Über die Möglichkeit der Vertragserweiterung der Gerichtsüberprüfung von Schiedsgerichtsentscheidungen

The author analyses the arbitration policy, arguing that international commercial arbitration has become the dominant method of settling international trade disputes. International agreements brought international value of arbitral awards that is actually higher than the international value of court decisions. Furthermore, he stresses the most successful process of international harmonization of arbitration rules and statutes pertaining to arbitration world wide, in which process the UNCITRAL enactments have played a prominent role. The author also takes into consideration the contractual restriction of judicial review and the issue of extension of judicial control by party agreement, pointing out to the certain disorientation and difficulties that could emerge in that regard.Želio bih sugerirati veoma jednostavan zaključak. (A koji nije od velike koristi nakon što je sporazum o proširenom sudskom preispitivanju već proveden.) Bez obzira prihvaćamo li logiku prve odluke Saveznog okružnog suda (District Court) u Kyoceri (Kyocera), ili se slažemo s rezoniranjem 9. okruga (9th Circuit), pojavit će se (ili bi se barem mogli pojaviti) nesigurnost, dezorijentacija i ozbiljni problemi. Stav koji je zauzeo Savezni okružni sud sukladan je obvezujućem karakteru normi o sudskoj kontroli, te se podudara s činjenicom da pravila o arbitraži imaju u vidu autonomiju stranaka u pogledu arbitražnog procesa, više nego s obzirom na sudsku kontrolu arbitraže (osim ako izvjesna autonomija u pogledu sudske kontrole nije izričito dozvoljena pod posebnim uvjetima, kao što je utvrđeno zakonskim aktima Švicarske, Tunisa i Belgije). Pokazalo se da je stav koji je zauzeo Savezni okružni sud također bliži realnosti na području poredbenog prava, kao što pokazuju francuske odluke. Taj stav nadalje podupire UNCITRAL Model zakon koji postavlja standarde modernih arbitražnih akata, i koji jasno pokazuje da su norme o sudskom preispitivanju obvezatne. Prema članku 34 (1): «Sudska zaštita protiv arbitražnog pravorijeka može se tražiti samo tužbom za poništaj u skladu sa stavcima (2) i (3) ovoga članka». Iz toga slijedi da je poništaj jedino dozvoljeno pravno sredstvo te da se to pravno sredstvo može koristiti samo u skladu s normama Zakona; tj. u skladu sa stavkom (2) članka 34 koji navodi popis temelja za poništaj, te u skladu sa stavkom (3) koji određuje vremensku granicu unutar koje se može podnijeti prijedlog za poništaj. Nedostatak je načina zaključivanja Saveznog okružnog suda što arbitražni sporazum postaje povrediv. Rezultat će ovisiti o specifičnom sadržaju odredbe o proširenoj sudskoj kontroli, te o suptilnom i nepredvidivom tumačenju standarda poput «bitan element sporazuma», «svrha ugovora», ili «jesu li stranke zaključile sporazum bez pobijane odredbe». Stav koji je zauzeo 9. okrug teže se uklapa u statutarne norme, pa ipak izbjegava pitanje odvojivosti odredbe o proširenoj sudskoj kontroli. Istovremeno vodi prema nezacrtanom terenu u pogledu opsega i karaktera mogućeg uplitanja stranaka u sudski proces; mogu se javiti i tenzije između strukturalnih obilježja arbitraže i sudskog odlučivanja ako su sudovi postavljeni na prizivnu razinu prema arbitraži. Kyocerski tip proširenja sudske kontrole mogao bi također dovesti do izmjena pravorijeka po sudskom nalogu, a u tom slučaju postaje upitno je li rezultat još uvijek pravorijek, te ostaju li pogodnosti Newyorške konvencije i nadalje na raspolaganju. Ukratko, temeljni problem je u samoj ugovornoj odredbi. Sporazumi stranaka o proširenom sudskom preispitivanju arbitražnih pravorijeka nisu preporučljivi. Pro-arbitraža je izostavljanje te klauzule.Ich möchte eine ganz einfache Argumentierung suggerieren (was jedoch nicht von großem Nutzen ist, da die Vereinbarung über die Erweiterung der Gerichtsüberprüfung bereits in die Tat umgesetzt worden ist). Ohne Rücksicht darauf, ob wir der Logik der ersten Entscheidung des US-Bezirksgerichts (District Court) in Kyocera zustimmen oder aber eher den Gedankengang der Entscheidung des Neunten Bezirks (9th Circuit) nachvollziehen können, wird dies (oder könnte es immerhin) Unsicherheit, Verwirrung und ernsthafte Probleme nach sich ziehen. Die Stellungnahme des US-Bezirksgerichts ist in Einklang mit dem verbindlichen Charakter der Regelung über die Gerichtskontrolle und stimmt mit der Tatsache überein, dass die Normen über die Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit die Autonomie der Parteien in Hinsicht auf das Schiedsgerichtsverfahren in größerem Maße beachten als in Hinsicht auf die Gerichtskontrolle der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (außer wenn eine gewisse Autonomie in Hinsicht auf die Gerichtskontrolle nicht ausdrücklich und unter besonderen Voraussetzungen erlaubt ist, wie dies durch die Gesetzesakte der Schweiz, Tunesiens und Belgiens festgelegt wurde). Es hat sich gezeigt, dass die Stellungnahme des US-Bezirksgerichts der Realität im Bereich des vergleichenden Rechts näher ist, wie die französischen Entscheidungen es beweisen. Dieselbe Einstellung ist auch im UNCITRAL-Modellgesetz vertreten, das die Standards moderner Schiedsgerichtsakten setzt und das ausdrücklich deutlich macht, dass die Normen über die Gerichtsüberprüfung verbindlich sind. Nach Art. 34 Abs.1:“ kann der Gerichtsschutz gegen die Schiedsgerichtsentscheidung nur durch die Klage auf Nichtigkeit in Einklang mit Abs. 2 und 3 dieses Artikels geltend gemacht werden.“ Daraus folgt, dass dieses Rechtsmittel nur in Einklang mit den Gesetzesbestimmungen, d.h. in Einklang mit Art. 34 Abs. 2 eingelegt werden kann, in dem die Nichtigkeitsgründe angeführt sind, sowie in Einklang mit Abs. 3, in dem die Zeitfrist angegeben wird, innerhalb derer der Antrag auf Nichtigkeit gestellt werden kann. Ein Nachteil dieser Argumentierung des US-Bezirkgerichts ist in der Tatsache zu suchen, dass die Schiedsgerichtsvereinbarung infolgedessen anfechtbar ist. Das Ergebnis wird vom spezifischen Inhalt der Bestimmung über die Erweiterung der Gerichtskontrolle abhängen sowie von der subtilen und unvorhersehbaren Deutung der Standards (wie etwa „wesentliches Vertragselement“, „Vertragszweck“ oder die Frage, ob „die Vereinbarung ohne die angefochtene Bestimmung geschlossen wurde“). Die vom Neunten Bezirk eingenommene Einstellung, die sich schwerer in statutarische Normen einfügen lässt, weicht jedoch der Frage nach der Trennbarkeit der Bestimmung über die erweiterte Gerichtskontrolle aus. Gleichzeitig begibt sie sich hinsichtlich des Umfangs und des Charakters der eventuellen Einmischung der Parteien in den Gerichtsprozess auf ein nicht fest umrissenes Terrain; es kann auch zu Spannungen zwischen strukturellen Merkmalen der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit und der gerichtlichen Beschlussfassung kommen, wenn die Gerichte der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit als Berufungsinstanz gegenübergestellt werden. Die Erweiterung der Gerichtskontrolle nach dem Muster von Kyocera könnte außerdem zur Änderung des Urteilsspruchs von Amts wegen führen, in welchem Fall es fraglich ist, ob es sich um ein Urteilsspruch handelt und ob die Vorteile der New Yorker Konvention weiterhin aufrechterhalten bleiben. Kurz gesagt, das Grundproblem liegt in der Vertragsbestimmung selbst. Die Vereinbarungen der Parteien über die Erweiterung der Gerichtsüberprüfung von schiedsrichterlichen Entscheidungen sind nicht zu empfehlen. Pro Gerichtsbarkeit heißt Weglassung dieser Klausel

IUC Independent Policy Report: At the End of the End of History

The IUC Independent Policy Report was drafted by the IUC Legal Standards Research Group, organized by a Steering Committee chaired by Ugo Mattei (International University College of Turin), coordinated by Edoardo Reviglio (International University College of Turin) and Giuseppe Mastruzzo (International University College of Turin), and composed by Franco Bassanini (University of Rome “La Sapienza”), Guido Calabresi (Yale University), Antoine Garapon (Institut des Hautes Etudes sur la Justice, Paris), and Tibor Varady (Central European University, Budapest). Contributors include Eugenio Barcellona (Eastern Piedmont University), Mauro Bussani (University of Trieste), Giuliano G. Castellano (Ecole Polytechnique Preg/CRG), Moussa Djir´e (Bamako University), Liu Guanghua (Lanzhou University), Golnoosh Hakimdavar (University of Turin), John Haskell (SOAS), Jedidiah J. Kroncke (Yale Law School), Andrea Lollini (Bologna University), Alberto Lucarelli (Federico II University), Boris N. Mamlyuk, (University of Turin), Alberto Monti (Bocconi University), Sergio Ariel Muro (Torquato di Tella University), Domenico Nicol`o (Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria), and Nicola Sartori (University of Michigan). The IUC Independent Policy Report argues for a radical change of perspective, capable of restoring the supremacy of the law over the economic system. It is not only about finance, nor is it only about economics or policy. In this sense a transnational set of normative principles is needed in order to establish a global legal system capable of controlling economic processes, rather than being controlled by them. Within this framework a series of policy proposals are presented in order to effectively implement a new system of global standards. The current Western standard of living is unsustainable. Should the rest share the model of development of the West, our planet will simply not be capable of resisting the growth in consumption and pollution. Within this fundamental setting of scarcity in resources, using the rhetoric of the end of history as the polar star for growth, development and ultimately happiness of the whole world is simply a cynical lie. We argue here for the beginning of a necessary process aimed at the development of a legal system that is much less about creating an effcient backbone for an exploitive economy and much more about a vision of civilization, justice and respect where the laws of nature and those of humans converge in a sustainable long-term philosophy. Principles of justice, responsibility and long term environmental protection, rather than short term economic contingency and strong interests must set the legal agenda. A new governance and bottom-up inclusive integration of knowledge-based economies (wherever located), which is crucial to the very survival of humankind, cannot happen without defning new terms of a widely accepted standard of long term justice in the transnational context, hence the urgency to conceive legitimate transnational legal structures and possibly some apparatus of “superlegality.” The report is composed of fve sections. After having presented the pitfalls of the prevailing theoretical apparatus, an alternative cultural grid upon which policy actions should be shaped is presented. In this sense several normative proposals - revisiting the key characteristics of the current system - are offered aiming at acquiring a wider perspective over the actual global crisis

IUC Independent Policy Report: At the End of the End of History: Global Legal Standards: Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem?

This draft was presented at the seminar, Global Standards in the 21st Century, organized by the G8 Presidency in Rome at the Ministry of Economy and Finance and Villa Madama on the 11-12th of May 2009. The IUC Independent Policy Report was drafted by the IUC Legal Standards Research Group, organized by a Steering Committee chaired by Ugo Mattei (International University College of Turin), coordinated by Edoardo Reviglio (International University College of Turin) and Giuseppe Mastruzzo (International University College of Turin),The IUC Independent Policy Report prepared by a group of lawyers at the International University College of Turin was presented at the meeting convened by the G8 Presidency in Rome on May 12, 2009.The IUC Independent Policy Report was drafted by the IUC Legal Standards Research Group, organized by a Steering Committee chaired by Ugo Mattei (International University College of Turin), coordinated by Edoardo Reviglio (International University College of Turin) and Giuseppe Mastruzzo (International University College of Turin), and composed by Franco Bassanini (University of Rome “La Sapienza”), Guido Calabresi (Yale University), Antoine Garapon (Institut des Hautes Etudes sur la Justice, Paris), and Tibor Varady (Central European University, Budapest). Contributors include Eugenio Barcellona (Eastern Piedmont University), Mauro Bussani (University of Trieste), Giuliano G. Castellano (Ecole Polytechnique Preg/CRG), Moussa Djir´e (Bamako University), Liu Guanghua (Lanzhou University), Golnoosh Hakimdavar (University of Turin), John Haskell (SOAS), Jedidiah J. Kroncke (Yale Law School), Andrea Lollini (Bologna University), Alberto Lucarelli (Federico II University), Boris N. Mamlyuk, (University of Turin), Alberto Monti (Bocconi University), Sergio Ariel Muro (Torquato di Tella University), Domenico Nicol`o (Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria), and Nicola Sartori (University of Michigan). The IUC Independent Policy Report argues for a radical change of perspective, capable of restoring the supremacy of the law over the economic system. It is not only about finance, nor is it only about economics or policy. In this sense a transnational set of normative principles is needed in order to establish a global legal system capable of controlling economic processes, rather than being controlled by them. Within this framework a series of policy proposals are presented in order to effectively implement a new system of global standards. The current Western standard of living is unsustainable. Should the rest share the model of development of the West, our planet will simply not be capable of resisting the growth in consumption and pollution. Within this fundamental setting of scarcity in resources, using the rhetoric of the end of history as the polar star for growth, development and ultimately happiness of the whole world is simply a cynical lie. We argue here for the beginning of a necessary process aimed at the development of a legal system that is much less about creating an effcient backbone for an exploitive economy and much more about a vision of civilization, justice and respect where the laws of nature and those of humans converge in a sustainable long-term philosophy. Principles of justice, responsibility and long term environmental protection, rather than short term economic contingency and strong interests must set the legal agenda. A new governance and bottom-up inclusive integration of knowledge-based economies (wherever located), which is crucial to the very survival of humankind, cannot happen without defning new terms of a widely accepted standard of long term justice in the transnational context, hence the urgency to conceive legitimate transnational legal structures and possibly some apparatus of “superlegality.” The report is composed of fve sections. After having presented the pitfalls of the prevailing theoretical apparatus, an alternative cultural grid upon which policy actions should be shaped is presented. In this sense several normative proposals - revisiting the key characteristics of the current system - are offered aiming at acquiring a wider perspective over the actual global crisi

The Frederick K. Cox International Law Center Lectureship

Topic is the problem of dealing with ethnic, religious, and linguistic minority rights in the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina Presented as part of the School of Law\u27s Frederick K. Cox International Law Center\u27s series, March 3, 1999 Professor Varady was Head of International Studies at Central European University and had a current visiting appointment at Emory University. Introduction by Edward A. Mearn

The Frederick K. Cox International Law Center Lectureship

Topic is the problem of dealing with ethnic, religious, and linguistic minority rights in the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina Presented as part of the School of Law\u27s Frederick K. Cox International Law Center\u27s series, March 3, 1999 Professor Varady was Head of International Studies at Central European University and had a current visiting appointment at Emory University. Introduction by Edward A. Mearn