Kompetenz-Kompetenz: Varying Approaches and a Proposal for a Limited Form of Negative Kompetenz-Kompetenz

This paper analyzes differing views and approaches to kompetenz-kompetenz and proposes a workable framework of kompetenz-kompetenz for the future. Part II provides an overview of the general principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, discussing the views of some of the leading international commercial arbitration scholars on kompetenz-kompetenz. Part III analyzes the approaches taken by the United States and the United Kingdom and uses them as helpful illustrations of kompetenz-kompetenz in practice. Part IV notes the shortcomings of the aforementioned approaches and proposes a limited form of negative kompetenz-kompetenz as the solution

The principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz in International Commercial Arbitration

Princip Kompetenz-Kompetenz v mezinárodní obchodní arbitráži Abstrakt Tato diplomová práce analyzuje princip Kompetenz-Kompetenz v systému mezinárodní obchodní arbitráže. Je popsán samotný princip a různé přístupy k doktríně Kompetenz-Kompetenz v mezinárodní obchodní arbitráži jsou analyzovány z pohledu několika mezinárodních dokumentů. Na základě tohoto pozorování jsou studovány negativní i pozitivní dopady principu, stejně jako jeho souvislost s principem Separability. V poslední části této práce je analyzována použitelnost a využití principu Kompetenz-Kompetenz v České republice. Závěrem, cílem této práce je nalezení nejlepší praxe pro užití principu Kompetenz-Kompetenz v mezinárodní obchodní arbitráži. Autorka také nabízí v závěru práce lege ferenda možnosti. Prvotní výzkumnou otázku lze stanovit takto: Jak lze princip Kompetenz-Kompetenz uplatnit v mezinárodním obchodním rozhodčím řízení pro co největší vzájemnou výhodnost a spravedlnost stran a je takové řešení vůbec možné? K tomuto účelu budou v této práci použity analytické, srovnávací a deskriptivní metody. První kapitola analyzuje samotný systém mezinárodní obchodní arbitráže. Následně je princip Kompetenz-Kompetenz popsán, prodiskutován a zasazen do tohoto systému. Kapitola třetí pojednává o pozitivních a negativních dopadech, neboť to jsou...The principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz in International Commercial Arbitration Abstract This Thesis analyses the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle in the system of International Commercial Arbitration. The principle itself is described, and different approaches toward the Kompetenz-Kompetenz doctrine in International Commercial Arbitration are analysed in various international documents. Based on such observation, negative and positive effects of the principle are studied, just as much as its connection to the Separability of an Arbitration Agreement. In the latter part of this Thesis, the applicability and use of the Kompetenz- Kompetenz principle in the Czech Republic are observed and analysed. Finally, this thesis aims to discuss possibilities for the best practice for the application of the Kompetenz- Kompetenz principle in International Commercial Arbitration. A possibility of de lege ferenda suggestions is offered as well. The initial research question can be determined as follows: How can the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle be applied in International Commercial Arbitration proceedings for the greatest mutual advantage and fairness of all parties, and is such a solution even possible? For this purpose, the analytical, comparative and descriptive methods shall be applied in this Thesis. The first chapter...Katedra obchodního právaDepartment of Business LawPrávnická fakultaFaculty of La

Why the European Union is not a State:Some Critical Remarks

German Constitutional Court decision of 30 June 2009 on the compatibility of the Lisbon Treaty with the German Constitution – Analysis of inconsistencies – Differences between the EU and a state – Sovereignty of the member states and Kompetenz-Kompetenz – Argument for a relative concept of sovereignty – Sovereignty and the right to withdraw – Critical analysis of BVerfG’s assessment of the EU’s democratic deficit and denial of the importance of the European Parliamen

The Gateway Problem in International Commercial Arbitration

Participants in international commercial arbitration have long recognized the need to maintain arbitration as an effective and therefore attractive alternative to litigation, while still ensuring that its use is predicated on the consent of the parties and that the resulting awards command respect. A priori, at least, all participants – parties, counsel, arbitrators, arbitral institutions – have an interest in ensuring that arbitration delivers the various advantages associated with it, notably speed, economy, informality, technical expertise, and avoidance of national fora, while producing awards that withstand judicial challenge and otherwise enjoy legitimacy. National courts play a potentially important policing role in this regard. Most jurisdictions have committed their courts to do all that is reasonably necessary to support the arbitral process. Among the ways courts do so is by ensuring that arbitral proceedings are initiated and pursued in a timely and effective manner. But those same courts are commonly asked by a party resisting arbitration to intervene at the very outset to declare that a prospective arbitration lacks an adequate basis in party consent. No legal system that permits the arbitration of at least some disputes (and most do) is immune to the possibility that its courts will become engaged in an inquiry of that sort at the very threshold of arbitration. Each must decide how, at this early stage, to promote arbitration as an effective alternative to litigation, while at the same time ensuring that any order issued by a court compelling arbitration is supported by a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate. The challenge consists of identifying those issues that courts – in the interest of striking the proper balance between these two objectives – properly address at what is increasingly known, in common U.S. parlance, as the “gateway” of arbitration. This “gateway” problem is the focus of the present Article. For purposes of this Article, I consider an arbitral regime to be effective to the extent that it operates to promote the procedural advantages I posited earlier – speed, economy, informality, technical expertise, and avoidance of national fora. While legitimacy might be defined in many different ways, I consider an arbitral regime to be legitimate (or to enjoy legitimacy) to the extent that the parties who were compelled to arbitrate rather than litigate, and will be bound by the resulting arbitral award, consented to step outside the ordinary court system in favor of an arbitral tribunal as their dispute resolution forum

The Gateway Problem in International Commercial Arbitration

Participants in international commercial arbitration have long recognized the need to maintain arbitration as an effective and therefore attractive alternative to litigation, while still ensuring that its use is predicated on the consent of the parties and that the resulting awards command respect. A priori, at least, all participants – parties, counsel, arbitrators, arbitral institutions – have an interest in ensuring that arbitration delivers the various advantages associated with it, notably speed, economy, informality, technical expertise, and avoidance of national fora, while producing awards that withstand judicial challenge and otherwise enjoy legitimacy. National courts play a potentially important policing role in this regard. Most jurisdictions have committed their courts to do all that is reasonably necessary to support the arbitral process. Among the ways courts do so is by ensuring that arbitral proceedings are initiated and pursued in a timely and effective manner. But those same courts are commonly asked by a party resisting arbitration to intervene at the very outset to declare that a prospective arbitration lacks an adequate basis in party consent. No legal system that permits the arbitration of at least some disputes (and most do) is immune to the possibility that its courts will become engaged in an inquiry of that sort at the very threshold of arbitration. Each must decide how, at this early stage, to promote arbitration as an effective alternative to litigation, while at the same time ensuring that any order issued by a court compelling arbitration is supported by a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate. The challenge consists of identifying those issues that courts – in the interest of striking the proper balance between these two objectives – properly address at what is increasingly known, in common U.S. parlance, as the “gateway” of arbitration. This “gateway” problem is the focus of the present Article. For purposes of this Article, I consider an arbitral regime to be effective to the extent that it operates to promote the procedural advantages I posited earlier – speed, economy, informality, technical expertise, and avoidance of national fora. While legitimacy might be defined in many different ways, I consider an arbitral regime to be legitimate (or to enjoy legitimacy) to the extent that the parties who were compelled to arbitrate rather than litigate, and will be bound by the resulting arbitral award, consented to step outside the ordinary court system in favor of an arbitral tribunal as their dispute resolution forum

Through the Looking Glass: What a Comparison with the New Polish Legal Framework of Arbitration Reveals about the U.S. Legal Framework of Arbitration

In Poland, domestic and international arbitrations are regulated by the Civil Procedure Code. A completely new set of regulations concerning arbitration went into effect in October, 2005. A comparison of the Polish and American legal frameworks of arbitration reveals many similarities and a few key differences. The differences involve the powers of arbitrators to decide upon their own jurisdiction, the arbitrability of employment disputes and the consequences of failure to consider applicable national law. Comparing how similar cases would be resolved under the new Polish standards and U.S. standards raises the question of how U.S. standards evolved and whether they are truly the most desirable and practical. Ultimately, the author concludes that Congress should ammend the Federal Arbitration Act to eliminate certain troublesome ambiguities

Los problemas derivados de la aplicación del principio de kompetenz - kompetenz en un régimen jurídico en el que no se ha perfilado adecuadamente su alcance

In Ecuador, arbitration is regulated by the Arbitration and Mediation Law. However, this law still has some legal gaps that cause problems and confusion between the litigants. One of those gaps is in the treatment and reach of the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz. This principle constitutes one of the most important pillars of arbitration because it is the one that authorizes the arbitrators to decide about their own competition. This thesis will make a comparative study of the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz between the Ecuadorian legislation, the international doctrine and the foreign legislations. T hanks to this analysis we will be able to know the defects and breaches that the Ecuadorian Arbitration and Mediation Law presents as far as the treatment of this principle. In addition, this thesis will examine, from the Ecuadorian arbitration practice, the problems that the litigants face in a legal regime in which the reach and procedure of this principle has not been outlined.En el Ecuador, el arbitraje se encuentra adecuadamente regulado por la Ley de Arbitraje y Mediación. Sin embargo, esta ley todavía tiene algunos vacíos legales que provocan problemas y confusión entre los litigantes. Uno de esos vacíos se encuentra en el tratamiento y alcance del principio de kompetenz-kompetenz. Este principio constituye uno de los pilares más importantes del arbitraje, ya que es el que faculta a los árbitros a pronunciarse acerca de su propia competencia. En esta tesina hará un estudio comparativo del principio de kompetenz-kompetenz e n t r e la legislación ecuatoriana, la doctrina internacional y las legislaciones extranjeras. Será gracias a este análisis que podremos conocer las falencias y vacíos que presenta la Ley de Arbitraje y Mediación ecuatoriana en cuanto al tratamiento de este principio. Además, a partir de la práctica arbitral ecuatoriana, se examinarán los problemas que enfrentan los litigantes en un régimen jurídico en el que no se ha perfilado adecuadamente su alcance ni procedimiento