Search

The effect of the adversarial principle within international commercial arbitration has been studied in the article. It has been noted that the ever-growing development of economic relations inextricably leads to an increase in disputes in the field of economic activity. The author believes that international arbitration is one of the most effective means of peaceful resolution of international conflicts. International arbitration is understood as a special procedure for hearing and settling international disputes, as well as an international body, which is created by mutual agreement of the parties to resolve a specific dispute, disputes of a certain category, or any dispute between the contracting parties in case there are some. It has been substantiated in the article that the activity of international commercial arbitration is primarily built on the system of certain procedural principles (dispositive, adversarial, procedural equality of the parties, etc.). The procedural equality of the parties is a condition for the implementation of the adversarial principle, since the parties can compete for defending their subjective rights and interests protected by law only under the same legal conditions by using equal procedural means: to defend own position in the dispute by presenting evidence; to participate in the examination of evidence; to demonstrate initiative and activity in the process of hearing the case; to give arguments for defending oneself and to object the evidence and arguments of the opposing party. It is the adversarial nature of the parties in combination with the procedural requirement of conscientious usage of procedural rights by the parties, as well as the prevention of their abuse constitute a sufficient legal basis for regulating the procedural relations of the parties while hearing a case within international commercial arbitration. Adversarial judicial proceedings are the optimal principle, the one that really ensures effective protection of violated or disputed rights and interests, and that reflects its democratic orientation. The effect of the adversarial principle is mostly manifested in specific features of the rules of evidence within international commercial arbitration, when each person participating in the case proves the referred circumstances or their absence in supporting own claims and objections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research tackles the subject of arbitration in a civil lawsuit, as a defense that can be raised by any of the litigants, and the effect of this plea, whether by not accepting it, dismissing it, or stopping its consideration. It also looks at the condition of arbitration at all stages of the lawsuit. Research Problem: It can be summed up in that, Palestinian Arbitration Law did not specify the nature of the plea to arbitration in the civil cases. Purpose: The research aims to determine the legal nature of this plea, and its impact on the civil case. It concludes that the condition of arbitration prevents the Court from hearing the civil lawsuit. However, the laws under study differed in regulating this defense, and therefore in determining its legal value. Whether this defense was procedural, or substantive, or something else. There are some legislations that expressly decide that arbitration is considered a plea of non-acceptance. Other legislations consider it to be one of the defenses that are not related to public order, and, therefore, that must be made before any procedural plea, request or defense in the case under penalty of forfeiture. Yet, some legislations considered such a defense as a reason that would halt the proceeding before the Court without any further clarification on its precise legal value. Methodology: The research used descriptive, analytical and comparative methodologies. Results: One paramount result of this research is that the Palestinian Arbitration Law was limited to stipulating that pleading arbitration leads to stopping the lawsuit, without clarifying the procedures that follow this stopping. On the other hand, this law considered that filing a lawsuit does not prevent the initiation of arbitration proceedings, or the continuation of therein, or issuing an arbitration decision. Recommendations: The research has many recommendations, the most important of which was the recommendation to the Palestinian legislator to consider the plea to arbitration as a reason not to accept the case, and not as a reason to stop the case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

the inclusion of an arbitration clause in a contract obliges the parties to settle the dispute through arbitration and refrain from submitting their claims to courts. However, one of the parties may file a lawsuit in court. In that case, important procedural issues may be raised, including what is the effect of the claimant's lawsuit on the waiver of the arbitration clause, what is the effect of the defendant's objection or non-objection by procedural pleas to the existence of the arbitration clause on the court's jurisdiction. The question is can the court decline jurisdiction for substantive proceedings even without the defendant's objection? The decision of General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court, emphasizing the effect of the arbitration clause on the prohibition of the court from substantive proceedings, has not considered the above issues. In this research, in addition to examining the judgment in issue, the various aspects of the defendant's objection to the arbitration clause and the duty of the court in this context have been discussed, and based on the nature of the right arising from the arbitration agreement, it has been emphasized that the role of the will of the parties in invoking or waiving the arbitration clause should be considered by the courts; Something that has not been examined clearly in the judgment of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court.

Copyright of Strategic Universe Journal / Univers Strategic is the property of Dimitrie Cantemir Christian University, Institute for Security Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Economic Administrative & Legal Sciences is the property of Arab Journal of Sciences & Research Publishing (AJSRP) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Dokuz Eylül University Law Review is the property of Dokuz Eyluel University, Faculty of Law Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In Indonesia, the resolution of business disputes can be pursued through amicable means, either via the court system or alternative methods. Court proceedings often entail prolonged durations, which can significantly increase overall case costs compared to out-of-court dispute resolution options. Among these alternatives, arbitration stands out as a preferred method due to its adjudicative nature, akin to court proceedings, and its advantages over mediation, conciliation, and negotiation. Arbitration is frequently perceived as more effective and efficient, facilitating win-win solutions for disputing parties. Within the Indonesian legal framework, arbitration closely resembles court procedures for dispute resolution, with its awards holding equivalent binding authority and enforceability. This article employs secondary data analyzed through a qualitative-juridical methodology to investigate the jurisdictions of district courts and arbitration. The findings indicate that arbitration assumes absolute jurisdiction in the presence of an arbitration clause or an underlying arbitration agreement, thereby precluding the jurisdiction of the district court.

Abstract An arbitration Agreement between the parties is an important source of law in the arbitration proceeding, especially in International Commercial Arbitration. Arbitration Agreements, which could be made before and after the dispute, provide jurisdiction to the arbitral tribunal to settle the dispute. Traditionally, the arbitration agreement provides that only the parties in the agreement could be bound by the arbitration proceeding. However, in commercial arbitration, there is a circumstance in which a third party could be bound to arbitration proceedings. Indonesia has an arbitration law based on Law No. 30 Year 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution. This law stipulates how arbitration proceedings could proceed in Indonesia, including third-party issues in arbitration proceedings, as stipulated in Article 30. However, it depends on an arbitrator to settle since the Law itself does not explain further. The definition also does not govern in BANI Rules and Procedure as BANI procedural law. One opinion based on the writer’s research shows that commercial arbitration in Indonesia could also consider Indonesian Civil Procedural Law, as well as the regulation toward third parties’ involvement. Some of the mechanism of third parties’ involvement that has been regulated in Indonesian Civil Procedural Law is Vrijwaring, Tussenkomst, and Voeging. Abstrak Perjanjian Arbitrase di antara para pihak merupakan sumber hukum utama dalam proses arbitrase, khususnya dalam Arbitrase Komersial Internasional. Perjanjian Arbitrase dapat dibuat sebelum dan setelah sengketa, dan merupakan dasar kewenangan dari lembaga arbitrase untuk menyelesaikan sengketa. Secara konsep, perjanjian arbitrase hanya mengikat para pihak yang terikat dalam perjanjian arbitrase. Namun demikian, terdapat kondisi bilamana pihak ketiga dapat terikat dalam proses arbitrase. Indonesia mengatur arbitrase dalam UU No. 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa. Undang-undang ini mengatur bagaimana proses arbitrase di Indonesia, termasuk para pihak dalam proses arbitrase sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 30. Hal ini sangat tergantung pada arbiter untuk memutuskannya karena undang-undang tidak memberikan penjelasan lebih lanjut. Penjelasan selanjutnya juga tidak diatur dalam Hukum Acara BANI. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian yang dilakukan, dalam arbitrase komersial di Indonesia, para pihak perlu mempertimbangkan Hukum Acara Perdata yang berlaku di Indonesia, khususnya mengenai pengaturan bagaimana pihak ketiga bisa terikat dalam proses arbitrase. Mekanisme keterlibatan pihak ketiga yang diatur dalam Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia yaitu Vrijwaring, Tussenkomst, and Voeging.

This research deals with the legal problems faced by the proof of the electronic arbitration agreement in the national laws. The research ended with important results, one of them is at the level of national legislation, that some national legislations require the use of public-key technology in order for the electronic arbitration agreement to have evidentiary value, and other legislations do not require the use of a specific technology. The study concluded that the best solution at the international level is to make amendments to the New York Convention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the current circumstances of the constantly changing socio-political situation and the increasing complexity of existing legal relations, a positive trend has emerged in the field of obligation law, connected with the desire of the participants of civil circulation to take more personal part in the construction of contractual legal relations, that is, to implement their individual regulation. In this connection, the search for and detailed study of legal means to facilitate the effective regulation of contractual legal relations, both in substantive and procedural terms, has become an issue of particular relevance. One such means is an arbitration agreement, the disclosure of the regulatory properties of which becomes fully possible when ap-plying to it the basic provisions of the concept of civil law contractual regulation as one of the progressive directions of modern civil science. Purpose: to analyze the arbitration agreement from the standpoint of the concept of civil law contractual regulation, to identify its features and determine its place in the structure of the mechanism for civil law contractual regulation. Methods: empirical methods of comparison, description, interpretation; theoretical methods of analysis, synthesis, induction, classification; specific scientific methods: formal-logical and interpretation of legal norms. Results: the study of the mixed legal nature of the arbitration agreement makes it possible to consider it as an effective and exclusive part of the mechanism for civil law contractual regulation, facilitating the individual regulation of the procedural aspects of their interaction by the participants in contractual legal relations.

This article examines international commercial arbitration, one of the most popular methods for the resolution of disputes that arise in the context of international commercial relations. The volume of trade between Russia and China has been gradually increasing in recent years, which testifies to the fact that the study of international commercial arbitration legal regulation in both nations is extremely relevant. The authors examine the concept of international commercial arbitration entities, as well as the sources of legal regulation that govern their establishment and operation in Russia and Mainland China. In addition, the procedures for case consideration, the elaboration of arbitration agreements, the rules for the creation of an arbitration commission, the requirements for arbitral awards and other aspects are investigated. The authors come to the conclusion that the regulations governing international commercial arbitration are similar in the two countries and are based on international law and national legal acts. Both Russia and China have adopted the norms outlined in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law into their legal systems although to different degrees. Both countries provide similar arbitration agreement norms and support the arbitration clause autonomy principle. The difference lies in the fact that China does not follow the competence-competence principle (the arbitrators’ power to determine their own competence to consider a certain dispute). Instead, the issue is referred either to the arbitration commission or to the state court for resolution. On the other hand, arbitrators in Russia have the right to determine their competence by themselves. According to Chinese law, a party requires arbitration court mediation in order to be able to submit a request for provisional protection measures to the state court, while under Russian law adirect request is allowed. In China, the norms for the recognition and enforcement of aforeign arbitration award by the court do not provide for the court’s ruling to be challenged; the refusal of the recognition and enforcement shall be possible only after the award has been considered by the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China. In Russia, the legislation allows for both challenging and refusing the decision to recognize and enforce the award.

Commercial contracts are the main tool for regulating relations between enterprises, regardless of their geographical location. The purpose of the research is the analysis and study of modern trends, features, and problems related to the conclusion and execution of commercial contracts in foreign countries. The main tasks are: 1. Study of the main principles of commercial law of foreign countries. Consideration of key aspects of commercial law of different countries, such as the principles of contract law, executive law, and other important aspects affecting the conclusion and performance of contracts. 2. Study of current problems and challenges. Consideration of modern problems of conclusion, execution, and disputes under contracts in the commercial law of foreign countries, such as problems of electronic commerce, international trade disputes, protection of consumer rights, and other relevant issues. 3. Study of international trends. Analysis of modern international trends in the field of commercial law, such as the harmonization of legal norms, the development of electronic commerce, the impact of technology on the conclusion and performance of contracts, international cooperation, and integration. Current theoretical approaches, principles, and general rules related to commercial contracts in foreign countries are studied. The problems arising in the practice of conclusion and execution of such contracts have been identified. Common principles and features of regulation of commercial contracts in various foreign countries are established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Jordanian Journal of Law & Political Science is the property of Mutah University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Public & Private International Law Bulletin is the property of Public & Private International Law Bulletin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The main reason for dispute in international commercial arbitration is the existence of an arbitration agreement concluded between the parties to a foreign trade agreement. The procedure of dispute resolution in international commercial arbitration will depend on the extent to which this arbitration agreement is concluded correctly in accordance with the norms of international and national law. Quite often, in the law enforcement activities of both national courts and arbitrations, there are questions about the validity, effectiveness, and enforceability of an arbitration agreement. In different countries, this issue is addressed ambiguously. In one case, national law takes precedence, and, accordingly, national courts are empowered to consider the validity, effectiveness, and enforceability of an arbitration agreement. In other cases, however, the autonomy of the arbitration agreement is a priority aspect of the consideration of any procedural issues by international commercial arbitration as the only and indisputable body authorised by the parties to the foreign trade agreement to consider a particular dispute. The article analyses doctrinal and legislative approaches to this issue, in which the authors come to the logical conclusion that national courts do not consider the validity, effectiveness, and enforceability of an arbitration agreement.

Copyright of Journal Law & Political Sciences (Arabic Version) is the property of Journal of Law & Political Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper provides an analysis of the scope of Article V part 1 d of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the application of the relevant article by courts in Latvia and abroad. It is argued that although parties can freely agree on the arbitration process and the appointment of arbitrators, they cannot waive rights to due process or agree on arbitrators discriminating him/her based on religion, views, handicap, age or sexual orientation. Moreover, the author concluded that Section 497 of Latvia’s Civil Procedure Law providing the requirements of professional qualifications for arbitrators cannot be seen as an imperative norm in international arbitration procedure and that this norm must not be applied to an international arbitration procedure unless the parties to the case have agreed otherwise.

Copyright of Romanian Case Law Review / Revista Română de Jurisprudenţă is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article analyzes the main provisions of the domestic arbitration bill in Uruguay. It highlights the need to reform the current legislation and mentions that the project takes into account best practices at a comparative level. Topics such as the elimination of the arbitration clause, the adoption of legal arbitration as a rule, the arbitrability of public order rules, the autonomy of the arbitration agreement, and interim measures are discussed. It is concluded that this bill is positive and would strengthen domestic arbitration in Uruguay. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of GALATASARAY UNIVERSITESI HUKUK FAKULTESI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Inonu University Law Review / İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Inonu University Law Review (IULR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The author of this contribution deals with specifics of consumer disputes in Austrian civil procedure law. He analyses special provisions that address consumers in dispute resolution and general procedural rules that do not specifically apply to consumers but have their major impact on consumers. He gives an overview on the caselaw of the Austrian Supreme Court in which the Court has introduced several ways to protect the interests of consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ankara Barosu Dergileri is the property of Ankara Bar Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the presence of an arbitration agreement, the parties remove the general competence of the common law court for any possible disputes that may arise between them. In this article, the author starts from a case settled in the judicial practice. In the present case, although the arbitration agreement was inserted in the contract of the parties, the applicant nevertheless referred the matter to the court of law. In this situation, before the Cluj-Napoca Court of first instance, the defendant wrongly invoked the plea of territorial lack of competence. The court referred with the matter perpetuated the error and admitted the plea, although it should have qualified it as being the plea of general lack of competence of the court of law. The Cluj-Napoca Court of first instance declined the settlement of the case to Oradea Court of first instance, which took the correct measure and declined the settlement of the case to the Arbitration Court attached to the Timiș Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture. In our opinion, since the parties have established by their will the competence of the arbitral court for any possible disputes between them, they should respect this aspect and should not refer the matter to the courts of law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arbitration is a dispute settlement mechanism based on an agreement of the parties. Party autonomy to conclude an arbitration agreement is well established and recognized by the UNCITRAL Model Law on Arbitration and various national laws. However, party autonomy to conclude an arbitration agreement raises certain challenges for protection of human rights. One of them is how an arbitration agreement is compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which establishes the right to a fair trial before the state court. Conclusion of an arbitration agreement means that the parties waive their right to submit the dispute to the state court and instead create biding jurisdiction of arbitration court. This waiver of the right to a fair trial before the state court raises questions as to what extent the procedural guarantees of the right to a fair trial are applicable in arbitration court. What are the requirements for such a waiver of the right to a fair trial before the state courts?

Copyright of External Economic Bulletin / Külgazdaság is the property of KOPINT Konjunktura Kutatasi Alapitvany and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Following two recent decisions from the apex courts in England and Singapore on the appropriate methodology to ascertain the proper law of an arbitration agreement, the positions in these two leading arbitration destinations have now converged in some respects. But other issues of conceptual and practical significance have not been fully addressed, including the extent to which the true nature of the inquiry into whether the parties had made a choice of law is in substance an exercise in contractual interpretation, the applicability of a validation principle, and the extent to which the choice of a neutral seat may affect the court's determination of the proper law of the arbitration agreement. We propose a re-formulation of the common law's traditional three-stage test for determining the proper law of an arbitration agreement that can be applied by courts and tribunals alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Public & Private International Law Bulletin is the property of Public & Private International Law Bulletin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2020 5(2), 1061-1070 | European Forum Insight of 28 October 2020 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Judgment of the Court. - III. Analysis and comment. - III.1. The subject matter of the action and the (ir)relevance of European Schools. - III.2. The effects of the final arbitral award within the EU legal order. - IV. Conclusions. | (Abstract) The Slovenia v. Croatia case is a complex and politically charged one. Here, the Court of Justice was indirectly called upon to pronounce on the legal effects of an international arbitral award delimiting the territorial and maritime boundary between two Member States - the validity of which remains fiercely contested by one of the parties. This Insight analyses the Court of Justice's reasoning in the case at hand and argues that, although the Court was arguably caught between a rock and a hard place, its misconstruction of the subject matter of the action and its failure to engage with the res judicata effects of the arbitral award within the EU legal order weaken the persuasive force of its line of argumentation.

This paper shows the diverging tendencies in the understanding of the arbitration clause contained in the general terms conditions of business transactions (GT&CBT) in (international) commercial law and consumer protection law. The results show that inverse logic is currently used regarding the issue of bringing attention to the arbitration clause contained in a GT&CBT and the necessity for such an arbitration agreement to be contained in a separate and personally signed document. International commercial arbitration, encompassing both legal dogma and arbitration and court praxis, has shown a tendency towards a more liberal and flexible understanding of the written form in the past several decades, in terms of the validity of the arbitration clause contained in a GT&CBT referred to in an underlying substantive contract. By contrast, in consumer protection law, there is a tendency for the arbitration clause contained in a GT&CBT, which has not been brought to attention, to be considered a null and void provision. Namely, it is required for the arbitration clause to be contained in a separate document signed by both parties. This points to the conclusion that special attention should be paid to consumer disputes that are to be resolved by arbitration, while court and arbitration praxis in international commercial disputes lately records cases in which the court explicitly took the opposite position. Traders' claims stating that they were not aware that the GT&CBT contained an arbitration clause and that no attention was drawn to it are considered unfounded by the courts. Namely, the application of both GT&CBTs and arbitration in international trade are, nowadays, considered ordinary.

The right to protection of the rights of participants in international commercial transactions in arbitration is currently recognized worldwide and is guaranteed both at the level of national legislation and in the provisions of a number of international treaties. International commercial arbitrations, which have operated successfully in many countries over the past 70 years, have proven their effectiveness and efficiency, their decisions have a global unified enforcement mechanism based on the provisions of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 and correspondent national rules of legislation. As of September 2021, 168 countries are parties to the Convention, which means that the arbitration regime established by the Convention applies to all these countries. In national law, the legal regime of arbitration is usually governed by separate laws or provisions of codified acts. The purpose of the article is to study the legal conclusions of the European Court of Human Rights on the exercise by participants in international trade of the right to protection of their rights in arbitration. The article analyzes the issues of ensuring the exercise of the right to a fair trial, protection and access to justice through the settlement of disputes in international commercial arbitration. It is established that with the conclusion of an arbitration agreement between the parties to the dispute in light of the case law of the ECtHR, participants in international trade recognize and guarantee the right to resolve disputes covered by the arbitration agreement in international commercial arbitration. Interpretation of the derogating effect of the arbitration agreement as a restriction of the right to defence in a state court is currently completely unfounded and contradicts the general principles of law and legal conclusions of the Court and rather a manifestation of dishonesty of the party raising the issue in this context, and this is mainly the party against whom the arbitral award was made, or the party who, trying to delay or block the process of consideration and resolution of the dispute, makes attempts to circumvent the current arbitration agreement to refer the case to state court. Based on the analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the author resumes that the conclusion of such an agreement cannot be interpreted as an unjustified restriction of the right to defence in national courts. After all, by voluntarily concluding an arbitration agreement, a person or company voluntarily limits the possibility of resolving disputes arising from civil relations in state courts, but the right to defence and access to court is not limited, because in this case the dispute is considered by a competent (authorized by the state to resolve relevant disputes in accordance with the law) arbitration court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses the important issue of the separability of the arbitration agreement which is a basis of the effectiveness of arbitration. In this sense, we analyze the concept of separability and make conceptual precisions about it, such as the fact that it is not convenient to use the term "autonomy" to refer to this principle. Then we examine the foundations and consequences of separability, such as the absence of a joint fate between the main contract and the arbitration agreement. Then, we observe the global recognition of the principle of separability. Finally, we adress its legal and conventional treatment in the Peruvian case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ‘pro-arbitration’ approach is widely accepted in worldwide judicial practice in supporting the development of international commercial arbitration and in the application of the New York Convention. It has been promoted that the Chinese courts are making progresses in supporting the development of arbitration in China and adopting a ‘pro-arbitration’ approach generally. Nonetheless, in the last a few years, the Chinese courts have refused the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards on the ground of public policy on various occasions, including the most recent Palmer Case in 2018 and the Gate Case in 2019. Moreover, on multiple occasions the Chinese courts dealt with the public policy issue when an award was made by a foreign tribunal while the arbitration agreement was declared invalid by the Chinese court––resulting in seemingly conflicting outcomes under identical circumstances. To address the concerns as to whether the Chinese judicial system really adopts a ‘pro-arbitration’ approach in dealing with these legal issues and concepts, this article examines a series of recent cases and evaluates the Chinese courts’ approach in applying the public policy ground and in deciding the validity of arbitration agreement in the context of the international consensus represented by the New York Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law, the ILA Final Report on Public Policy. It further suggests possible reforms for China if a truly pro-arbitration approach is to be adopted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Concluding of the arbitration agreement is based on the principle of party autonomy but this principle is restricted by public order. In other words, although the arbitration agreement is mainly based on the private agreement of both parties, it is not correct that the common will of both parties have an absolute authority to refer any disputes to arbitration. Sometimes the law forbid or restrict the reference of some disputes to arbitration, and the reason for these are based on the basic concept of public order and interest; thus, the settlement of some disputes are merely on the authority of the courts and if the arbitrators proceed to issue an award about such disputes, that award will not be applicable. This article will outline the opinions of Iranian scholars with regard to the effect of public policy on the arbitration agreements as it could help to understand the floating essence of public policy. In addition, this article set forth to analyses the most important cases in relation to arbitrability which are the Art. 139 of the constitution, bankruptcy claims, family disputes, intellectual property claims, securities claims and also labor and employment contracts.

The national courts’ intervention in the arbitration process is inevitable if the trial is expected to be significantly efficient. The national courts should solely intervene in arbitration process if they are legally permitted to do so. The importance of anti-suit injunction is observed in international commercial arbitration, since it serves a dual function, that is, it is sometimes issued to support arbitration and sometimes to prevent arbitration. Therefore, it is necessary to address this question: “What are the positions of national legal systems and international rules/regulation regarding the anti-suit injunction?” National courts in the common law system tend to issue such injunctions based on arbitration agreements. By contrast, such injunctions are treated by the codified statutes as unjustified intervention in the judicial system. In international set of rules, such as UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, New York Convention and Brussel I Regulations on EU Law all have not granted permission to national courts to issue anti-suit injunctions. As far as Iranian law is concerned, there is no statutory provision on the permissibility of issuing the aforementioned injunction in the civil procedure and in international commercial arbitration

As far as arbitration agreement is concerned, it is suggested that the Taiwan Arbitration Act1 (as last amended on 2 December 2015, formerly named the Commercial Arbitration Act, came into force on 24 December 1998, after the reform of the arbitration law in Taiwan.) is trying to meet the needs of further development of Taiwanese arbitration, particularly international commercial arbitration. Article 1, Article 2 and Article 3 of the Taiwan Arbitration Act set out some criterion on adjudicating the validity of an arbitration agreement. This thesis try to make a comparative study of the Taiwanese arbitration system with other arbitration systems from arbitration agreement perspectives and hope possibly to improve Taiwan Arbitration Law. Proceeding an arbitration should be based on a valid agreement to arbitrate. This comparative study focuses on the issue relating to arbitration agreement.