we live in a world where international trade accounts for a significant proportion of the daily trade for an enormous number of companies and institutions. The number of international commercial deals that are made every day is countless. The sheer scale of international trade invariably results in an increase in the number of disputes between international partners. However, where there are problems, methods to resolve the disagreements will invariably appear. One of the main and mostly preferred methods is arbitration. Arbitration is preferred for it is convenient and cost-effective method to resolve disputes between business partners. Saudi Arabia has recently reformed its Arbitration Regulations through the implementation of new regulations in 2012. This replaces previous regulations dating from 1983 and the implementation rules of 1985. This thesis examines, analyses and criticises these regulations and compare them to the English and the Scottish arbitration laws. Throughout this study, the old Saudi regulations and implementation rules are examined in order to determine how the rule of arbitration worked in the country. Following this, the new regulations are presented to see what has changed and if there has been any improvement. This is subsequently followed by a discussion on the scale of the improvement and whether further improvements are required in Saudi Arabia. This thesis will also carry out a comparison with the English Act of 1996 and the Arbitration Scotland Act of 2010. The conclusion address and highlight the main differences between the regulations, when present and highlights what the Saudi legislator can benefit from the laws under consideration. One of the main aims of this study was to find if the Saudi Arbitration Regulations have improved and addressed the issues that concerned researchers and commentators in the past. The research finds that there are significant improvements in the Saudi regulations.

This paper talks about the international standards for commercial mediators. It introduces the standards of eight different jurisdictions and afterwards, evaluates whether there should be one accrediting standard for all international commercial mediators. In the introduction chapter, the paper talks about the problems with the current legal system and then explains the growth of mediation in today’s society. By discussing the nature and practice of mediation, whether mediation should be compulsory or voluntary in light of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, rationale of the various jurisdictions covered, the paper then talks about the attributes that make a good mediator as well as the accreditation and training of mediators. From chapter two to chapter nine, the paper focuses on eight jurisdictions in which mediation is firmly enshrined within one legal culture to those that are just embarking on the concept (namely Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Hong Kong, California and Canada). Each chapter talks about the developments of commercial mediation, law and institutions as well as training and accreditation of mediators within their respective jurisdictions. In the concluding chapter, it discusses whether there should be one accrediting standard for international commercial mediators by exploring the advantages and disadvantages of having one accrediting standard as well as the author’s analysis and point of view on the subject.

This thesis attempts to critically and comparatively analyse the doctrine of exemption/frustration /force majeure under the United Nations Convention on the Contract for International Sale of Goods (CISG) the UNIDRIOT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (UNIDROIT) and the English Law. The doctrine of exemption/frustration/force majeure is very important in the area of contract and commercial law, it is a doctrine deeply rooted in fairness and allows a party to be excused from performing an obligation in a contract if at the conclusion of the contract an inhibition beyond the foreseeable control of the party happens to render the performance of the contract impossible. However, it is not easy to effectively streamline this doctrine and properly determine its applications. It has been observed in this thesis that, the doctrines of exemption/frustration /force majeure are not exactly the same; this thesis explores in details severally and jointly the various differences and similarities in the interpretations and applications of these impossibility doctrines. For instance, the open and flexible use of words in the definition of this doctrine under the CISG and the UNIDROIT Principles left much to be desired. Thus, it is one of the succinct arguments of this thesis that couching international law in loose words will work against the uniformity of application of this law, due to the different interpretations national law courts will be subjecting it to. This among other issues retarded the growth and development of the doctrine of exemption and force majeure. Furthermore, English law stance on the doctrine of frustration which can be gleaned from both the Sale of Goods Act of 1979 and the Common law are far from being adequate and need to be updated. This thesis therefore incisively laid bare the applications, interpretations and way forward for the doctrine of exemption/frustration/force majeure under the legal instruments of focus of this work. The thesis also comparatively compares the relationship between the doctrine of frustration/force majeure/exemption and other related doctrines like mistake, termination, avoidance, risk, and hardship. The thesis is concluded with a Draft Model Frustration Clause (DMFC) which is an attempt to rise above the status quo doctrine of frustration in the extant laws and develop a frustration clause that will be able to provide answers to the many flaws that trail these laws.