Comparative Law Researches

Comparative Law Researches

Early Determination of Arbitral Jurisdiction by the National Court

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
Mohammadjavad Hoseinpour 1
Ali Ansari 2
1 Master's student in Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Tehran.
2 Associate Professor of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Paragraf 1 of Article 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Paragraf 3 of Article 2 of the New York Convention express the duty of the court in referring the matter to arbitration. The mentioned articles oblige the court to refer the matter to arbitration if requested by one of the litigants, unless it finds that the arbitration agreement is not valid. Researches show that the consideration of judges in this assumption can be done in two ways: A) Breif Review, B) Substantive Review. The important difference between these two methods is that the announcement of the court's result in the brief review is not considered a verdict according to most legal systems; But when the court conducts a substantive review in relation to the arbitration agreement, it will lead to the issuance of a decision. Proponents of the brief review theory believe that respecting the principle of jurisdiction over jurisdiction requires that judges be the first judges of their jurisdiction, but the authors in this research have argued that in the draft paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, it is proposed to insert a phrase that defines the concept of brief review It evokes that it was given, but it was not accepted by the members of the UNCITRAL working group, as well as the absolute acceptance of the negative effect of the principle of jurisdiction over jurisdiction, contrary to the decreasing trend of courts' involvement in arbitration and the establishment and development of the arbitration institution as an independent authority will lead to theoretical conflicts and have the opposite result. The judicial opinions in this field are completely mixed, but it seems that the approach of the opinions that accepted the middle opinion by accepting the elements of both theories is more correct.




Keywords
Preliminary Determination of the Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Court
The Principle of Jurisdiction over Jurisdiction
International Commercial Arbitration
UNCITRAL Model Law
New York Convention
Court's Intervention in Arbitration

Subjects

فهرست منابع
1. منابع فارسی:
الف) کتاب‌ها
1. بازگیر، یداالله(1380) تشریفات دادرسی مدنی در آئینه آراء دیوانعالی کشور "داوری و احکام راجع به آن"، انتشارات فردوسی، چ اول.
2. خزاعی، حسین(1386)حقوق تجارت بین الملل، داوری، انتشارات قانون، چ اول، ج 7.
3. شیروی، عبدالحسین (1398). داوری تجاری بین‌المللی. سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم‌انسانی دانشگاه‌ها(سمت).
4. موزز، مارگارت (1398). اصول و رویه‌های داوری تجاری بین‌المللی، ترجمه مجتبی اصغریان، انتشارات خرسندی.
5. نیک‌بخت، حمیدرضا (1402) داوری «اختلافات مدنی_بازرگانی» کتاب راهنمای عمل، شرکت چاپ و نشر بازرگانی.
ب) مقالات
6. جهانیان، مجتبی و مرتضی شهبازی نیا(1398) اعمال اصل صلاحیت بر صلاحیت در داوری پذیری دعاوی، بررسی تطبیقی در حقوق ایران و آمریکا، پژوهش های حقوق تطبیقی، دوره 23، شماره 2.
7. شمسی، جواد و همایون مافی (1402) اثر منفی اصل صالحیت نسبت به صالحیت در داوری و نفی صالحیت دادگاه، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، شماره 70، صص 158-134.
د) آراء
8. دادنامه شماره 9109970220300743، تاریخ 15/06/1391، شعبه 3 دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران
9. رای شماره 665/8 به تاریخ 03/12/1371 صادره شعبه هشتم دیوان عالی کشور.
هـ) نظریه مشورتی
10. نظریه مشورتی شماره 7/95/2898 مورخ 12/11/1395
2. منابع خارجی:
A. Books:
11. Bantekas, I., Ortolani, P., Ali, S. F., Gómez, M. A., & Polkinghorne, M. (2020a). Arbitration Agreement and Substantive Claim before Court. In Cambridge University Press eBooks: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108633376.010
12. Bermann, G. A., & Springerlink (Online Service. (2017). Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards : The Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention by National Courts. Springer International Publishing.
13. Garner, B. A. (Ed.). (2009). Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.). West Publishing Co.
14. Lew, Julian D. M. (2003) Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
15. UNGUIDELINE, UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958): https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/2016_guide_on_the_convention.pdf
B. Articles
16. Bachand, F. (2006). Does Article 8 of the Model Law call for full or prima facie review of the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction? Arbitration International, 22(3), 463–476. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbitration/22.3.463
17. Brekoulakis, Stavros, The Negative Effect of Compétence-Compétence: The Verdict Has to Be Negative. Austrian Arbitration Yearbook, pp. 238-258, 2009, Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 22/2009, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1414325
18. Park, William W., The Arbitrator's Jurisdiction to Determine Jurisdiction (March 18, 2007). 13 ICCA Congress Series 55 (Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, 2007), Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 17-33, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3019225
19. Pacific Crown Engineering Ltd -v- Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co Ltd (2004). Asian Dispute Review, 6(1), 25-25. https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Asian+Dispute+Review/6.1/ADR2004012
20. Valdes, J. E. F. (2007). The principle of kompetenz-kompetenz in international commercial arbitration. Mealey’s International Arbitration Report.
C. Thesis & Dissertation:
21. Lindelöw, Karl (2013) Skiljeavtalet som rättegångshinder-En analys av artikel 8(1) i UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, JURIDISKA FAKULTETEN vid Lunds universitet.
22. Fortese, F. (2022). Early determination of arbitral jurisdiction: Balancing efficacy, efficiency, and legitimacy of arbitration (PhD dissertation, Department of Law, Stockholm University). Retrieved from https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-210020
D. Websites & Awards:
23. Dell Computer Corp. v. :union: des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801. Retrieved from https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2374/index.do
24. Feeney, M. (2010b). Judgment of Mr Justice Feeney delivered on the 1st day of November, 2010. In Commercial Court. https://www.acerislaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Barnmore-Demolition-v-Alandale-Logistics-2010-No.-5910P.pdf
25. New York Convention Guide. (2006, June 15). France / 15 June 2006 / Fraseco S.A.R.L. v. Masai Mara Luxury Game Lodges Ltd. https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=172
26. New York Convention Guide. (2005, August 12). India / 12 August 2005 / Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd (Japan) v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. & Anr. (Ind). https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=439
27. New York Convention Guide. (2007, January 5). Italy / 05 January 2007 / Italy, Corte di Cassazione (Supreme Court) / Heraeus Kulzer GmbH v. Dellatorre Vera SpA / 35. https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1409
28. UN, E/CONF.26/SR.24, Travaux préparatoires, United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n58/157/24/pdf/n5815724.pdf?token=SDjpcy0nZPmWCBL7Fo&fe=true
29. UN,A/CN.9/263/Add.3, 31 July 1985, Travaux préparatoires, United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration: