Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theoretical Underpinnings of Arbitral Jurisdiction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Courts' Inquiry into Arbitral Jurisdiction at the Pre-Award Stage

  • 928 Accesses

Abstract

Before proceeding to the analysis of the solutions adopted in the selected legal orders, and their comparison and evaluation, it will useful to first explore some of the relevant theoretical considerations underlying the courts’ and the arbitrators’ jurisdiction to inquire into jurisdictional matters. The present chapter will deal with the former, while Chap. 4 will address the latter issue.

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)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See infra at Sect. 4.1 et seq.

  2. 2.

    Similarly also Gaillard (2010), 2.

  3. 3.

    See, e.g. The Model Law, Article 16. The New York Convention, on the other hand, does not use the term “jurisdiction”, but refers to the incapacity of the parties and invalidity of the arbitration agreement (Article V(1)(a)), and arbitral awards ultra or extra petita (Article V(1)(c)). See the discussion infra.

  4. 4.

    It shall nonetheless be emphasised that the following excursion does not seek to be comprehensive. Rather, the discussion is limited in scope by the purpose of the present chapter.

  5. 5.

    Ryngaert (2008), 11.

  6. 6.

    O’Brien (1999), 17.

  7. 7.

    Wasserman (2012), 289, 298.

  8. 8.

    Ibid. 302.

  9. 9.

    Ibid. 301.

  10. 10.

    Jennings et al. (1992), 456.

  11. 11.

    Perritt (1999).

  12. 12.

    International Bar Association, “Report of the Task Force on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction”, 2009, 11.

  13. 13.

    Perritt (1999).

  14. 14.

    Ibid.

  15. 15.

    See supra at Sect. 3.2.1.

  16. 16.

    Similarly also Poznanski (1987), 90.

  17. 17.

    See the discussion infra regarding the legal nature of arbitration at Sect. 3.3.2 et seq.

  18. 18.

    See also Petrochilos (2004), 25 para. 2.15.

  19. 19.

    Redfern et al (2009), 341 para. 585.

  20. 20.

    Gaillard and Savage (1999), 395 para. 648.

  21. 21.

    At this instance, it is necessary to distinguish between arbitral institutions and the actual arbitral tribunals constituted ad hoc in accordance with the agreement between the parties.

  22. 22.

    See infra at Sect. 3.3.2 et seq.

  23. 23.

    See, e.g. Article 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

  24. 24.

    See, e.g. Article 16 of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

  25. 25.

    See, e.g. Articles 34–36 of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

  26. 26.

    Arbitration Act 1996, s 67(1).

  27. 27.

    Article 190 PILA.

  28. 28.

    § 1059(2) ZPO. The Act is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. The UNCITRAL Model Law itself uses the term in connection with the arbitrators’ power to rule on their own “jurisdiction”. See Article 16 of the Model Law.

  29. 29.

    See, e.g. Article 6 of the ICC Arbitration Rules 2012; Article 23 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2010 Revision); Article 23 of the LCIA Arbitration Rules; Article 14 of the International Dispute Resolution Procedures 2009.

  30. 30.

    See Chap. 4 et seq.

  31. 31.

    Gaillard and Banifatemi (2008), 257.

  32. 32.

    This would, in the French doctrine, be referred to as the positive effect of Competence–Competence. See Ibid. 257.

  33. 33.

    See also § 1040 ZPO which provides for the arbitrators power (“Befugnis”) to rule on its competence (“Zuständigkeit”). For the differences in ICSID Arbitration see Articles 25(1) and 41(2) of the ICSID Convention. For a more detailed discussion see Schreuer et al (2009), 531 para. 41.56.

  34. 34.

    Paulsson (2005), 616.

  35. 35.

    ICC Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility in Case No. 6474 of 1992 in YCA XXV (2000), 279–311, 288.

  36. 36.

    Paulsson (2005), 601.

  37. 37.

    For a brief overview of the US practice on this matter see infra at Sect. 3.2.6 et seq.

  38. 38.

    Paulsson (2005), 603.

  39. 39.

    Federal Supreme Court, 17 August 1995, Transport en Handelsmaatschappij “Vekoma” B.V. v Maran Coal Corporation, in (1996) ASA Bulletin 14(4) 673–679.

  40. 40.

    Transport en Handelsmaatschappij “Vekoma” B.V. v Maran Coal Corporation at reason 2a.

  41. 41.

    Transport en Handelsmaatschappij “Vekoma” B.V. v Maran Coal Corporation at reason 2b.

  42. 42.

    Similarly also Paulsson (2005), 602.

  43. 43.

    See, e.g. the analysis in Reed et al. (2011), 164.

  44. 44.

    Abaclat and Others (Case formerly known as Giovanna a Beccara and Others) v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case ARB/07/05, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 4 August 2011. For commentary see Newcombe (2011).

  45. 45.

    Abaclat and Others v Argentine Republic at para. 247.

  46. 46.

    Great Western Mortage Corp. v Peacock, 110 F.3d 222 (3d Cir. 1997).

  47. 47.

    Rau (2003), 70.

  48. 48.

    Paulsson (2005), 616.

  49. 49.

    Similarly also Société Générale de Surveillance v Republic of Philippines, ICSID Case ARB/02/6, 29 January 2004, where the issue was whether there was an impediment to the claimant’s reliance on the contract as the basis of its claim. In that case the impediment was the provision in the contract itself providing for another exclusive forum. The claim was thus found premature and, therefore, inadmissible.

  50. 50.

    Enron Corp. and Ponderosa Assets v Argentina, ICSID Case ARB/01/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 January 2004.

  51. 51.

    Enron Corp. and Ponderosa Assets v Argentina at [33].

  52. 52.

    See also Paulsson (2005), 617.

  53. 53.

    Born (2009), 767.

  54. 54.

    See, e.g. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995), 943.

  55. 55.

    See, e.g. Born (2009), 767 fn. 1031.

  56. 56.

    See, e.g. Prima Paint Corp. v Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967), 403.

  57. 57.

    9 U.S.C. Sections 1 et seq.

  58. 58.

    Subject to contrary agreement between the parties, See, e.g. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995), 938.

  59. 59.

    See Rau (2008), 202; Bühler and Webster (2005), 103.

  60. 60.

    First Options of Chicago Inc v Kaplan 514 U.S. 938 (1995).

  61. 61.

    See, e.g. Howsam v Dean Witter, 537 U.S. 79 (2002) (issues of “procedural arbitrability”, such as waiver, estoppel and time limits on a claim are presumptively for the arbitrators to decide); Pacificare Health Sys v Book 538 U.S. 401 (2003) (the coverage of the arbitration clause is a matter for final determination by the arbitrators); Green Tree Financial Corp v Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003) (the question of what kind of arbitration proceedings the parties agreed to is presumptively a question for the arbitrators themselves); Buckeye Check Cashing v Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006); Preston v Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (2008) etc. Note, however, that the cases cited above cases involved domestic arbitration and were therefore subject to Chapter 1 of the FAA. In contrast, if a suit involves international arbitration to which the New York Convention applies, the Convention has priority, see FAA s 208. For the analysis of the US jurisprudence See, e.g. Barceló (2003), 1134–1136.

  62. 62.

    For a more detailed analysis see, e.g. Rau (2003), 4.

  63. 63.

    See, e.g. Bermann, “Part I: International Commercial Arbitration, Chapter 3: The “Gateway” Problem in International Commercial Arbitration” 59–61; Shore (2009).

  64. 64.

    John Wiley & Sons Inc. v Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 (1964).

  65. 65.

    John Wiley & Sons Inc. v Livingston, 556.

  66. 66.

    John Wiley & Sons Inc. v Livingston, 557. See also Howsam v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc . 537 U.S. 79 (2002).

  67. 67.

    Similarly, but in the context of the law governing the arbitral procedure (the lex arbitri) Petrochilos (2004), 20 para. 2.03.

  68. 68.

    For a contemporary analysis of the approaches See, e.g. Lew (2006), 179–203; Samuel (1989), 32–74; Born (2009), 184–189; Lew et al. (2003), 71–97; Poznanski (1987), 71–108; Carlston (1952), 631–651; Yu (2008), 255–283.

  69. 69.

    Similarly also Born (2009), 187.

  70. 70.

    See, e.g. Redfern et al (2009), 89 para. 2.13.

  71. 71.

    The effects of the hybrid and autonomous theories on the courts’ jurisdiction in this respect are somewhat unclear.

  72. 72.

    See, e.g. Redfern et al (2009), 85 para. 2.01.

  73. 73.

    Gaillard and Savage (1999), 395, para. 648.

  74. 74.

    See, e.g. Poznanski (1987), 71.

  75. 75.

    Ibid. 72.

  76. 76.

    See supra at Sect. 3.3.2, para. 3.

  77. 77.

    Poznanski (1987), 72.

  78. 78.

    Mann (1967), 162.

  79. 79.

    Ibid.

  80. 80.

    Ibid. 159.

  81. 81.

    Ibid. 160.

  82. 82.

    Ibid. 161.

  83. 83.

    In essence, Savigny proposed that every legal relationship had a logical and rational connection with one particular territory, the laws of which should be used to govern associated legal disputes. See, e.g. von Savigny (2003), 133.

  84. 84.

    Ibid. 161–162, 167.

  85. 85.

    See, e.g. the debate between Nakamura and Rubins: Nakamura (2001), 22; Rubins (2001), 23; Nakamura (2000), 23. See also Kaufmann-Kohler (1999), 336; Goode (2001), 19; Redfern et al (2009), 232 para. 3.211.

  86. 86.

    Similarly also Petrochilos (2004), 24, para. 2.13.

  87. 87.

    Goode (2001), 32. See also Leurent (1996), 271–272, who asserted that parties having recourse to arbitration pay the greatest attention to determining the arbitral seat. See also the International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, International Arbitration Study 2010, conducted by Queen Mary University of London in cooperation with White & Case. But cf., e.g., Gaillard (2010), 20.

  88. 88.

    See also supra at Sect. 2.4.1 et seq.

  89. 89.

    For similar considerations in the EU See, e.g. Green Paper on the Review of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, COM(2009) 175 final, p. 9, where it was proposed to give priority to the courts of the Member State where the arbitration takes place to decide on the existence, validity, and scope of an arbitration agreement.

  90. 90.

    Petrochilos (2004), 65, para. 3.31. See also Gaillard (2010), 22.

  91. 91.

    See supra at Sect. 1.1.

  92. 92.

    Neither the provisions of the New York Convention nor national law requiring the court to recognise and give effect to an agreement to arbitrate do generally address the question of the court’s (material, territorial, personal or temporal) jurisdiction. See, e.g. Article II(3) of the New York Convention: “The court of a Contracting State…”; Article 8(1) of the Model Law: “A court before which an action is brought...”. It is, however, reasonable to assume that the procedural rules of the forum would require the court to decline jurisdiction if its jurisdiction could not be established before proceeding to consider the effect of the alleged agreement to arbitrate.

  93. 93.

    Article 2 PILA.

  94. 94.

    Additionally, Article 112 (2) PILA states that the Swiss courts at the place where the defendant has his place of business have jurisdiction over actions arising out of the activities of that place of business.

  95. 95.

    Article 113 PILA.

  96. 96.

    See generally Stone (2010) 3.

  97. 97.

    See supra at Sect. 3.3.3.1, para. 12 et seq.

  98. 98.

    See, particularly, Gaillard (2010) 35 et seq.

  99. 99.

    Ibid. 46.

  100. 100.

    See also the eventually abandoned proposal on the EU level: Green Paper on the Review of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, COM(2009) 175 final; International Bar Association, Arbitration Committee, ‘Working Group on the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee (COM(2009) 174 FINAL) and the Green Paper on the Review of Council Regulation (EC) N°44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters; Submission to European Commission’.

  101. 101.

    See infra at Sect. 4.1.

References

  • III Barceló JJ (2003) Who decides the arbitrator's jurisdiction – separability and competence-competence in transnational perspective. Vanderbilt Transnational Law J 36:1115

    Google Scholar 

  • Born G (2009) International commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Bühler M, Webster TH (2005) Handbook of ICC arbitration: commentary, precedents, materials. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlston KS (1952) Theory of the arbitration process. Law Contemp Probl 17(4):631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard E (2010) Legal theory of international arbitration. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard E, Banifatemi Y (2008) Negative effect of competence-competence: the rule of priority in favour of the arbitrators. In: Gaillard E, Pietro DD (eds) Enforcement of arbitration agreements and international arbitral awards: the New York Convention in practice. Cameron May, London, p 257

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard E, Savage J (1999) Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Goode R (2001) The role of the lex loci arbitri in international commercial arbitration. Arbitration Int 17(1):19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings RY, Watts A, Oppenheim L (1992) Oppenheim's international law, 9th edn. Longman, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann-Kohler G (1999) Identifying and applying the law governing the arbitration procedure – the role of the law of the place of arbitration. In: van den Berg AJ (ed) Improving the efficiency of arbitration agreements and awards: 40 years of application of the New York Convention (ICCA Congress Series No. 9). Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 336

    Google Scholar 

  • Leurent B (1996) Reflections on the international effectiveness of arbitration awards. Arbitration Int 12(3):269

    Google Scholar 

  • Lew JDM (2006) Achieving the dream: autonomous arbitration. Arbitration Int 22(2):179

    Google Scholar 

  • Lew JDM, Mistelis LA, Kröll SM (2003) Comparative international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann FA (1967) Lex facit arbitrum. In: Sanders P (ed) International arbitration liber amicorum for Martin Domke. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, p 162

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura T (2000) The place of arbitration in international arbitration - its fictitious nature and lex arbitri. Mealey's Int Arbitration Rep 15(10):23

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura T (2001) The fictitious nature of the place of arbitration may not be denied. Mealey's Int Arbitration Rep 16(5):22

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcombe A (2011) Mass claims and the distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility. Kluwer arbitration blog. http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2011/10/25/mass-claims-and-the-distinction-between-jurisdiction-and-admissibility/

  • O'Brien J (1999) Conflict of laws, 2nd edn. Cavendish Publishing Limited, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulsson J (2005) Jurisdiction and admissibility. In: Aksen G (ed) Global reflection on international law, commerce and dispute resolution: liber amicorum in honour of Robert Briner. ICC Publishing, Paris, p 601

    Google Scholar 

  • Perritt HH (1999) Jurisdiction and the internet: basic Anglo/American perspectives. Internet Law & Policy Forum, Montreal, July 1999. http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/montreal.rev.htm#_ftn5

  • Petrochilos GC (2004) Procedural law in international arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Poznanski BG (1987) The nature and extent of an arbitrator's powers in international commercial arbitration. J Int Arbitration 4(3):71

    Google Scholar 

  • Rau AS (2003) Everything you really need to know about "separability" in seventeen simple propositions. Am Rev Int Arbitration 14(1):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Rau AS (2008) Arbitral jurisdiction and the dimensions of ‘consent’. Arbitration Int 24(2):199

    Google Scholar 

  • Redfern A et al (2009) Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed L, Paulsson J, Blackaby N (2011) The ICSID review regime. In: Reed L et al (eds) Guide to ICSID arbitration. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, p 164

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubins N (2001) The arbitral seat is no fiction: a brief reply to Tatsuya Nakamura's commentary, 'the place of arbitration in international commercial arbitration – its fictitious nature and lex arbitri. Mealey's Int Arbitration Rep 16(1):23

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryngaert C (2008) Jurisdiction in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Samuel A (1989) Jurisdictional problems in international commercial arbitration: a study of Belgian, Dutch, English, French, Swedish, Swiss, U.S. and West German Law. Schulthess Polygraphischer, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer CH et al (eds) (2009) The ICSID convention, a commentary, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Shore L (2009) Defining ‘arbitrability’, The United States vs. the rest of the world. New York Law J (Special Section Litigation, June 15, 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone P (2010) EU private international law, 2nd edn, Elgar European law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg AJ (ed) (2000) Yearbook commercial arbitration XXV. Kluwer Law International, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • von Savigny FK (2003) A treatise on the conflict of laws, 2nd edn. The Lawbook Exchange Ltd., Clark, translated by William Guthrie

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman HM (2012) Essay, prescriptive jurisdiction, adjudicative jurisdiction, and the ministerial exemption. University of Pennsylvania Law Rev PENNUMBRA 160:289, 298, http://www.pennumbra.com/essays/2-2012/Wasserman.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu H-L (2008) A theoretical overview of the foundations of international arbitration. Contemp Asia Arbitration J 1(2):255

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Sandra Synková

Authors
  1. Sandra Synková
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Synková, S. (2013). Theoretical Underpinnings of Arbitral Jurisdiction. In: Courts' Inquiry into Arbitral Jurisdiction at the Pre-Award Stage. Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00134-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation