Problems of determining a foreign element in dispute resolution in international commercial arbitration
The article is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of the problems of determining the arbitrability of disputes submitted for consideration and resolution to international commercial arbitration in terms of the presence or absence of a foreign element in such disputes. The theoretical foundations of the concept of a foreign element, arbitrability, criteria for determining the competence of international commercial arbitration regarding the resolution of a dispute are analyzed in detail. Also, the article, through the prism of the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, substantiates the need to improve article 1 of the Law of Ukraine «On International Commercial Arbitration». Based on theoretical and regulatory sources, court practice, the author concludes that it is necessary to supplement the provisions of the Law with norms on the possibility of transferring international commercial disputes to which individual entrepreneurs, states are parties, as well as disputes in which the place of fulfillment of a significant part of the obligations and the place with which the dispute is most closely related located in a country other than the place where the parties engaged in commercial activities.
The author also points out that the mechanism for determining the presence of a foreign element in assessing international commercial disputes in accordance with the provisions of the current legislation does not fully comply with international standards enshrined in UN acts. Now the provisions of the Law of Ukraine «On International Commercial Arbitration» require additions both in terms of the subject composition (individual entrepreneurs, foreign states), and by other criteria, including the place of fulfillment of a significant part of the obligations and the place with which the dispute is most closely connected. Direct work is currently underway to improve the relevant provisions, in the near future they will be submitted to parliament for consideration and adoption.
Baron P.M., Liniger S. (2003). A Second Look at Arbitrability: Approaches to Arbitration in the United States, Switzerland and Germany. Arbitration International. 19, 1 [in English].
Bantekas I. (2008). The foundations of arbitrability in international commercial arbitration. Australian Yearbook of International Law, 27 [in English].
Kirry A. (1996). Arbitrability: Current Trends in Europe. Arbitration International, 12 [in English].
Shore L. (2008). Defining Arbitrability. The United States v. the Rest of the World. New York: Law Journal [in English].
Weintraub R.J. (2001). International Litigation and Arbitration: Practice and Planning, 3rd ed. Durham / North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press [in English].
Carbonneau T. E., Janson F. (1994). Cartesian Logic and Frontier Politics: French and American Concepts of Arbitrability. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2 [in English].
Blackaby N., Partasides C., Redfern A., Hunter M. (2004). Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration. New York: Oxford University Press [in English].
Loukas A. Mistelis, Stavros L. Brekoulakis. (2009). Arbitrability: International and Comparative Perspectives. Kluwer Law International [in English].
Freimane N. (2012). Arbitrability: problematic issues of the legal term. Riga. Riga Graduate School of Law. URL : https://sccinstitute.com/media/56097/arbitrability-problematic-issues.pdf.
Fouchard P., Gaillard E. Goldman B. (1999). On International Commercial Arbitration. New York: Kluwer Law International [in English].
Perepelynskaia E. (2015). Arbytrabylnost Sporov Po Zakonodatelstvu Ukrayny: Problemnye Voprosy. Materyaly II Mezhdunarodnykh Arbytrazhnykh Chtenyi Pamiaty Akademyka Pobyrchenko Y. H. Sbornyk Dokladov. K. : MKAS pry TPP Ukrayny [in Russian].
Brun M. I. (1909). Mezhdunarodnoe Chastnoe Pravo: Lektsyy. Moskva : Yzdanye Studencheskoi Komyssyy Ob-Va Vzaymopomoshchy Studentom Moskov. kommerch. ynst-ta [in Russian].
Lunts L. A. (1975). Kurs Mezhdunarodnoho Chastnoho Prava. Obshchaia Chast Moskva : Yuryd. Lyt. [in Russian].
Mezhdunarodnoe Chastnoe Pravo. (1985). / pod red. H. K. Matveeva. Kiev [in Russian].
Rubanov A. A. (1982). Voprosy Teoryy Pravootnoshenyia V Mezhdunarodnom Chastnom Prave. XXVI Sezd KPSS y Problemy Hrazhdanskoho Y Trudovoho Prava Hrazhdanskoho Protsessa [in Russian].
Mizhnarodne Pryvatne Pravo: Pidruchnyk. (2012). / A. S. Dovhert, V. I. Kysil, O. M. Biriukov ta in.; pid red. A. S. Dovherta i V. I. Kysilia. K. Alerta. Zahalna Chastyna [in Ukrainian].
Zuigao Renmin Fayuan Guanyu Shiyong “Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Shewai Minshi Guanxi Falǜ Shiyong Fa” Ruogan Wenti de Jieshi (Yi) (最高人⺠法 院关于适用《中华人⺠共和国涉外⺠事关系法律适用法》若干问题的解释(一)) [Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Application of Foreign-related Civil Relations Law (1)] (promulgated by the Sup. People’s Ct., Apr. 23, 2013, effective Apr. 23, 2013) [in English].
Zhang Mo (2018). Enforceability: Foreign Arbitral Awards in Chinese Courts. San Diego International Law Journal, 20. URL: https://digital.sandiego.edu/ilj/vol20/iss1/2 [in English].