INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
2003-2004
A. JUSTICIABILITY, ARBITRABILITY
General
Reading:-
Brownlie,
‘The Justiciability of Disputes and Issues in International Relations’, XLII BYIL 123 (1967).
Hedges,
‘Justiciable Disputes’, 22 AJIL 560-565 (1928)
Mosler,
"The Area of Justiciability", in Makarczyk (ed.), Essays in International Law in Honour of
Judge Manfred Lachs, (1984), 409.
A.H.A.
Soons (ed), International Arbitration:
Past and Prospects (1990).
Justiciability
1.
The existence of a dispute is an objective
question. [Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, (1924) PCIJ Ser. A, No.
2, p. 11. Interpretation of Peace
Treaties case, [1950] ICJ Rep. 65 at 74.
2.
Note relationship of justiciability with the
question of the right of intervention: Application
to Intervene, (Malta), [1981] ICJ Rep. 3, (Italy), [1984] ICJ Rep. 3; Nicaragua [1984] ICJ Rep. 431; Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia /Malaysia)
Application By The Philippines For Permission To Intervene, (ICJ Judgment of 23
October 2001), http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/iinma/iinmaframe.htm ; McGinley,
"Intervention in the International Court", 34 ICLQ 671 (1985).
3.
Another aspect of the ‘existence’ the dispute concerns
the question of the time at which the dispute begins and ends, which may be
crucial to the question of jurisdiction. Headquarters
Agreement, [1988] ICJ Rep. 12, at 29. Phosphates
in
4.
Most tribunals will not adjudicate upon
insubstantial disputes –i.e., disputes that are moot: Northern Cameroons, [1963] ICJ Rep. 15, at 117 (Fitzmaurice S.O.). Nuclear Tests, [1974] ICJ Rep. 253, 457.
Sometimes tribunals will do so in order to contribute to the building of a
‘regime’: Ireland v. UK, [ECHR]
(1978) Ser. A, No. 25, at 62. Commission
v. Italy [ECJ] case 7/61, (1961) 7 Rec. 633. Commission v. France [ECJ] case 26/69 (1970) ECR 565.
5.
Some disputes are non justiciable because they
are not ‘legal’ disputes: Haya de la
Torre [1951] ICJ Rep. 71, at 83…
6.
…but tribunals generally isolate the legal
element from the political context; and the parallel pursuit of political
procedures is in general no bar to adjudication:
7.
Arbitrability is, in public international law, a
similar concept: British Claims in the
Spanish Zone of Morocco, (1925), 2 RIAA 615. Interpretation of Peace Treaties case, [1950] ICJ Rep. 65, at 74. Headquarters Agreement, [1988] ICJ Rep.
12, at 27. And cf., definitions in 1899/1907 Hague Conventions, 1928 General
Act, 1957 European Convention, etc. Cf., bilateral agreements, e.g.: France-UK,
20 LNTS 185; France-Germany, 54 LNTS 289; Hungary-Turkey, 100 LNTS 137.
8.
The category of arbitrable disputes constantly
develops: see < http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm
> (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)
9.
Arbitrability has a distinct meaning in the
context of international commercial arbitration. Note: role of municipal law,
as lex arbitri, in determining
arbitrability.
B. NATIONALITY OF CLAIMS
General
reading:-
**
Warbrick, "Protection of Nationals Abroad", 37 ICLQ 1002, at 1006-1012 (1988);
D.J.
Bederman, "Beneficial Ownership of International Claims", 38 ICLQ 924 (1989).
10. A
State may present the claim of a person (natural or juridical) who was from the
time of the occurrence of the injury until the making of the award continuously
a national of the State:
11. In
principle, each State determines who are its nationals: Hague Convention on
Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws, 1930, 179 LNTS 89. Nottebohm, [1955] ICJ Rep. 4. [But note the limits on the Nottebohm
decision: Flegenheimer, (Italy/US,
1955), 25 ILR 91].
12. The
position of dual nationals is less clear than is sometimes supposed. It is
commonly said that either national State may bring a claim against a third
State:
13. The
nationality of corporations is in principle determined by the place of
incorporation and/or the location of the siège
social: Barcelona Traction, Light and
Power Company, [1970] ICJ Rep. 3.
14. There
are suggestions that where the State of incorporation is the
15. Note
the reasoning in ELSI, (1989) ICJ Rep
15, 84 ILR 311, distinguishing the State’s rights and the investor’s rights.
Cf., Lowe, ‘Shareholders’ Rights to Control and Manage: from Barcelona Traction
to ELSI’, in N. Ando et al (eds), Liber
Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, (2002), 269-284.
16. For
the UK Rules Applying to International Claims, see **54 BYIL 520 (1983), 37 ICLQ
1006 (1988); also in Dixon & McCorquodale, Cases & Materials on International Law(4th ed.,
2003), 427.
C. EXHAUSTION OF LOCAL REMEDIES
General
Reading:-
Amerasinghe,
Local Remedies in International Law
(1990), esp. pp. 257-275
Meron,
"The Incidence of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies", 35 BYIL 93 (1959) Schwebel & Wetter,
"Arbitration and the Exhaustion of Local Remedies", 60 AJIL (1966) Simpson & Fox, International Arbitration, (1959), ch.
VI
Trinidade,
The Application of the Rule of Exhaustion
of Local Remedies in International Law, (1987)
17. It is
said that in the case of indirect
international wrongs. international remedies may not be pursued until local
remedies have been exhausted: see, e.g., Losinger
PCIJ Ser. A/B, No. 67 (1936); Anglo-Iranian
Oil (1952) ICJ Rep. 89; Compagnie du
Port de Beyrouth (1960) ICJ Pleadings. Interhandel
[1959] ICJ Rep. 6, 46.
18. The
national’s omission to exhaust remedies may preclude further action: Ambatielos arbitration (1956) ILR 30.
19. It is
for the State to show that an unexhausted remedy was available and that its
pursuit was not futile: Finnish Ships
3 RIAA 1479 (1934) Panevezys-Saldutiskis
Railway PCIJ Ser. A/B, No. 76 (1939).
20. The
duty is not to exhaust every theoretical possibility, but merely to raise the
issues and seise the tribunals: ELSI,
(1989) ICJ Rep 15, 42-48, 84 ILR 311, 348-354.
21. The
duty to exhaust local remedies is (in my view) procedural in nature. The 1996
ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility (art. 22) suggested that it is
substantive; but in the 2001 text (Art. 44) it is procedural. For text see http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/State_responsibility/responsibilityfra.htm
22. Exhaustion
of local remedies not necessary where the State refuses arbitration pursuant to
contractual undertaking amounting to implied waiver of local remedies rule: LIAMCO 62 ILR 140, 20 ILM 1 (1981). ELF
Aquitaine Iran v. NIOC, 11 Yearbook Commercial
Arbitration 104-105 (1986). ICSID art. 26.
23. For
discussions see, e.g., Feller, "Some Observations on the Calvo
Clause", 27 AJIL (1933);
Freeman, "Recent Aspects of the Calvo Doctrine...", 40 AJIL 132 (1946); Lipstein, "The
Place of the Calvo Clause in International Law", 22 BYIL 130 (1945); Shea, The
Calvo Clause, (1955); ** O’Connell, International
Law (1970); ** Greig, International
Law (1976); Sornarajah, The Pursuit
of Nationalized Property (1986).
24. Calvo
clauses cannot preclude the right of the national State to pursue the matter on
the international plane, but they can reinforce the duty to exhaust local
remedies: North American Dredging Company,
4 RIAA 26 (1926). But see ICSID Convention, art. 26, and ELSI, (1989) ICJ Rep 15, 42, 84 ILR 311, 348.
THE ARBITRAL PROCESS: 2.
SUBMISSION
Requirements for
valid submission
1. Distinguish between an arbitration (or submission) clause, which provides for the reference
of future disputes to arbitration,
and a submission agreement, which
provides for the reference of an existing
dispute to arbitration. The criteria for recognition and enforcement of
arbitral awards in practice establish the requirements for submission clauses
and agreements. Geneva Protocol 1923, 27 LNTS
158. UK Arbitration Act 1996, s. 9. Geneva Convention on the Execution of
Foreign Arbitral Awards, 92 LNTS 301.
**New York Convention on the Recognition
and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, 330 UNTS 3. http://www.uncitral.org/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv.htm
For the ICJ, see article 36 of the Statute.
Arbitration
Clauses
2. There is no set form for a submission agreement, but arbitration bodies (e.g., the ICC, see http://www.iccwbo.org/arb/index.htm;
WIPO -not confined to Intellectual Property disputes-, see <http://www.wipo.int/eng/arbit/arbit.htm>) set out
model arbitration clauses. Tribunals
are often reluctant to uphold insecure clauses: Tribunal de grande instance,
Paris, 1 Feb and 16 Oct 1979 (1980) Revue
de l'Arbitrage 99, 101; Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce, 12 Nov 1974, 1 Y'bk Commercial Arb. 124 (1976).
3. The requirements of the New York Convention,
arts. II, V establish, for most practical purposes, the requirements for
arbitration clauses:-
a)
agreement in writing
b) deal with
differences which have arisen/may arise
c) arising from
defined legal relationships
d) arbitrable subject matter. New York Convention, arts. I.3, V.2. Mitsubishi v. Soler, 105
S.Ct. 3346 (1985); Fox, ‘Mitsubishi v. Soler and its impact on
International Commercial Arbitration’, 19 J.
World Trade Law 579 (1985); T. E.
Carbonneau, ‘Mitsubishi: The
Folly of Quixotic Internationalism’, (1986) 2 Arbitration International 116; A. Lowenfeld, ‘The Mitsubishi case: Another View’, (1986) 2 Arbitration International 178; W. Park,
‘National Law and Commercial Justice: Safeguarding Procedural Integrity in
International Arbitration, (1989) 63 Tulane
Law Review 647; J. H. Dalhuisen, ‘The arbitrability of competition issues’,
(1995) 11 Arbitration International
151. Volume 12(2) of Arbitration
International (1996) is a special issue on arbitrability in international
commercial arbitration. A. Kirry, ‘arbitrability: current trends in Europe’,
(1996) Arbitration International 373;
M. de Boissesson and T. Clay, ‘Recent developments in arbitration in civil law
countries’, [1998] Int. A. L. R. 150.
e)
within legal capacity of parties LIAMCO v. Libya 62 ILR 140, 20 ILM 1 (1981) at
39-40. Benteler v. Belgium (1983) 1 J. Int. Arb. 184 (1984); (1985) European
Commercial Cases 101. Elf Aquitaine Iran v. NIOC (1982), 11 Y'bk
Commercial Arb. 97, 103 (1986). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 46.
J. Paulsson, ‘May a State invoke its internal law to repudiate consent to
international commercial arbitration?’, (1986) 2 Arbitration International 90. The 1987 Swiss Arbitration Act (art.
177(2)) provides that ‘a state or an enterprise held, or an organisation
controlled by it ...cannot rely on its own law in order to contest its capacity
to be a party to an arbitration’: (1989) 6 International
Business Law Journal 805 (1989), also in (1988) 27 ILM 37. Cf., ICC Case No. 6162, (1992) 17 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 153.
f) agreement valid
under lex arbitri The 1987 Swiss
law provides: ‘As regards to its substance, the arbitration agreement shall be
valid if it conforms either to the law chosen by the parties, or to the law
governing the subject-matter of the dispute, in particular the law governing the
main contract, or if it conforms to Swiss law.’ (Art. 178(2): 6 International Business Law Journal 805
(1989); (1988) 27 ILM 37). Cf.,
UNCITRAL Model Law, art. 7; UK Arbitration Act 1996, ss. 5, 6.
Note: Emilio Agustin
Maffezini v. Spain (ICSID Case No.
ARB/97/7), 16 ICSID Review—Foreign Investment Law Journal 212; (2001), http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/emilio_DecisiononJurisdiction.pdf
(jurisdiction under MFN clause)
Who Are The
Parties?
4. Questions can arise as to the persons bound by the
submission agreement. Particular difficulties arise in relation to corporations
owned or controlled by States and agreements that are ‘signed’ or ‘authorised’
by governmental officials. See, e.g., ICC
Case No. 4402, 8 Y'bk Comm. Arb.
204 (1983), 9 ibid. 138 (1984). ICC
Case No. 4131, 9 Y'bk Comm. Arb.
131 (1984). Pyramids arbitration, 3 ICSID Reports 45, 79, 96; (1983) 22 ILM 752; 3 ICSID Reports 101; (1993) 32 ILM
933. Holiday Inns, 51 BYIL 123 (1982). Amco Asia v. Indonesia, 23 ILM
351 (1984) (and compare Klockner on
foreign control -question relating to admissibility: see 35 ICLQ 813 (1986). Westland Helicopter v. Arab Organization for Industrialisation, UAE,
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt and Arab British Helicopter Co., 23 ILM 1071
(1984); **(Swiss Court) 28 ILM 687 (1989); Lalive, "Some Threats to
International Investment Arbitration", 1 ICSID Review 33 (1986). Westland Helicopters Ltd. v. Arab Organisation for Industrialisation,
[1995] 2 All ER 387. Note difficulty
caused by the CME and Lauder decisions (on subject area
website) regarding res judicata.
Third Parties:
intervention and joinder
5. The ICJ Statute is unusual in providing for a right to
demand (art. 63: Haya de la Torre (Cuba,
1951); Nicaragua (El Salvador, 1984)
or request (art. 62: Tunisia/Libya (Malta,
1981), Libya/Malta (Italy, 1984), Land, Island and Maritime Frontier
(Nicaragua, 1990); Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Equatorial
Guinea, 1999) to intervene in proceedings between other parties. No such general right exists in arbitrations
(but see Hague Convention, 1907, art. 84; ITLOS, 1982 LOSC, Annex VI, art. 32;
WTO, DSU, art. 10).
6. Similarly, there is no duty
to intervene. There is, however, an increasing tendency to provide for the
compulsory consolidation of arbitral proceedings: see Kerr L. J., ‘Arbitration
v. Litigation: the Macao Sardine
case’, (1987) 3 Arbitration International
79; NAFTA, art. 1126; UK Arbitration Act 1996, s. 35; art. 1046 of the
Netherlands Arbitration Act 1986; T. Hascher, ‘Consolidation or arbitration by
American courts’, (1984) 1 Journal of
International Arbitration 131; H. S. Miller, ‘Consolidation in Hong Kong:
the Shui On case’, (1987) 3 Arbitration International 87. Abu Dhabi Gas Liquefaction Co. Ltd. v.
7. Where third parties do join proceedings, problems may arise
in relation to their ‘representation’: see notes on the establishment of the
tribunal.
Content of Arbitration Clauses and Arbitration Agreements
8. Arbitration clauses typically make provision, often by
reference to established sets of rules (e.g., ICC or UNCITRAL arbitration
rules) for the constitution and seat of the tribunal; the lex arbitri and Proper Law of the transaction; and default
procedures to be applied by the tribunal. Where the dispute already arisen, the
arbitration agreement is generally more detailed, dealing also with the definition
of dispute, procedural matters such as the language(s) and forms in which
evidence and proceedings are to take place, costs, and the powers of the
tribunal in relation to interim measures, revision and interpretation of the
award.
See the 1996 UNCITRAL Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings, published on the net at http://www.uncitral.org/en-index.htm
, and reproduced in UNCITRAL Yearbook, vol. XXVII: 1996, part one. Note, too,
the role of tribunals in settling the compromis
for parties: e.g., PCA under art. 53, 1907 Hague Convention: http://www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/AL/
.
Autonomy of the Arbitration Clause
9. The arbitration clause is, as a matter of law, presumed to
be severable from the main ‘substantive’ agreement and to survive the avoidance
(though not the non-existence) of the main agreement. This is the principle of
the autonomy of the arbitration clause. See, e.g.,
- Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v. South India Shipping Corp. [1981] AC 909; [1981] 1 All ER 289. Harbour Insurance Co. (UK) Ltd v. Kansa General International Insurance Co. Ltd, [1993] Lloyd’s Rep.
455; [1993] 3 All ER 897. UK Arbitration Act 1996, s. 7. UNCITRAL Rules, art.
21.2. Anglo-Iranian Oil Company
[1952] ICJ Rep. 93, 164. ICAO Council
[1972] ICJ Rep. 46. Fisheries
Jurisdiction [1973] ICJ Rep. 31 (Fitzmaurice S.O.). Losinger & Co. PCIJ Ser. C, No. 78 (1936). Lena Goldfields, 36 Cornell
L. Q. 31, 44 (1950). *TOPCO v Libya 55 ILR 354. *LIAMCO
v Libya 62 ILR 140, 20 ILM 1 (1981). *BP v
Libya 53 ILR 297. Elf Aquitaine Iran v NIOC, 11 Y’bk Comm. Arb. 97 (1986). ICSID,
Washington Convention art. 25. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, art. 21. UNCITRAL
Model Law, art. 16(1). cf., New York Convention, art. V.
Lalive, "Problèmes Relatifs à l'Arbitrage International", 120 Hague Recueil 569 (1967 i); Schwebel, International
Arbitration: Three Salient Problems, (1987), ch. 1.
10. Can the obligation to arbitrate survive the dissolution of one
of the parties? Société
des Grands Travaux de Marseille v East Pakistan Industrial Development
Corporation, V Y'bk
Comm. Arb.177, 217 (1980). 75 AJIL 789
(1981). Lalive, ‘Jurisprudence suisse de droit international privé’, 34 Annuaire Suisse de Droit International
392 (1978).
Denial of Justice
11. The parties are regarded as having agreed to substitute
arbitration for recourse to the local courts.
Therefore there is in principle no need to have recourse to (other)
local remedies either before arbitrating or, after arbitrating, before taking
up the matter on the plane of international law. Losinger
& Co. PCIJ Ser. C, No. 78 (1936). Anglo-Iranian
Oil Co., ICJ Pleadings, 120-122; [1952] ICJ Rep. 164 (Carneiro D.O.). Electricité de Beyrouth, ICJ Pleadings,
14, 58. Libyan expropriations of 1973, Digest
of US Practice in Int'l Law 1975, 490; 75 AJIL 487 (1981). Shufeldt
Claim (US-Guatemala, 1930) II RIAA 1094. AGIP/Congo, (1979) 21 ILM
726, 735 (1982). Solel
Boneh International v. Uganda, (1975) J. Droit Int'l 938. **Schwebel, International Arbitration: Three Salient
Problems (1987), Ch. II. Wetter, ‘Pleas of Sovereign Immunity ...before
International Arbitral Tribunals’, 2 Jo.
Int. Arb. 7 (1985) . Mann, ‘State Contracts and International Arbitration’,
42 BYIL 1 (1967)