Functional Equivalents for Comparison

Synková, Sandra

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00134-0_2

Sandra Synková²

875 Accesses

Abstract

It was outlined in Chap. 1 that the identification of the legal rules for comparison shall be guided by the rules’ function. That is, in essence, the choice shall be made in favour of the rules which are intended to deal with the same problem—the problem where one of the parties brings substantive proceedings in a court with respect to a matter that is allegedly subject to the arbitration agreement between the parties.

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)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
See supra at Sect. 1.3.2, para. 3.
2.
See Binder (2010), 123, para. 2-081.
3.
See also supra at Sect. 3.3.2, para. 12.
4.
Redfern et al (2009), 20, para. 1–54.
5.
Gaillard and Savage (1999), 384, para. 631.
6.
Born (2009), 1004; ICCA (2011), 8.
7.
Gaillard and Savage (1999), 381, para. 624.
8.
Born (2009), 1013.
9.
The only major exception to this approach is the United States. See §§ 4, 206 and 303 of the FAA.
10.
See, e.g. PILA.
11.
See, e.g. § 1032(2) ZPO which limits the availability of declaratory relief to the stage prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.
12.
As of today, the Convention has 148 parties. See http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html.
13.
See infra at Sect. 5.4.2 et seq.
14.
See Chap. 5 infra at Sect. 5.1 et seq.
15.
See infra.
16.
See infra at Sect. 4.5.2.2 et seq.
17.
Article I(1)(a) of the European Convention.
18.
See http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXII-2&chapter=22&lang=en.
19.
Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL secretariat on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1.
20.
Such instruments include, e.g., the 1975 Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration and The Arab Convention on Commercial Arbitration.
21.
In Scotland, the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 applies.
22.
Arbitration Act 1996, 1996 c. 23, as amended.
23.
See Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 1998 (SI 1998/3132), as amended.
24.
Swiss Private International Law Act - Bundesgesetz über das Internationale Privatrecht (IPRG) from 18 December 1987, SR 272.
25.
Translation by Dr. Robert P. Umbricht, LL.M., Swiss CPIL, Umbricht Attorneys, Zurich (Switzerland) 2011. The translation is available at http://www.umbricht.ch/pdf/SwissPIL.pdf. In German Article 7 provides: “Haben die Parteien über eine schiedsfähige Streitsache eine Schiedsvereinbarung getroffen, so lehnt das angerufene schweizerische Gericht seine Zuständigkeit ab, es sei denn: (a). der Beklagte habe sich vorbehaltlos auf das Verfahren eingelassen; (b). das Gericht stelle fest, die Schiedsvereinbarung sei hinfällig, unwirksam oder nicht erfüllbar, oder (c). das Schiedsgericht könne nicht bestellt werden aus Gründen, für die der im Schiedsverfahren Beklagte offensichtlich einzustehen hat.”
26.
German Code of Civil procedure – Zivilprozessordnung, as promulgated on 5 December 2005 (BGBI I page 3,202; 2006 I page 431; 2007 I page 1,781), as amended. The new arbitration law, implementing the UNCITRAL Model Law, came into force 1 January 1998.
27.
Translation by the German Institute of Arbitration (DIS) and the German Federal Ministry of Justice published in “The New German Arbitration Law” (1998) 14(1) Arbitration International 1. The original text states: “§ 1032: Schiedsvereinbarung und Klage vor Gericht) (1) Wird vor einem Gericht Klage in einer Angelegenheit erhoben, die Gegenstand einer Schiedsvereinbarung ist, so hat das Gericht die Klage als unzulässig abzuweisen, sofern der Beklagte dies vor Beginn der mündlichen Verhandlung zur Hauptsache rügt, es sei denn, das Gericht stellt fest, dass die Schiedsvereinbarung nichtig, unwirksam oder undurchführbar ist. (2) Bei Gericht kann bis zur Bildung des Schiedsgerichts Antrag auf Feststellung der Zulässigkeit oder Unzulässigkeit eines schiedsrichterlichen Verfahrens gestellt werden. (3) Ist ein Verfahren im Sinne des Absatzes 1 oder 2 anhängig, kann ein schiedsrichterliches Verfahren gleichwohl eingeleitet oder fortgesetzt werden und ein Schiedsspruch ergehen.”
28.
Arbitration Act 1996, s 2(1).
29.
See Article 176(1) PILA. For domestic arbitrations see Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung, Article 61 SCCP.
30.
See Article 176(2) PILA.
31.
The scope of application of the New York Convention with respect to arbitration agreements will be addressed in Chap. 5. See infra at Sect. 5.4 et seq.
32.
See also infra at Sect. 5.6.3.4 et seq.
33.
See infra.
34.
van den Berg (1981), 131 fn. 22.
35.
See infra at Sect. 7.7 et seq, Sect. 8.6.3 et seq.
36.
Poudret and Besson (2007), 429–430. See also the discussion in Chap. 7 at Sect. 8.3, para. 14 et seq.
37.
Translation by the Swiss Chamber’ Arbitration Institution. Available at https://www.swissarbitration.org/sa/en/rules.php. See further in Chap. 8 at Sect. 8.6.2.1, paras. 1–3 et seq.
38.
See, e.g. Merkin (1991), para. 8.26.
39.
See Chap. 6 infra at Sect. 6.1, para. 4 et seq.
40.
Merkin (1991), para. 8.26. See also Grammer v Lane and Webster [2000] 2 All ER 245, where the issue was left open.
41.
The requirements under the New York Convention will be analysed in Chap. 5 at Sect. 5.6.3 et seq.
42.
As will be discussed further, such objection must also be admissible. See infra at Sect. 7.6.4.2 et seq.
43.
Quite similarly, the UNCITRAL Model Law requires (1) an action in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement; (2) request by one of the parties; (3) the court does not find that the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.
44.
For the discussion of the differences between arbitrability and jurisdiction see infra at Sect. 3.2.6 at seq.
45.
See infra at Sect. 7.6 et seq.

References

Binder P (2010) International commercial arbitration and conciliation in UNCITRAL model law jurisdictions, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Google Scholar
Born G (2009) International commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Google Scholar
Gaillard E, Savage J (1999) Fouchard, gaillard, goldman on international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Google Scholar
International Council for Commercial Arbitration (2011) ICCA’s guide to the interpretation of the 1958 New York convention. International Council for Commercial Arbitration, The Hague
Google Scholar
Merkin R (1991) Arbitration law (Service Issue No. 55, 15 April 2010). Informa, London
Google Scholar
Poudret J-F, Besson S (2007) Comparative law of international arbitration, 2nd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Google Scholar
Redfern A et al (2009) Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
van den Berg AJ (1981) The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958: towards a uniform judicial interpretation. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Law, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark
Sandra Synková

Authors

Sandra Synková
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Synková, S. (2013). Functional Equivalents for Comparison. In: Courts' Inquiry into Arbitral Jurisdiction at the Pre-Award Stage. Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00134-0_2

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00134-0_2
Published: 26 April 2013
Publisher Name: Springer, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-00133-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-00134-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics