Competence–Competence

Synková, Sandra

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00134-0_4

Sandra Synková²

969 Accesses

Abstract

The discussion in the preceding chapter revolved essentially around the question of whether it is possible to locate one exclusive source of the arbitrators’ power to adjudicate and, accordingly, one forum exclusively entitled to supervise international arbitration. The primary focus of the discussion was national courts and their respective titles to supervise the exercise of the arbitrators’ power to adjudicate. Eventually, it was concluded that it is not possible to find sufficient arguments in support of the conclusion that one, exclusive, source of the arbitrators’ power to adjudicate—and thus one exclusive forum entitled to supervise the exercise of such a power—exists. Rather, it was concluded that as a matter of principle each State appears to be equally competent to supervise the exercise of the arbitrators’ power to adjudicate with effects in its own territory. Accordingly, it was expressed that it was not possible to establish that restraint in the scrutiny of the arbitrators’ jurisdiction was, as a matter of principle, warranted in favour of another court (e.g. the court of the seat of arbitration). The present chapter will address a different, but related, question. The focus point of the discussion will, rather than the national courts, be arbitrators and their power to rule on their own jurisdiction (Sect. 4.2). The chapter will explore the correlation between the principles of Competence–Competence and separability (Sect. 4.3), the purpose and scope of the arbitrators’ power to determine their own jurisdiction (Sect. 4.4) and, furthermore, the different variations and expressions of the power (Sect. 4.5).

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. 3.4, para. 1.
2.
Redfern et al (2009), 345 para. 5.98; Lew et al (2003), 332 para. 14–17.
3.
See, e.g. (English) Arbitration Act 1996, s 30; § 1040(1) ZPO; Article 186(1) PILA. All 80 countries that have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law included the principle in their statutes. See Binder (2010), 215 para. 4–008.
4.
See, e.g. Article V (3) of the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, Geneva, 21 April 1961, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 484, 349 (“European Convention”); Article 41(1) of the 1965 (Washington) Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States. In contrast, the New York Convention does not expressly address the power of the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction as its primary concern is the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards. But cf. Born (2009), 857. See further infra at Sect. 4.5.2.1.
5.
See, e.g. Article 23 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2010); Article 6(3),(4),(5) and (9) of the ICC Arbitration Rules (2012); Article 23(1) LCIA Arbitration Rules (1998); Article 21(1) of the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration (2012); Article 15(1) of the ICDR International Dispute Resolution Procedures (2009); Article 6(1) and (2) of the CIETAC Arbitration Rules (2012).
6.
The status of the legislation based on the UNCITRAL Model Law is available at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/1985Model_arbitration_status.html.
7.
Binder (2010), 215 para. 4–006. But cf. the Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the work of its eighteenth session, 3–21 June 1985, A/40/17, para. 151.
8.
See, e.g. Binder (2010), 215 para. 4–006.
9.
Holtzmann et al (1989), 478, 508; Gaillard and Savage (1999), 395 para. 650. See also the terminology discussion supra at Sect. 3.2.4, para. 2.
10.
See also Lew et al (2003), 332, para. 14–14.
11.
See, e.g. Barceló (2003), 1123.
12.
See, e.g. Jones (2009), 56.
13.
Chaturredi and Agrawal (2011), 201.
14.
See infra.
15.
Redfern et al (2009), 345 para. 5.98.
16.
Ibid. 349 para. 5.105.
17.
Gaillard and Savage (1999), 399, para. 658.
18.
Ibid. 400 para. 658. Fouchard, Gaillard’s and Goldman’s conclusion would appear to be very similar to the one reached earlier in this thesis regarding the source of the arbitrators’ power to adjudicate as such. See supra at Sect. 3.4.
19.
Gaillard (2005), 6. Similarly, see also Poudret and Besson (2007), 168.
20.
Lew et al (2003), 322 para. 14–16.
21.
Ibid. 331 para. 14–13.
22.
Similarly, see also Jones (2009), 58.
23.
Lew et al (2003), 332, para. 14–18.
24.
Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company/California Asiatic Oil Company v The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic, Preliminary Award on Jurisdiction, 27 November 1975, French original text published in (1977) 104 Journal du Droit international, 350–389, with introduction by Jean-Flavien Lalive, “Un grand arbitrage pétrolier entre un Gouvernement et deux sociétés privées étrangères” 320–349; English excerpt in Sanders (1979), 177–187; quoted in Lew et al (2003), 333 para. 14–18.
25.
Born (2009), 864.
26.
Ibid. 967.
27.
Ibid. 864.
28.
Ibid. 856.
29.
Ibid. 875.
30.
Chaturredi and Agrawal (2011), 208.
31.
Ibid.
32.
See supra at Sect. 3.3.2, para. 12 et seq.
33.
Born (2009), 862.
34.
Similarly see also Jones (2009), 56.
35.
Redfern et al (2009), 304 para. 5–06.
36.
In contrast, there would seem nothing in the way preventing the parties from granting arbitrators the power to determine their own jurisdiction in the course of the arbitration proceedings. It is a different question, however, whether the party disputing the arbitrators’ jurisdiction would be willing to do so.
37.
Martinez-Fraga (2011), 58.
38.
Dean Wayne Daly, “The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court: Its Uses and Abuses” (Diploma in Law, School of Administration and Law, Mara Institute of Technology, 1987) 2.
39.
Ibid. 1.
40.
Halsbury’s laws of England, volume 11, 12: civil procedure, para. 1–1108.
41.
Similarly also Redfern et al (2009), 346 para. 5–98.
42.
Similarly also Lew et al (2003), 333 para. 14–16; Born (2009), 876.
43.
Black (1995), 494–495.
44.
See supra at Sect. 2.4.1 et seq.
45.
See, e.g. (English) Arbitration Act 1996, s 3; § 1043(1) ZPO; Article 176(3) PILA.
46.
Surely, the seat of the arbitration may, under certain conditions, be determined by the court instead. However, the necessity to seek resort to the court to determine the issue would largely undermine the purpose of the principle of Competence–Competence.
47.
Similarly also Gaillard and Savage (1999), 400 para. 658. See also Kawharu (2008), 240, who indicated that the power was necessarily derived from the applicable national laws rather than from the disputed arbitration agreement and Susler (2009), 126.
48.
See supra at Sect. 3.4.
49.
The principle also found express recognition in 1945 in the Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 36(6).
50.
This would be the case particularly in situations in which the arbitrators’ fees are calculated on the time-spent basis. For a “value of the dispute basis” see, e.g. Article 37(6) of the ICC Arbitration Rules (2012) and Article 2 (8) of the Appendix III Arbitration and costs and fees of the ICC Arbitration Rules. Article 2(8) provides that if an arbitration terminates before the rendering of a final award, the Court shall fix the fees and expenses of the arbitrators at its discretion, taking into account the stage attained by the arbitral proceedings and any other relevant circumstances.
51.
It would appear somewhat far-fetched to argue that, in the view of the courts’ enormous workload, the state court judges would be more inclined to decline jurisdiction in order to allow the arbitrators to determine the dispute.
52.
Ottley v Sheepshead Nursing Home, 688 F.2d 883, 898 (2d Cir. 1982).
53.
See infra.
54.
See also Gaillard and Savage (1999), 395 para. 650.
55.
See, e.g. Anglia Oils Limited v The Owners/Demise Charterers of the Vessel Marine Champion [2002] EWHC 2407 (Admiralty). See also Sect. 6.5.4.3 et seq. But see also Brekoulakis (2009), 251.
56.
See infra at Sect. 4.5.1 et seq. and Sect. 4.5.3 et seq.
57.
Gaillard and Savage (1999), 399 para. 657.
58.
But cf. e.g. the English Arbitration Act 1996, ss 7 and 30. See also Departmental Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law Report on the Arbitration Bill, 1 February 1996.
59.
Virtually all adopting states of the UNCITRAL Model Law have implemented the principle of separability. See Binder (2010), 216 para. 4–010.
60.
Analytical Commentary on Draft Text of a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, A/CN.9/264, Article 16, 37 para. 2.
61.
Lew et al (2003), 334 para. 14–19.
62.
Barceló (2003), 1116.
63.
Redfern et al (2009), 349 para. 5.105; Gaillard and Savage (1999), 399 para. 657; Born (2009), 873; Barceló (2003), 1116.
64.
Gaillard and Savage (1999), 399–400 para. 658.
65.
See, e.g. Vee Networks Ltd. v Econet Wireless International Ltd. [2004] EWHC 2909 at [20]. The case will be discussed infra more detail.
66.
Similarly also Born (2009), 873.
67.
Vee Networks Ltd. v Econet Wireless International Ltd. [2004] EWHC 2909.
68.
Vee Networks, Colman J at [20]–[22].
69.
Ibid. at [20].
70.
Ibid. at [30]. See also L G Caltex Gas Co Ltd. v China National Petroleum Corp [2001] 1 WLR 1892 per Lord Philips MR at [72]–[74].
71.
L G Caltex Gas Co Ltd. v China National Petroleum Corp [2001] 1 WLR 1892.
72.
Ibid. at [70]–[76]. See also Vee Networks at [30]–[31].
73.
Vee Networks, Colman J at [38].
74.
The award was, however, remitted to the arbitrator or reconsideration on the challenge under section 68 (serious irregularity) of the Act.
75.
Gaillard and Savage (1999), 400 para. 659.
76.
Born (2009), 876.
77.
See, e.g. Ibid. 856; Bachand (2006), 463.
78.
Brekoulakis (2009), 239.
79.
Gaillard and Savage (1999), 401, at para. 660.
80.
Ibid. 400 para. 659.
81.
Albeit some authors attribute this feature to the principle. See, e.g. Smit (2002), 204.
82.
Similarly, see also Ibid. 204–205.
83.
Brekoulakis (2009), 239.
84.
Gaillard and Savage (1999), 401 para. 660.
85.
Ibid.
86.
See, e.g. Article 1522 of the (French) Decree No. 2011–48 of 13 January 2011, reforming the law governing arbitration; Article 192(1) PILA.
87.
Gaillard and Banifatemi (2008), 258.
88.
Ibid.
89.
Ibid. 259.
90.
In French scholarship, however, the two issues to some extent coincide since the prima facie standard of review is adopted as a means of implementing the negative effect of Competence– Competence where the arbitrators have not as yet been seised of the matter. See further infra.
91.
See generally Ibid. 260.
92.
In contrast, a full judicial determination of the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement may provide an incentive to the parties opposing arbitration to raise as many jurisdictional challenges with the court as possible.
93.
Gaillard and Savage (1999), 401 para. 609.
94.
See, e.g. Article 191 PILA which provides that setting aside proceedings may only be brought before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
95.
See, e.g. Article 1494 (1) of the Decree No. 2011–48 of 13 January 2011. The provision lays down a rule that appeals and actions to set aside shall be brought before the Court of Appeal of the place where the award was made.
96.
See also the Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL secretariat on the 1985 Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as amended in 2006, para. 16.
97.
See infra at Sect. 4.5.3 et seq.
98.
The Convention, its scope of application and rules of interpretation, will be addressed separately in the following chapter. See infra at Sect. 5.5 et seq. The analysis of the current section will therefore be limited solely to the question of whether the Convention allows and requires to be interpreted as to embrace the positive and, in particular, the negative effect of the Competence-Competence principle.
99.
Status of the Convention is available at: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html.
100.
See infra at Sect. 5.4 et seq.
101.
Born (2009), 857–858.
102.
See, e.g. Ibid. 858; Bachand (2006), 470; Susler (2009), 121; R. Doak Bishop, Wade M. Coriell and Marcello Medina Campos, “The "Null and Void" Provision of the New York Convention” in Gaillard and Di Pietro (eds), “Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements and International Arbitral Awards: The New York Convention in Practice” 280; Graves, “Court Litigation over Arbitration Agreements: Is it Time for a New Default Rule?”.
103.
Poudret and Besson (2007), 388 para. 460.
104.
Born (2009), 859 fn. 24.
105.
Gaillard and Savage (1999), 402 para. 662.
106.
van den Berg AJ (1981), 155.
107.
See, e.g. Federal Supreme Court, 16 January 1995, Compagnie de Navigation et Transports SA v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA, BGE 121 III 38, reported in van den Berg (1996), 690; Federal Supreme Court, 29 April 1996, Fondation M v Banque X, BGE 122 III 139, in (1996) ASA Bulletin 14(3) 527.
108.
See infra at Sect. 8.5.2 et seq.
109.
See infra at Sect. 5.6 et seq.
110.
See infra at Sect. 5.5.3 et seq.
111.
Final Act of the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, E/CONF.26/8/Rev.1, 3 at para. 1.
112.
See also the discussion infra at Sect. 5.6.2 et seq.
113.
See, e.g. Recommendation regarding the interpretation of article II (2) and article VII (1) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done in New York, 10 June 1958, adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on 7 July 2006 at its thirty-ninth session, Issued in Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-first Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/61/17), Annex II, 1–2. The Recommendation was drafted in recognition of the use of electronic commerce and enactments of domestic legislation which were, in respect of the form requirements governing arbitration agreements, more favourable than the New York Convention.
114.
Article VII(1) of the Convention provides: “The provisions of the present Convention shall not affect the validity of multilateral or bilateral agreements concerning the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards entered into by the Contracting States nor deprive any interested party of any right he may have to avail himself of an arbitral award in the manner and to the extent allowed by the law or the treaties of the country where such award is sought to be relied upon.”
115.
See the Recommendation regarding the interpretation of article II (2) and article VII (1) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done in New York, 10 June 1958, 2.
116.
Ibid.
117.
Cour d’appeal Paris, 4 December 2002, American Bureau of Shipping v Copropriété Maritime Jules Verne.
118.
Translation from van den Berg (ed.), “Yearbook Commercial Arbitration XXIX” 660–661.
119.
Cour de cassation, 1^re civ, 7 June 2006, Copropriété Maritime Jules Verne, et al. v ABS – American Bureau of Shipping, published in van den Berg (2007), 290–293.
120.
See, e.g. Recommendation regarding the interpretation of article II (2) and article VII (1) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done in New York, 10 June 1958 at 1–2.
121.
The Convention applies to arbitration agreements concluded for the purpose of settling disputes arising from international trade between physical or legal persons having, when concluding the agreement, their habitual place of residence or their seat in different Contracting States. See Article 1(a) of the Convention.
122.
Article VI(3) of the European Convention.
123.
Brekoulakis (2009), 242.
124.
See also Gaillard and Banifatemi (2008), 261.
125.
See, e.g. Cour de cassation, 2^e Ch. civ., 10 May 1995, Coprodag v Dame Bohin, in (1995) Revue de l’Arbitrage 617; Cour de cassation, 1^re Ch. civ, 26 June 2001, Cour de cassation, 1^re civ, 7 June 2006, Copropriété Maritime Jules Verne, et al. v ABS – American Bureau of Shipping, published in van den Berg (2007), 290–293.
126.
See, e.g. Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 29 April 1996, Fondation M v Banque X, BGE 122 III 139.
127.
See, e.g. Shin-Etsu Chemical Co Ltd. v Aksh Optifibre Ltd. Supreme Court of India, 12 August 2005 in van den Berg (2007), 747–785.
128.
See, e.g. Dell Computer Corp v Union des consommateurs, Supreme Court of Canada, 13 July 2007 in van den Berg (2008), 446–463.
129.
See Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40. See also infra at Sect. 6.5.4.7, para. 9 et seq.
130.
However, the scholars endorsing the negative effect of Competence–Competence are not confined to French or Canadian scholarship. See, e.g. Ozlem Susler (Australia) in Susler (2009), 119; Amokura Kawharu (New Zealand) in Kawharu (2008), 238; and, in principle, also Doug Jones (Australia) in Jones (2009), 63.
131.
See supra at Sect. 4.5.1 et seq.
132.
See, e.g. Redfern et al (2009), 109 para. 2.59, 148 para. 2.178.
133.
See, e.g. Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov (also known as Premium Nafta Producys Ltd. v Fili Shipping Co Ltd) [2007] UKHL 40 per Lord Hoffmann at [13].
134.
The participation in arbitration will generally generate considerable expenses For example, in institutional arbitration the respondent will regularly be required to contribute an equal share to the advance on costs (e.g. fees and expenses of the arbitrators and the administrative expenses of the arbitral institution) of the arbitration as fixed by the institution. See, e.g. ICC Rules of Arbitration (2012), Article 36(2). Furthermore, each party will in principle, at least until the arbitral tribunal fixes the costs of the arbitration, have to bear its own costs (i.e. the cost of legal representation and other costs incurred by the party).
135.
See also Gaillard and Savage (1999), 411 para. 680.
136.
Jones (2009), 61.
137.
For example, the available Swiss statistics support the conclusion that setting aside of an award on jurisdictional grounds is rather a rare occurrence. Out of 229 challenges considered on the merits (289 challenges in total) between 1989 and 2009 by the Federal Supreme Court a challenge based on a wrongful decision on jurisdiction has been raised in 106 cases (in many cases more than one ground has been raised). The challenge was successful on jurisdictional grounds in only 10.1 % of the cases. See Dasser (2010), 88, 89. For older statistics see also Dasser (2007), 444.
138.
See, e.g. Article 16(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law providing for no appeal against courts’ rulings requested in relation to the tribunal’s preliminary jurisdictional ruling that it has jurisdiction. See also the Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL secretariat on the 1985 Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as amended in 2006 para. 26; Binder (2010), 65 para. 1–107.
139.
Gaillard and Banifatemi (2008), 273.
140.
For example, by the law of 27 March 1985 the Belgium Judicial Code (1972) eliminated the possibility of setting aside an award made in Belgium when none of the parties was either national, had residence or was incorporated or had a branch or place of business in Belgium. This provision aimed at turning Belgium into a “paradise for international arbitration”. See Storme (1986), 294. However, the lack of recourse eventually discouraged participants from choosing Belgium as a suitable place for arbitration, which led to the provision’s repeal in 1998. See, e.g. Paulsson (1981), 72; Redfern et al (2009), 608 para. 10.66; Lew et al (2003), 684 paras 25–69–25–71.
141.
See also infra at Sect. 9.4.1 et seq.
142.
Cour d’appel Paris, 4 December 2002, American Bureau of Shipping v Copropriété Maritime Jules Verne, published in van den Berg (ed.), “Yearbook Commercial Arbitration XXIX” 657–662, 661. The French arbitration law even requires the courts to decline jurisdiction without such summary examination in cases where the arbitral tribunal has already been seised of the dispute.
143.
Article 1448 of the Decree No. 2011–48 of 13 January 2011.
144.
Knoepfler (2002), 587.
145.
Meyer (1996), 401.
146.
Ibid. 402.
147.
Knoepfler (2002), 588.
148.
Stadler and Hau (2005), 385.
149.
Ibid.
150.
Knoepfler (2002), 587–588.
151.
Decree No. 2011–48 of 13 January 2011, Article 1448. The decree contains the new text of the Book IV of the Code of Civil Procedure. Translation by Emmanuel Gaillard, Nanou Leleu-Knobil and Daniela Pellarini of Shearman & Sterling LLP. Available at http://www.parisarbitration.com/brief-1.php?id=6.
152.
See supra at Chap. 4, fn. 90.
153.
Loquin (1994), 474 para. 35.
154.
See also Brekoulakis (2009), 241.
155.
Cour de cassation, 1^re Ch. civ, Prodim v Lafarge, (2008) 1 Revue de l’Arbitrage, 160.
156.
Cour de cassation, 2^e Ch. civ., 11 July 2006, Société National Broadcasting Co v Bernadaux et autres, (2006) 4 Revue de l’Arbitrage, 981.
157.
Cour d’appel Paris, 29 November 1991, Distribution Chardonnet v Fiat Auto France, (1993) 4 Revue de l’Arbitrage, 617.
158.
Similarly also Cour de cassation, 1^re Ch. civ., 18 December 2003, (2004) ASA Bulletin 22(4) 796.
159.
Cour de cassation, 12 December 2007, unpublished, referred to in Stavros Brekoulakis (2009), 241.
160.
See the discussion in Chap. 8 at Sect. 8.5.2.
161.
Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 29 April 1996, Fondation M v Banque X, BGE 122 III 139, 1996 ASA Bulletin (3) 527, 531. Translation in Gaillard and Banifatemi (2008), 262.
162.
Fondation M v Banque X, 532.
163.
See decisions from e.g. Hong Kong and Canada, Bachand (2006), 464 fns 3 and 4.
164.
Against a prima facie review See, e.g. Holtzmann et al (1989), 303 and 315; Lew et al (2003), 349 para. 14–61; Jones (2009), 61; Barceló (2003), 1128.
165.
Bachand (2006), 463.
166.
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v Aksh Optifibre Ltd., et al., Indian Supreme Court, 12 August 2005 in van den Berg (2007), 747–785.
167.
Ibid. 748.
168.
Ibid. 767 para. [50].
169.
Ibid. 767 para. [49].
170.
Dell Computer Corporation v Union des consommateurs et al., Supreme Court of Canada, 13 July 2007 in van den Berg (2007), 446–463.
171.
Ibid. 458 para. [40].
172.
Ibid. 459 para. [42].
173.
Ibid. 459 para. [43].
174.
Article 6 of the ICC Arbitration Rules in force as from January 2012. The 2012 Rules replaced the ICC Rules of Arbitration (in force as from 1 January 1998). Although the provision of the 2012 Rules is more express as to the procedure to be followed and the instances upon which the ICC Court may rule on whether the arbitration may proceed, it is essentially the same as in the 1998 Rules (as interpreted by the ICC Court). The decisions made by the ICC Court prior to the entry into force of the 2012 Rules and the commentaries on the Rules may therefore serve as guidance for interpreting the current version of Article 6. For a similar rule see also Swiss Rules of International Arbitration (June 2012). Article 3(12).
175.
See, in particular, Article 6(3) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2012).
176.
Article 6(4) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2012).
177.
Article 6(5) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2012).
178.
Ibid.
179.
The decision under Article 6(4) is usually made prior to any other decisions in the arbitration.
180.
A decision of an arbitral tribunal may, in principle, be subject to court review. Accordingly, the decision making process may in fact consist of three steps.
181.
For a more detailed discussion of the ICC procedure see further infra at Sect. 4.5.4.1.4 et seq.
182.
Craig et al. (1998), 23 para. 11.02.
183.
Derains and Schwartz (2005), 78.
184.
For example, in 1996 it applied Article 7 of the 1975 Rules in less than 10 cases of 433. See Derains and Schwartz (2005), 83 fn. 92. In 1998 the ICC Court was required to make an 6(2) ruling in 78 cases and found that the prima facie test has been satisfied in 76 of them. See Gélinas (1999), 11. In the majority of cases, the ICC Court excluded one or more of the claimant or respondent parties before allowing the arbitration to proceed rather than determining that the arbitration as a whole may not proceed. See Derains and Schwartz (2005), 84.
185.
See also Article 8(3) of the 1975 Rules and Article12 of the ICC Internal Rules of the Court of Arbitration (“ICC Internal Rules 1980”) which specified: “Where there is no “prima facie” arbitration agreement between the parties or where there is an agreement but it does not specify the ICC, the Secretariat draws the attention of the claimant to the provisions laid down in Article 7 of the Rules of Arbitration. The claimant is entitled to require the decision to be taken by the Court of Arbitration.”
186.
Craig et al (1998), 20 para. 11.01.
187.
See Article 6(2) of the 1998 ICC Rules of Arbitration.
188.
The major change in the 2012 Rules was the inclusion of an express provision dealing with multiple contracts and detailed rules for determining whether the claims made in the arbitration may be determined together in a single arbitration. See Articles 6(3), 6(4) and 9 of the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2012).
189.
Craig et al (1998), 22 para. 11.02.

References

Bachand F (2006) Does Article 8 of the model law call for full or prima facie review of the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction? Arbitration Int 22(3):463
Google Scholar
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
Binder P (2010) International commercial arbitration and conciliation in UNCITRAL model law jurisdictions, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Google Scholar
Black HC (1995) A law dictionary containing definitions of the terms and phrases of American and English jurisprudence, ancient and modern, 2nd edn. The Law Book Exchange, New Jersey
Google Scholar
Born G (2009) International commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Google Scholar
Brekoulakis S (2009) Chapter II: the arbitrator and the arbitration procedure – the negative effect of compétence-compétence: the verdict has to be negative. In: Klausegger C, Klein P et al (eds) Austrian arbitration yearbook 2009. C.H. Beck, Stämpfli & Manz, München, p 237
Google Scholar
Chaturredi S, Agrawal C (2011) Jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction. Arbitration: J Chartered Inst Arbitrators 77(2):201
Google Scholar
Craig LW, Park WW, Paulsson J (eds) (1998) Craig, Park & Paulsson's annotated guide to the 1998 ICC arbitration rules with commentary. Oceana, New York
Google Scholar
Dasser F (2007) International arbitration and setting aside proceedings in Switzerland: a statistical analysis. ASA Bull 27(3):444
Google Scholar
Dasser F (2010) International arbitration and setting aside proceedings in Switzerland – an updated statistical analysis. ASA Bull 28(1):82
Google Scholar
Derains Y, Schwartz EA (2005) A guide to the ICC rules of arbitration, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Google Scholar
Gaillard E (2005) Prima facie review of existence, validity of arbitration agreement. New York Law J 6
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
Gélinas F (1999) The application of the ICC rules by the court: 1998 overview. ICC Court Bull 10(1):11
Google Scholar
Holtzmann HM, Neuhaus JE, The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (1989) A guide to the UNCITRAL model law on international commercial arbitration: legislative history and commentary. Kluwer, Deventer
Google Scholar
Jones D (2009) Competence-competence. Arbitration: J Chartered Institute Arbitrators 75(1):56
Google Scholar
Kawharu A (2008) Arbitral jurisdiction. N Z Univ Law Rev 23(2):238
Google Scholar
Knoepfler F (2002) Les décisions rendues par l’arbitre à la suite d’un examen ’Prima Facie’. ASA Bull 20(4):587
Google Scholar
Lew JDM, Mistelis LA, Kröll SM (2003) Comparative international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Google Scholar
Loquin E (1994) Compétence arbitrale. In: Juris-classeurs Procédure civile, fasc 1034, Arbitrage, No. 105, Éditions Techniques, Paris, p 474
Google Scholar
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (2009) Halsbury's laws of England, volume 11, 12: civil procedure, 5th edn, Butterworths, London
Google Scholar
Martinez-Fraga PJ (2011) King or arbitrator: exploring the inherent authority of arbitrators to impose sanction within the framework of the 2010 IBA rules on the taking of evidence in international arbitration. Spain Arbitration Rev (Revista del Club Español del Arbitraje) 2011(12):58
Google Scholar
Meyer CU (1996) 'Die Überprüfung internationaler Schiedsvereinbarungen durch staatliche Gerichte - Überlegungen zu BGE 121 III 38 und BGE 122 III 139. ASA Bull 14(3):401
Google Scholar
Paulsson J (1981) Arbitration unbound: award detached from the law of its country of origin. Int Comp Law Q 30(2):72
Article 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
Sanders P (ed) (1979) Yearbook commercial arbitration IV. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Google Scholar
Smit RH (2002) Separability and competence-competence in international arbitration: ex nihilo nihil fit? Or can something indeed come from nothing? Am Rev Int Arbitration 13:19
Google Scholar
Stadler A, Hau W (2005) The law of civil procedure. In: Zekoll J (ed) Introduction to German law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 385
Google Scholar
Storme M (1986) Belgium: a paradise for international arbitration. Int Bus Lawyer 14(8):294
Google Scholar
Susler O (2009) The jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal : a transnational analysis of the negative effect of competence-competence. Macquarie J Bus Law 6:119
Google Scholar
van den Berg AJ (1981) The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958: towards a uniform judicial interpretation. Kluwer and Law Taxation, Boston, p 131
Google Scholar
van den Berg AJ (ed) (1996) Yearbook commercial arbitration XXI. Kluwer Law International, Deventer
Google Scholar
van den Berg AJ (ed) (2007) Yearbook commercial arbitration XXXII. Kluwer Law International, Deventer
Google Scholar
van den Berg AJ (ed) (2008) Yearbook commercial arbitration XXXIII. Kluwer Law International, Deventer
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). Competence–Competence. In: Courts' Inquiry into Arbitral Jurisdiction at the Pre-Award Stage. Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00134-0_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00134-0_4
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