Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Analysis as an Autonomization Strategy in International Commercial Arbitration

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The article explores the unique character of international commercial arbitration as a globalized phenomenon, where universalizing and harmonizing effects have largely been achieved by private means and spontaneous expansion, outside the States’ direct intervention and control. The evolution of arbitration in recent decades from an alternative to the core mechanism of deciding cross-border commercial controversies is considered. Privatization of this area of dispute resolution is examined in the context of its growing autonomization, marked—as observed by Emmanuel Gaillard—by notable changes in its theoretical representations and narratives. This specific conceptual, institutional, and procedural framework of commercial arbitration reflects the demands of decision-making exercised in a legally, linguistically, and culturally diversified environment. Interpretation and application of law in arbitral cases requires skillful navigation between the rules of domestic, international and transnational origin, performed not only on the level of substantive norms, but also on those involving conflict of laws and procedure. As a consequence, comparative analysis plays a critical and complex role in arbitral decision-making, reaching beyond the mere demands of rendition of relevant provisions, and has been defined sensu largo as a ‘comparative mindset’, characteristic to international commercial arbitration. The article examines this phenomenon and its mechanics, challenges for legal professions and the effect of transnationalization of relevant domestic rules. It also explains the role of comparative analysis as an important instrument, used strategically in the processes of autonomization of commercial arbitration.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. cf. [6], p. 150 and ff.

  2. [35], cf. also [51].

  3. [18], p. 47.

  4. [18].

  5. [30], p. 293.

  6. cf. [21], p. 21.

  7. [48].

  8. [14], p. 15 and ff.

  9. [13], p. 224.

  10. [16], p. ix.

  11. [5], p. 60.

  12. [27], p. 866.

  13. [16], p. 9.

  14. [7], p. 677.

  15. cf. [31], p. 347 and ff.

  16. [20], p. 230.

  17. [49], p. xv.

  18. [1], p. 208.

  19. [52].

  20. [52], p. 59.

  21. [52], pp. 59–60.

  22. It is worth noting though, that the first post-WWII, lex mercatoria based awards in the ‘oil cases’ were not universally accepted as an expression of the ‘common core’ of different legal systems. In the Islamic countries skepticism was a prominent reaction of the commentators and had resulted in long term reluctance in usage of arbitration (cf. [4], p. 643 and ff.). These effects of ostensibly universalistic legal aspirations placed in a post-colonial context can be seen as analogous to Western legal transplants in the field of human rights ([45], p. 214 and ff.).

  23. [13], p. 224.

  24. [24], p. 364.

  25. [21], p. 34.

  26. [46], p. 1.

  27. [46], p. 2.

  28. [28], p. 350.

  29. [44], p. 468.

  30. After: [29], p. 16.

  31. [23].

  32. c.f. e.g. the LCIA Rules, Art. 6.

  33. c.f. e.g. the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Art 22; UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules Art. 19; ICC Rules of Arbitration Art. 20; LCIA Arbitration Rules Art. 17; SCC Arbitration Rules Art. 21.

  34. See the 2005 CIETAC Rules, Art. 67(1) versus Art. 71(1) of the 2012 CIETAC Rules.

  35. [41], p. 88.

  36. [25].

  37. [42], p. 78.

  38. [21], p. 146.

  39. [46].

  40. [46], p. 18.

  41. [46], p. 19.

  42. [46], p. 16.

  43. [37], p. 110.

  44. [9].

  45. [13], p. 224.

  46. Cf. e.g. [38, 43].

  47. [34], p. 67.

  48. Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Foreword, in [40].

  49. [2].

  50. [36].

  51. Cf. [2].

  52. [11, 17].

  53. [2], supra note 67.

  54. Cf. International Arbitration Cases Received—compilation by HKIAC, http://www.hkiac.org (last visited Oct. 25, 2014). According to the data on the 2012 caseload (the last year with comprehensive comparative statistics provided) CIETAC handled 1060 arbitration cases, HKIAC 456 disputes including 293 arbitrations, and SIAC 235 arbitrations (compared to 759 at ICC and 177 at SCC). In 2011 CIETAC handled 1435 arbitrations, HKIAC 502 dispute resolution matters, including 275 arbitrations, and SIAC 188 arbitrations (compared to 795 at ICC, 224 at LCIA and 199 at SCC).

  55. [53].

  56. Fan Kun, “An empirical study of arbitrators acting as mediators in China”, 15 Cardozo J. of Conflict Resolution, pp. 777–811.

  57. [12].

  58. [22], p. 332.

  59. [10].

  60. Pierre Bourdieu, after: Niilo Kauppi & Mikael Rask Madsen, Transnational Power Elites: The New Professionals of Governance, Law and Security, 4–5 (2013).

  61. [33].

  62. See generally Vijay Kumar Bhatia, International Commercial Arbitration Practice: A Discourse Analytical Study, City University of Hong Kong, http://www1.english.cityu.edu.hk/arbitration/arbitration/index.html.

  63. [3].

  64. [26].

  65. [26] 5.

  66. Cf. e.g. [19, 50].

  67. [47].

  68. [8, 39].

  69. [32], p. 23.

  70. [34], p. 85.

  71. [15], supra note 8, at 979.

References

  1. Berger, K.P. 1999. The creeping codification of the lex mercatoria. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bergsten, Eric. 2006. The Americanization of international arbitration. Pace International Law Review 18: 289–301.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bhatia, Vijay Kumar, Christopher N. Candlin, and Maurizio Gotti. 2012. Discourse and practice in international commercial arbitration: Issues, challenges and prospects. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brower, Charles N., and Jeremy K. Sharpe. 2003. International arbitration and the Islamic World: The third phase. American Journal of International Law 97: 643–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Congrès international de droit comparé tenu à Paris du 31 juillet au 4 août 1900: procès-verbaux des séances et documents § 1 (LGDJ 1905). 1905.

  6. Cotterrell, Roger. 2013. Law, culture and society: Legal ideas in the mirror of social theory. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Curran, Vivian Grosswald. 2006. Comparative Law and Language. In The Oxford handbook of comparative law, ed. Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann, 675–707. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. De Ly, Filip. 1992. International business law and lex mercatoria. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Deutsche Schachtbau- und Tiefbohr GmbH v Rakoil, Court of Appeal decision of 24 March 1987, Lloyd’s L. Rep 2 (1987).

  10. Drahozal, Christopher R. 2005. Arbitrator selection and regulatory competition in international arbitration law. In Towards a science of international arbitration: Collected empirical research, ed. Christopher R. Drahozal and Richard W. Naimark. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Elsing, Siegfried H., and John M. Townsend. 2002. Bridging the common law: Civil law divide in arbitration. Practising Law Institute - International Business Litigation & Arbitration 670: 635–646.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fan, Kun, and Joanna Jemielniak. 2016. Ethnographic methods in the study of hybrid processes in arbitration: The Chinese and Western perspectives. European Business Law Review 27(4): 555–585.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gaillard, Emmanuel. 1995. Thirty years of lex mercatoria: towards the selective application of transnational rules. ICSID Review 10(2): 208–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gaillard, Emmanuel. 2010. Legal theory of international arbitration. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Glenn, H.P. 2000. Comparative law and legal practice: On removing the borders. Tul. L. Rev. 75: 977.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gutteridge, H.C. 1971. Comparative law: An introduction to the comparative method of legal study and research. Cambridge: CUP Archive.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Helmer, Elena V. 2003. International commercial arbitration: Americanized, “civilized”, or harmonized? Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 19: 35–67.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hesselink, Martijn. 2002. The new european private law: Vol. 3: Essays on the future of private law in Europe. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hiscock, Mary E. 2014. Global, local and glocal schools: the role of comparative law and the impact of globalisation. China-EU Law Journal 3(1–2): 13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Huber, Peter. 2006. Some introductory remarks on the CISG. Internationales Handelsrecht 6: 228–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jemielniak, Joanna. 2014. Legal interpretation in international commercial arbitration. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jemielniak, Joanna. 2014. Transnationalization of domestic law in international commercial arbitration through comparative analysis: Challenges for legal profession. Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal 7: 309.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jemielniak, Joanna, and Stefanie Pfisterer. 2015. Iura Novit Arbiter Revisited: Towards a Harmonized Approach? Uniform Law Review (accepted for publication).

  24. Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle. 2007. Arbitral precedent: Dream, necessity or excuse? Arbitration International 23(3): 357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle 2006. “The governing law: Fact or law?” A transnational rule on establishing its contents. In Best Practices in international Arbitration. ASA Swiss Arbitration Association. ASA Special Series No. 26 I—I July 2006, ed. Markus Wirth.

  26. Kauppi, Niilo, and Mikael Rask Madsen. 2013. Transnational power elites: The new professionals of governance, law and security. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kerameus, K.D. 2000. Comparative law and comparative lawyers: Opening remarks. Tulane Law Review 75: 865.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lalive, Pierre. 1984. Enforcing awards. In 60 years of ICC arbitration: A look at the future. Paris: International Chamber of Commerce.

  29. Lalive, Pierre. 1987. International arbitration: Teaching and research. In Contemporary problems in international arbitration, ed. Julian D.M. Lew. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lalive, Pierre. 1987. Transnational (or truly international) public policy and international arbitration. In Comparative arbitration practice and public policy in arbitration. ICCA congress series; no. 3, ed. Pieter Sanders, x, 402. Deventer; Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.

  31. Lando, Ole. 2001. Salient features of the Principles of European Contract Law: A comparison with the UCC. Pace International Law Review 13: 339.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lew, Julian D.M., Loukas A. Mistelis, and Stefan Kröll. 2003. Comparative international commercial arbitration. The Hague: Kluwer Law International; Sold and distributed in North Central and South America by Aspen Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lew, Julian D.M., and Laurence Shore. 1999. International commercial arbitration: Harmonizing cultural differences. Dispute Resolution Journal 54: 33–38.

    Google Scholar 

  34. López Rodríguez, Ana M. 2003. Lex mercatoria and harmonization of contract law in the EU. 1. Aufl. Copenhagen DJØF Publishing.

  35. Muir-Watt, Horatia. 2000. La fonction subversive du droit comparé. Revue internationale de droit comparé 52(3): 503–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Nariman, Fali S. 2000. The spirit of arbitration: The tenth annual Goff lecture. Arbitration International 16(3): 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pabalk Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Norsolor S.A, ICC Award No. 3131 of 26 October 1979, Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Vol. IX(1984), 109, 110 1979.

  38. Park, William W. 2014. A fair fight: Professional guidelines in international arbitration. Arbitration International 30(3): 409–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Park, William W. 1983. The Lex Loci arbitri and international commercial arbitration. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 32(1): 21–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Park, William W. 2006. Arbitration of international business disputes: Studies in law and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Pozzo, Barbara. 2012. Comparative law and language. In The Cambridge companion to comparative law, vol. 88, ed. Mauro Bussani and Ugo Mattei. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Redfern, Alan, and Martin Hunter. 2004. Law and practice of international commercial arbitration. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Reynolds, Michael P. 2014. Arbitration and ethical codes. Legal Ethics 17(3): 458–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schwenzer, Ingeborg, and Pascal Hachem. 2009. The CISG: Successes and pitfalls. American Journal of Comparative Law 57: 457–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Siems, Mathias. 2014. Comparative law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sourgens, Frédéric Gilles. 2007. Comparative law as rhetoric: An analysis of the use of comparative law in international arbitration. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 8: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Taniguchi, Yasuhei. 1998. Is there a growing international arbitration culture? An observation from Asia. In Dispute resolution: Towards an international arbitration culture, ed. Albert van den Berg. Dordrecht: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Teubner, Gunther. 1997. Global law without a state. Greater London: Dartmouth Pub Co.

    Google Scholar 

  49. UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts. 2004. Rome: International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT).

  50. Upham, Frank. 2014. The internationalization of legal education: National report for the United States of America. American Journal of Comparative Law 62(Supplement 1): 97–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Watt, Horatia Muir. 2006. Globalization and comparative law. In The Oxford handbook of comparative law, ed. Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann, 579–607. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Watt, Horatia Muir. 2012. Further terrains for subversive comparison: The field of global governance and the public/private divide. In Methods of comparative law, ed. Pier Monateri. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Yun, Chen, and Lukas Steinberg. 2012. New CIETAC rules to internationalize China arbitration, July 2012 R&P China Lawyers.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts), University of Copenhagen, Studiestræde 6, 1455, Copenhagen K, Denmark

    Joanna Jemielniak

Authors
  1. Joanna Jemielniak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanna Jemielniak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jemielniak, J. Comparative Analysis as an Autonomization Strategy in International Commercial Arbitration. Int J Semiot Law 31, 155–173 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-017-9530-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-017-9530-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation