Comparative Analysis as an Autonomization Strategy in International Commercial Arbitration

Article
  • 47 Downloads

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.

Keywords

International commercial arbitration Comparative method Legal interpretation Autonomization 

References

  1. 1.
    Berger, K.P. 1999. The creeping codification of the lex mercatoria. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergsten, Eric. 2006. The Americanization of international arbitration. Pace International Law Review 18: 289–301.Google Scholar
  3. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cotterrell, Roger. 2013. Law, culture and society: Legal ideas in the mirror of social theory. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. 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. 8.
    De Ly, Filip. 1992. International business law and lex mercatoria. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deutsche Schachtbau- und Tiefbohr GmbH v Rakoil, Court of Appeal decision of 24 March 1987, Lloyd’s L. Rep 2 (1987).Google Scholar
  10. 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. 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. 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. 13.
    Gaillard, Emmanuel. 1995. Thirty years of lex mercatoria: towards the selective application of transnational rules. ICSID Review 10(2): 208–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gaillard, Emmanuel. 2010. Legal theory of international arbitration. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glenn, H.P. 2000. Comparative law and legal practice: On removing the borders. Tul. L. Rev. 75: 977.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gutteridge, H.C. 1971. Comparative law: An introduction to the comparative method of legal study and research. Cambridge: CUP Archive.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Helmer, Elena V. 2003. International commercial arbitration: Americanized, “civilized”, or harmonized? Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 19: 35–67.Google Scholar
  18. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huber, Peter. 2006. Some introductory remarks on the CISG. Internationales Handelsrecht 6: 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jemielniak, Joanna. 2014. Legal interpretation in international commercial arbitration. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  22. 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. 23.
    Jemielniak, Joanna, and Stefanie Pfisterer. 2015. Iura Novit Arbiter Revisited: Towards a Harmonized Approach? Uniform Law Review (accepted for publication).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle. 2007. Arbitral precedent: Dream, necessity or excuse? Arbitration International 23(3): 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 II July 2006, ed. Markus Wirth.Google Scholar
  26. 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. 27.
    Kerameus, K.D. 2000. Comparative law and comparative lawyers: Opening remarks. Tulane Law Review 75: 865.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lalive, Pierre. 1984. Enforcing awards. In 60 years of ICC arbitration: A look at the future. Paris: International Chamber of Commerce.Google Scholar
  29. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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. 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. 33.
    Lew, Julian D.M., and Laurence Shore. 1999. International commercial arbitration: Harmonizing cultural differences. Dispute Resolution Journal 54: 33–38.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    López Rodríguez, Ana M. 2003. Lex mercatoria and harmonization of contract law in the EU. 1. Aufl. Copenhagen DJØF Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Muir-Watt, Horatia. 2000. La fonction subversive du droit comparé. Revue internationale de droit comparé 52(3): 503–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nariman, Fali S. 2000. The spirit of arbitration: The tenth annual Goff lecture. Arbitration International 16(3): 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Park, William W. 2014. A fair fight: Professional guidelines in international arbitration. Arbitration International 30(3): 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Park, William W. 1983. The Lex Loci arbitri and international commercial arbitration. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 32(1): 21–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Park, William W. 2006. Arbitration of international business disputes: Studies in law and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. 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. 42.
    Redfern, Alan, and Martin Hunter. 2004. Law and practice of international commercial arbitration. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Reynolds, Michael P. 2014. Arbitration and ethical codes. Legal Ethics 17(3): 458–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schwenzer, Ingeborg, and Pascal Hachem. 2009. The CISG: Successes and pitfalls. American Journal of Comparative Law 57: 457–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Siems, Mathias. 2014. Comparative law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. 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. 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. 48.
    Teubner, Gunther. 1997. Global law without a state. Greater London: Dartmouth Pub Co.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts. 2004. Rome: International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT).Google Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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. 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. 53.
    Yun, Chen, and Lukas Steinberg. 2012. New CIETAC rules to internationalize China arbitration, July 2012 R&P China Lawyers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Law, Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts)University of CopenhagenCopenhagen KDenmark

Personalised recommendations