Is Arbitration Heading Toward a Model Procedure (And Is That a Good Thing?)
Xalqaro arbitraj global hodisa sifatida, uning amaliyot barcha qit'alarda cho'zilsa va moslashuvchan uning asosiy elementlari biriga aylandi. 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, protsess moslashuvchan imkonini beradi, boshqa imtiyozlar orasida, maxsus yashashi mumkinligini, ishi o'ziga xos jarayon, amaliy bilan huquqiy jamoasi tomonidan ishlab chiqilgan, strategic, va yodda ijodiy mulohazalar.
a model tartibi tomon harakat qo'llab-quvvatlash vajlari
Arbitraj nizolarni hal afzal usuli sifatida ishlab chiqilgan va turli huquqiy kelib odamlar o'rtasidagi o'zaro ta'sir olib keldi. In the interest of efficiency, Bu o'zaro shartnomalar va yumshoq qonun orqali tartibi uyg'unlashtirishga tomon umumiy harakat ldi.
Tomonlar o'z muayyan nizoni ular eng mos deb o'ylayman institutsional qoidalarini qo'llashga bepul. 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.
Xalqaro asboblar umumiy asoslarini belgilash, represent a political desire to move toward harmonization and create a model ground for procedural rules. The Geneva treaties of 1923 va 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 / Hakamlik joy qoidalar ma'lum bir to'plamda keltiradi, Bu milliy qoidalari tartibi bir uyg'unlashtirish uchun chiqarilgan qonun shafoat tufayli biriga haqiqatdir.
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.
ular sudga borishni istamayman, asosan, chunki ko'p mijozlarga o'z shartnomada hakamlik yon tümce, 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, va, shubhasiz, xuddi shunday tarzda hakamlik amaliyotini targ'ib qiziqish bor.
Bu tushunarli bo'lsa-da Shtatlari o'xshash qonunlar qabul katta siyosiy manfaatlarini ega ekanligini, Bir ular deyarli har doim taqdim moslashuvchan katta darajasini hisobga Shu tarzda bir xil qilyapsizlar nega hayron mumkin. 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 Arbitraj Parij joyi mamlakatlar irodasi obro'siga shartlari va eng yaxshi amaliy bir-biriga qarshi raqobat qilish ko'rsatadi.
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, BFI qoidalari bu masalada bilan shug'ullanish uchun qanday umumiy hali moslashuvchan asos o'rnatish, va hozir ham ishlatiladi 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.
Bu 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. Masalan, ko'ndalang ekspertiza samaradorligi bo'yicha emish-konsensus bor, ekspert guvoh dalil, 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
Bu haqiqat bo'lsa-da omillar Xalqaro arbitraj tartibida eng yaxshi amaliyoti tomon yakınsama, deb, bir qator omillar uyg'unlik oldini olish. birinchi, Biz gol va taxminlar yaqinlik qo'llab-quvvatlashi mumkin tartibi haqida hakamlik jamiyat mavjudligini shubha mumkin emas esa, 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, Shunday qilib, amaliyot o'rtasida turli protsessual maqsad uchun etakchi. Said differently, Hakamlik ekspertlar iborat global hakamlik hamjamiyati arbitraj jalb mahalliy maslahatlariga sifatida bir necha marta bir xil fikr hayotlarida baham bo'lmaydi.
Bundan tashqari, 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. Masalan, 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, masalan, juda boshqacha partiyasi vakili ustiga BFI Ko'rsatmalar ko'rib.
Ko'pincha tartibi to'g'risidagi eng katta ta'sirga biri arbitr O'zidir. 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. hali, post-eshitish külotlar ne'mat arbitr o'z hollar ko'p, bu tartib amal kutilmoqda mumkin.
Shu satrlarni davomida, Tomonlar amaliy sabablarga ko'ra bir hakamning protsessual umidlari o'zgartirishlar taklif qilish ikkilanib bo'lishi mumkin. One wants the arbitrator to like him and like his case; if the arbitrator suggests something in the procedural order, tartibda o'zgartirish taklif, albatta, yaxshi fikr bo'lsa, albatta, hayron kerak.
a model tartibi tomon harakat yaxshi narsa
Xalqaro arbitraj bir model tartibi holda tayyorlash barqarorlik va xavfsizlikni ta'minlash edi. It could reduce costs by promoting predictability and allowing parties to organize their cases quicker and with ease. Bugunga, amaliyotchilar har hakamlik duch uchun kutish mumkin muayyan ishonchli protsessual jihatlari bor.
They will agree that the ability to rely on the following features is indeed a good thing:
- birinchi, Da'vo arizasi batafsil va dalil tomonidan qo'llab-quvvatlanadigan bo'lishi kutilmoqda. umumiy huquq advokat ko'pincha kashf orqali to'ldirilsin da'vo bir skelet bayonot taqdim kutilmoqda, bu barcha yuridik an'analarga ishi emas.
- ikkinchi, cheklangan kashfiyot mavjud. Bunday hujjatlar o'z ishini qurish uchun foydali bo'lsa, Tomonlar boshqa tomondan hujjatlarni talab qilishi mumkin.
- uchinchi, Tomonlar bir eshitish huquqiga ega. 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.
- to'rtinchi, u joriy yoki muhokamasida dalillarni aniqlashda zarur emas. dalillar joriy etish va autentifikatsiya umumiy huquq yurisdiksiyalarda og'ir amaliyot mavjud.
- beshinchi, partiyalar va arbitraj sudi birga tartibini qaror. Whether or not parties decide to exercise their right to participate in determining the procedural process is another consideration.
- oltinchi, witnesses are examined by both arbitrators and counsel. Counsel examines witnesses in common law jurisdictions while the judge examines witnesses in civil law jurisdictions.
- yettinchi, maslahat to'g'ridan-to'g'ri ko'rikdan o'tkazish, uning cheklangan bo'ladi. 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.
- sakkizinchi, ikki tomon va sud ekspertlari tayinlash mumkin. Parties should always anticipate the appointment of experts and plan accordingly.
- to'qqizinchi, maslahat tayyorlash va guvohlar, ekspertlar to'lash mumkin. BFI Ko'rsatmalar partiyasi haqida vakolatxonasi tomonlar oqilona muhokamasini tayyorlash harajatlar uchun guvohlar, ekspertlar to'lash mumkin tasdiqladi, vaqt yo'qotish, va ekspert oqilona to'lovlari.
- nihoyat, maslahat mumkin, emas, balki bila turib,, 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, tribunal salbiy natija chiqarish yoki yuridik xarajatlarni va sud to'lovlari partiyalar ajratish o'zgartirish mumkin.
A model procedure would be evil
Xalqaro arbitraj tartibi uning moslashuvchan bilan tavsiflanadi. Parties can tailor the procedure to their individual needs and choose from a wide range of procedural options. Many arbitration proceedings look similar but, bir xil holatlar bo'lishi hech qachon, deb, bir xil muolajalar hech qachon kerak.
a model tartibi tomon hal albatta, bu moslashuvchan buzishi edi. bir amaliyotchi o'yladi sifatida, “Why buy IKEA when you can have custom-made furniture?”
Bu 2012 Queen Mary universiteti tomonidan o'tkazilgan Xalqaro arbitraj Survey amaliyotchilar jarayoni ham tartibga aylandi, degan xavotirda edi, deb ko'rsatdi.
Xalqaro arbitraj amaliyoti hisob madaniy jihatlari va mahalliy farqlar hisobga olish kerak, and respect the expectations of the parties. This is what arbitration should be about. Masalan, 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