Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conclusions, Evaluation and Future Perspectives

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

  • 882 Accesses

Abstract

The following chapter presents a summary and an evaluation of the conclusions of the study of the compared legal orders (Sect. 9.2). Furthermore, it will be ascertained whether the hypothesis that the compared legal orders may be divided into three different ideal types depending on their answer to the question of whether in court proceedings as to the substance of the dispute priority is given to arbitrators to determine their own jurisdiction was disproved (Sect. 9.3). Finally, several remarks will be made as to the various options of finding a balance between the competing interests of efficacy and legitimacy and a few suggestions will be made as to the possible ways forward (Sect. 9.4).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
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 supra at Sect. 1.1.

  2. 2.

    See supra at Sect. 5.5.3, para. 4 et seq.

  3. 3.

    See supra at Sect. 2.1, para. 1.

  4. 4.

    Albon (t/a NA Carriage Co) v Naza Motor Trading Sdn Bhd [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 420, Lightman J at [20].

  5. 5.

    Federal Supreme Court, 20 December 1995, BGE 121 III 495 at reason 6d.

  6. 6.

    Voit (2011), Rn. 1.

  7. 7.

    But cf. supra at Sect. 7.4, para. 21

  8. 8.

    See supra at Sect. 8.5.2 et seq.

  9. 9.

    See supra at Sect. 1.3.3, para. 13.

  10. 10.

    See supra at Sect. 1.1, para. 11.

  11. 11.

    See supra at Sect. 5.6 et seq.

  12. 12.

    See the Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 20 November 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No…/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast), P7_TC1-COD(2010)0383, Preamble, para. 12.

  13. 13.

    In contrast, for example Dasser indicated that between 2005–2009 the Swiss Federal Supreme Court rendered a decision in setting aside proceedings in 118/119 days on average. See Dasser (2010), 90–91.

  14. 14.

    See, generally Chap. 4. For the scope of the power in the compared jurisdiction see Sects. 6.3, 7.4 and 8.4 et seq.

  15. 15.

    See, e.g. See, e.g. Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov (also known as Premium Nafta Producys Ltd. v Fili Shipping Co Ltd) [2007] UKHL 40, where Lord Hoffmann at [13] expressed that parties to broadly drafted arbitration agreements are likely to have intended any dispute arising out of the relationship into which they have entered, or purported to have entered, to be decided in the same forum.

  16. 16.

    See, generally, the discussion in Chap. 3.

  17. 17.

    Similarly, see also Gaillard (2010), 89.

  18. 18.

    Although, the arbitrators power to enjoin the parties from commencing or pursuing litigation in national courts has been subject to considerable academic discussion. See generally Gaillard (2005), 365.

  19. 19.

    See supra at Sect. 4.5 et seq.

  20. 20.

    See supra at Sect. 4.5.3, para. 1.

  21. 21.

    See Arbitration Act 1996, s 30, § 1040 ZPO, Article 186 PILA.

  22. 22.

    See, e.g. Birse Construction Ltd. v St David Ltd. (No.1) [1999] B.L.R. 194.

  23. 23.

    The Federal Supreme Court, 14 November 1979, RAL v Wetco Ltd. in Semaine Judiciare 1980 pp. 444–445.

  24. 24.

    See supra at Sect. 4.5.4.

  25. 25.

    See supra at Sect. 8.6 et seq.

  26. 26.

    AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLC v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2011] EWCA Civ 647.

  27. 27.

    Al-Naimi (T/A Buildmaster Construction Services) v Islamic Press Services Inc [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 522.

  28. 28.

    Al-Naimi per Waller LJ at 525. For a distinction between the agreement’s constitution and continuing existence and validity see also Albon v Naza Motor Trading Sdn Bhd and another (No 3) [2007] EWHC 665 (Ch), 2 All ER (Comm) 513.

  29. 29.

    BayObLG 13.5.2003 - 4Z Sch 35/02.

  30. 30.

    OLG Frankfurt am Main, 24.10.2006 – 26 Sch 06/06.

  31. 31.

    Federal Supreme Court, 27 February 1992, F. Anstalt v T. Company Ltd., BGE 118 Ia 20 at reason 5b.

  32. 32.

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

  33. 33.

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

  34. 34.

    See Rau, “Arbitral Jurisdiction and the Dimensions of ‘Consent’” 202; Bühler and Webster (2005), 103. See also supra at Sect. 3.2.6 et seq.

  35. 35.

    Cour de cassation, 1re Ch. civ, Prodim v Lafarge, (2008) 1 Revue de l’Arbitrage, 160.

  36. 36.

    Dell Computer Corporation v Union des consommateurs et al., Supreme Court of Canada, 13 July 2007 in van den Berg (2008), 446–463, at para. 165.

  37. 37.

    Ibid. In Dell Computer Corporation v Union des consommateurs et al. (“Dell”).

  38. 38.

    For the discussion in the context of the German and Swiss legal order see supra at Sect. 7.6.4.3, paras. 13, 14 et seq. and Sect. 8.6.3, para. 5 et seq. respectively.

  39. 39.

    See supra at Sect. 4.5.4.1.3, para. 7 et seq.

  40. 40.

    Dell Computer Corp v Union des consommateurs, Supreme Court of Canada, 13 July 2007 in van den Berg (2008), 446–463.

  41. 41.

    Dell Computer Corp v Union des consommateurs at [84].

  42. 42.

    Gaillard and Savage (1999), 411, para. 680; Barceló (2009), 1127.

  43. 43.

    On a similar note, the English Arbitration Act 1996 allows a party that has never participated in the arbitration an opportunity to request a declaratory relief with respect to the arbitrators’ jurisdiction. See Arbitration Act 1996, s 72.

  44. 44.

    See Article 1448 of the (French) Decree No. 2011–48 of 13 January 2011. See also the discussion of the prima facie standard of review in Chap. 4 at Sect. 4.5.4.1.1 et seq.

  45. 45.

    Article VI(3) of the European Convention.

  46. 46.

    § 1032(2) ZPO. See also Chap. 7 at Sect. 7.6.2 et seq.

  47. 47.

    See Article 8(1) of the Danish Arbitration Act 2005. The Act is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law.

  48. 48.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast) COM (2010) 748.

  49. 49.

    Proposed Article 29(3).

  50. 50.

    See, e.g. Holtzmann et al (1989), 486; III Barceló (2009), 1129.

  51. 51.

    See supra at Sect. 9.4.1.1 et seq.

  52. 52.

    See the discussion supra at Sect. 4.5.4 et seq.

  53. 53.

    The attributes and forms of a prima facie review have been discussed in Chap. 4 supra at Sect. 4.5.4.1 et seq.

  54. 54.

    See, in particular, Sect. 8.6.1 et seq.

  55. 55.

    Parliamentary Initiative from 20 March 2008, 08.417, Bundesgesetz vom 18. Dezember 1987 über das internationale Privatrecht, Änderung von Artikel 7.

  56. 56.

    See, e.g. supra at Sect. 5.4.1, para. 3.

  57. 57.

    See, e.g. Redfern et al (2009), 8–9.

  58. 58.

    For such solutions see e.g. supra at Sect. 7.7.

  59. 59.

    Final Report on lis pendens and Arbitration, International Law Association, Toronto Conference (2006), International Commercial Arbitration, para. 4.8 at 16. Available at http://www.ila-hq.org/en/committees/ index.cfm/cid/19.

  60. 60.

    See supra at Sect. 3.3.3.2 et seq.

  61. 61.

    See supra at Sect. 4.5.4.1 et seq.

  62. 62.

    See also the discussion regarding the interpretation of Article II of the New York Convention at supra Sect. 5.6.3.1 et seq.

  63. 63.

    This was implied in, e.g. T&N Ltd. v Royal & Sun Alliance plc [2002] EWHC 2420 (Ch).

  64. 64.

    Paulsson (2005), 617.

  65. 65.

    See, for example, the above referred to decision in Dell Computer Corporation v Union des consommateurs et al., at para. 165, where the court held that it was established that any challenge to arbitral jurisdiction alleging that the dispute did not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause should be send to arbitration to allow the arbitrator to decide the question, unless it was obvious that the dispute was not within the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.

  66. 66.

    See also supra at Sect. 9.2 et seq.

  67. 67.

    See, in particular, supra at Sect. 6.6, para. 11.

  68. 68.

    Steingruber (2012), 1, para. 1–03.

  69. 69.

    Further on the topic see, e.g. Brekoulakis (2010).

  70. 70.

    See, e.g. supra at Sect. 6.4, para. 4.

  71. 71.

    This is apparent in light of the criticism, which followed the recent propositions to amend the Convention. See, e.g. Emmanuel Gaillard, “The Urgency of Not Revising the New York Convention” in van den Berg (ed.), “50 Years of the New York Convention (ICCA Congress Series No. 14)” 649.

  72. 72.

    See supra at Sect. 5.6 et seq.

  73. 73.

    The UNCITRAL has already issued a similar Recommendation with respect to the interpretation of Article II(2) of the Convention. See Recommendation regarding the interpretation of Article II, paragraph 2, and Article VII, paragraph 1, cf. 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, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-first Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/61/17), Annex II.

  74. 74.

    See, e.g. Commission of the European Communities, “Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters” (21.4.2009) COM(2009) 174 final; 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; Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, COM(2010) 748 final; Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters”, OJ C 218/78 23.7.2011; Draft report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), COM(2010)0748 – C7-0433/2010 – 2010/0383(COD), Committee on Legal Affairs, 28.6.201; Note of the Council of the European Union (General Approach) 2010/0383/COD, 10609/12 JUSTCIV 209 CODEC 1495 Add.1, fn.1 to the proposed Article 84(2); European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 November 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), COM(2010)0748 – C7-0433/2010 – 2010/0383(COD).

References

  • III Barceló JJ (2009) Burden of proof, prima facie case and presumption in WTO dispute settlement. Cornell Int Law J 42:1129

    Google Scholar 

  • Brekoulakis S (2010) Third parties in international commercial arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasser F (2010) International arbitration and setting aside proceedings in Switzerland – an updated statistical analysis. ASA Bull 28(1):82

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard E (ed) (2005) Anti-suit injunctions in international arbitration: IAI seminar, Paris, November 21, 2003. Juris, Huntington

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Steingruber AM (2012) Consent in international arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg AJ (ed) (2008) Yearbook commercial arbitration XXXIII. Kluwer Law International, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Voit W (2011) § 1032 Schiedsvereinbarung und Klage vor Gericht. In: Musielak H-J (ed) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung (Musielak/Voit), 8th edn. Verlag Franz Vahlen, München

    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). Conclusions, Evaluation and Future Perspectives. In: Courts' Inquiry into Arbitral Jurisdiction at the Pre-Award Stage. Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00134-0_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation