Is Arbitration Heading Toward a Model Procedure (And Is That a Good Thing?)
Kama Kimataifa ya Usuluhishi ni jambo la kimataifa, mazoezi yake ni kuenea nje katika mabara yote na kubadilika imekuwa moja ya mambo yake muhimu. A growing debate in International Arbitration highlights the tensions between the diversity of culture and practice in proceedings, and the need for harmonization. While harmonization would increase predictability in the procedural process, kubadilika katika kesi inaruhusu kwa, miongoni mwa faida nyingine, uwezekano wa fit desturi, kesi mchakato maalum, iliyoundwa na timu ya kisheria na vitendo, kimkakati, na masuala ubunifu katika akili.
Hoja za kuunga mkono hoja kuelekea utaratibu mfano
Usuluhishi ina maendeleo kama njia preferred ya kutatua migogoro na imesababisha mwingiliano kati ya watu kutoka asili mbalimbali za kisheria. In the interest of efficiency, mwingiliano huu ulizua hoja ujumla kuelekea kuoanisha utaratibu kupitia mikataba na sheria laini.
Vyama ni bure kwa kuomba sheria kitaasisi wanafikiri sahihi zaidi kwa mabishano yao hasa. Despite the suitability of party autonomy and the great number of procedural alternatives available, it is a fact that parties often end up doing things in the same way and choosing a set of rules they believe to be more efficient (or that is simply more popular).
Counsel’s and arbitrator’s influence and guidance also contribute to harmonization. Lawyers will often suggest rules that they are familiar with and that seem preferable to them. Arbitrators regularly suggest the same or similar procedures across cases for reasons of comfort and ease.
vyombo vya kimataifa vya kuweka mfumo wa jumla, represent a political desire to move toward harmonization and create a model ground for procedural rules. The Geneva treaties of 1923 na 1927 were the first steps toward the recognition of arbitral clauses and awards (later to be crystallized in the New York Convention of 1958).
The underlying purpose of UNCITRAL was to provide for general harmonization and set up a minimal standard to cope with the flaws that disparities can create. The UNCITRAL Model Law has been used by many countries as a basis to adopt their own domestic law and become more arbitration friendly. Its purpose was to achieve uniformity of procedural law throughout the world. While it is true that choosing a place / kiti cha usuluhishi italeta kuweka maalum ya sheria, ukweli kwamba sheria hizi taifa ni converging shukrani kwa Model Law akipatikana kwa juhudi zake za utaratibu.
The availability of the jurisprudence and its global use has also influenced and contributed to harmonization. The ICSID Convention has played a key role in this matter.
Wateja wengi kuongeza kifungu usuluhishi katika mkataba wao hasa kwa sababu hawana unataka kwenda mahakamani, not because they know what going to arbitration entails. For this reason, it is crucial that the arbitration community provides them with a strong degree of guidance. The epistemic community shares the same expertise and is moved by similar objectives, na bila shaka ana maslahi katika kukuza usuluhishi mazoezi katika njia sawa.
Wakati inaeleweka kwamba States wana maslahi mkubwa wa kisiasa katika kupitisha sheria kama hiyo, mtu anaweza kushangaa kwa nini wao ni karibu kila mara kufanya mambo sawa katika njia hiyo hiyo kwa kuzingatia kiwango kikubwa cha kubadilika zinazotolewa. That they want to attract business to their own countries (and do so by adopting an arbitration friendly framework with greater predictability) is one thing, but don’t they also have a strong interest in distinguishing themselves? Arbitration is a business in itself and the very existence of Paris Nafasi ya Usuluhishi inaonyesha mapenzi ya nchi kushindana dhidi ya kila mmoja katika suala la sifa na njia bora.
Arbitration institutions have historically been very influential in this process. When the ICC changes its arbitration rules, it is likely that other institutions will consider those changes and use the guidance provided by the leading institution to modify their own rules. More and more arbitrations are institutional and rules now tend to converge rather than differ.
Professional associations such as the IBA provide guidance through their notes and rules. While civil and common lawyers often disagree on what to do with the evidence, IBA Rules kuweka kawaida bado rahisi msingi juu ya jinsi ya kukabiliana na suala hili, na sasa zinatumika katika 60% of arbitrations. It can be argued that soft law relating to the law of evidence provides for a degree of convergence of the two legal traditions and for a common ground that lawyers often need.
Ya 2012 International Arbitration Survey conducted by the University of Queen Mary and sponsored by White & Case dealt with current and preferred practices in the arbitral process. It led to the conclusion that there is indeed a general common practice on how proceedings are conducted and how evidence is managed. Kwa mfano, kuna quasi-makubaliano juu ya ufanisi wa kuhojiwa, mtaalam shahidi ushahidi, and that fact witness evidence should be offered by exchange of witness statements. This has become a general global framework.
Arguments opposing a move toward a model procedure
Wakati ni kweli kwamba sababu hawana hukutana kuelekea njia bora katika Usuluhishi utaratibu International, idadi ya mambo kuzuia kuoanisha. kwanza, wakati hatuwezi shaka kuwepo kwa jamii ya usuluhishi ambaye malengo na matarajio kuhusu utaratibu inaweza kusaidia muunganiko, one cannot argue that the practice of arbitration is limited to the arbitration community. The majority of arbitration cases involve lawyers whose practices are not arbitration. These lawyers may not see many arbitration cases in their careers and their individual litigation backgrounds will guide their conduct, hivyo kupelekea malengo tofauti kiutaratibu miongoni mwa watendaji. Said differently, kimataifa ya usuluhishi jamii kinaundwa na wataalamu usuluhishi si kushiriki maoni sawa na mashauri ya ndani kushiriki katika usuluhishi mara chache katika maisha yao.
Aidha, the existence of a model procedure assumes that all players have reached a consensus on the practice. Such uniformity is not the reality of arbitration and there are many grounds for debate. Kwa mfano, some lawyers appoint an arbitrator that they wish to be assisted by an administrative assistant. The debate relates to his duties, should he be drafting the award? Opinions diverge on this point.
There are many new local markets becoming places of arbitrations. The emergence of these new players leads to an increasing number of arbitrations being handled locally, where practice may differ greatly from other places. New emerging players may not agree that best practices for others also constitute best practices for themselves and would, kwa mfano, kufikiria Miongozo IBA juu ya Party Uwakilishi tofauti sana.
Mara nyingi moja ya mvuto mkubwa juu ya utaratibu ni msuluhishi mwenyewe. Arbitrators’ preferences for procedure remain fairly consistent across their caseloads and vary greatly when compared to other arbitrators. Some may not want post-hearing briefs whereas others do away with direct examination. Hata hivyo, msuluhishi ambaye neema baada ya kusikia taarifa zinaweza anatarajiwa kuomba utaratibu huu na wengi wa kesi yake.
Pamoja mistari hiyo, vyama inaweza kuwa tvekar kupendekeza mabadiliko ya matarajio msuluhishi kiutaratibu kwa sababu za kiutendaji. One wants the arbitrator to like him and like his case; if the arbitrator suggests something in the procedural order, mtu lazima kweli ajabu kama kupendekeza marekebisho kwa utaratibu ni kweli wazo nzuri.
Kusonga mbele utaratibu mfano ni jambo zuri
utaratibu mfano katika International Usuluhishi itahakikisha utulivu na usalama katika maandalizi ya kesi. It could reduce costs by promoting predictability and allowing parties to organize their cases quicker and with ease. tayari leo, kuna baadhi ya kuaminika kiutaratibu masuala ambayo watendaji wanaweza wanatarajia kukutana katika kila usuluhishi.
They will agree that the ability to rely on the following features is indeed a good thing:
- kwanza, taarifa ya madai unatarajiwa kuwa kina na kuungwa mkono na ushahidi. Hii si kesi katika mila zote za kisheria kama wanasheria sheria ya kawaida ni mara nyingi wanatarajiwa kutoa taarifa ya madai kiunzi ya kuwa na kuongezewa kwa njia ya ugunduzi.
- pili, ugunduzi mdogo inapatikana. Vyama wanaweza kuomba nyaraka kutoka upande mwingine kama nyaraka hizo ni manufaa kwa kujenga kesi yao.
- Tatu, vyama wana haki ya kusikilizwa. Hearings are automatic in common law jurisdictions whereas they are not in civil law jurisdictions. International Arbitration practitioners can rely on the fact that they always have a right to a hearing but may also decide to waive this right.
- nne, si lazima kuanzisha au kuthibitisha ushahidi katika mjadala. kuanzishwa na uthibitisho wa ushahidi ni mzigo mazoezi sasa katika maeneo ya kisheria ya kawaida.
- tano, vyama na mahakama arbitral kuamua utaratibu pamoja. Whether or not parties decide to exercise their right to participate in determining the procedural process is another consideration.
- sita, witnesses are examined by both arbitrators and counsel. Counsel examines witnesses in common law jurisdictions while the judge examines witnesses in civil law jurisdictions.
- saba, shauri itakuwa mdogo katika uwezo wake wa kufanya uchunguzi wa moja kwa moja. The witness statement usually serves as the direct examination and one will have an opportunity to supplement this statement only if something new comes up afterwards.
- nane, pande zote mbili na mahakama unaweza kuteua wataalam. Parties should always anticipate the appointment of experts and plan accordingly.
- Tisa, shauri wanaweza kuandaa na kulipa mashahidi na wataalam. IBA Miongozo ya Party Uwakilishi alithibitisha kuwa vyama inaweza kulipa mashahidi na wataalam kwa ajili ya gharama zilizotumika sababu katika maandalizi ya kusikia, kupoteza muda, na mtaalam ada ya kuridhisha.
- hatimaye, shauri may, si wanajua, make false submissions of facts to the tribunal. This is analogous to the rule in the United States whereas French law does not address the issue. If parties do make false submissions of facts, mahakama inaweza kufanya inferences mbaya au kurekebisha mgao vyama ya gharama za kisheria na ada ya mahakama.
A model procedure would be evil
utaratibu International Usuluhishi ni sifa kwa kubadilika yake. Parties can tailor the procedure to their individual needs and choose from a wide range of procedural options. Many arbitration proceedings look similar but, kama kuna kamwe kuwa kesi kufanana, kuna kamwe kuwa taratibu kufanana.
ufumbuzi kuelekea utaratibu mfano ingekuwa lazima impair kubadilika hii. Kama daktari mmoja mused, “Why buy IKEA when you can have custom-made furniture?”
Ya 2012 International Usuluhishi Utafiti uliofanywa na Chuo Kikuu cha Malkia Mary ilionyesha kuwa watendaji walikuwa na wasiwasi kwamba mchakato alikuwa kuwa pia umewekwa.
mazoezi ya Kimataifa ya Usuluhishi inahitaji kuzingatia masuala ya kitamaduni na tofauti za mitaa, and respect the expectations of the parties. This is what arbitration should be about. Kwa mfano, there are many issues to be considered when trying to enforce an award in the Middle East and that will be typical to the local culture (in Dubai the oath of the witnesses can be problematic if the proper administrative form was not use, and the Qatari Court of cassation set aside an award because it was not rendered in the name of the emir of Qatar).
Clients may eventually feel cheated by the use of a model procedure as they chose arbitration as a means to settle their disputes at least in part for its procedural flexibility. Clients may also view a harmonized procedure as taking less of their individual expectations into account.
Arguments presented during a Young Arbitrator’s Forum Panel Presentation by speakers:
- Eleonore Caroit (Castaldi, Mourre, & Partners)
- Lorraine de Germiny (King & Spalding)
- Matthew Secomb – Moderator (White & Case)
- Thomas Granier (ICC)
- Florian Grisel (Dechert)
- Olivier Marquais