Approaches and Criteria Governing the Interpretation of Arbitration Agreement: A Comparative Study in Domestic and International Arbitration

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Professor, University of Tabriz

2 Master student of private law, University of Tabriz

Abstract

The arbitration agreement is regarded as a method for the settlement of dispute in domestic and international context, according to which the parties leave the dispute to be resolved by private judge. For various reasons, this agreement, like other contracts, might be incomplete or ambiguous. Each authority dealing with the arbitration agreement, including the parties, counsels, arbitrators and courts, may represent different interpretations. The scope of arbitration agreement is one of the most common ambiguities in practice. This interpretation is even essential for qualification and identifying the real nature of the agreement. The main questions that motivate this research are which criteria could be used to construe the arbitration agreement and what is the competent authority as well as governing law for such an interpretation. Is it feasible to employ general rules governing the interpretation of contracts to the arbitration agreements? Unlike Iranian case law that addresses some of the criteria in this respect, our commentators are silent on the issue. Since these ambiguities arise in both domestic and international arbitrations, the present comparative study attempts to answer the questions under rules and doctrines of both jurisdictions.

Keywords

References

  1. منابع و مآخذ

    الف) فارسی

    - کتاب‌ها

    1. شعاریان، ابراهیم و ترابی، ابراهیم، حقوق تعهدات: مطالعۀ تطبیقی طرح اصلاحی حقوق تعهدات فرانسه با حقوق ایران و اسناد بین‌المللی، (تهران: مؤسسۀ مطالعات و پژوهش‌های حقوقی شهردانش، چ 2، 1395).
    2. کاکاوند، محمد،  گزیده آرای داوری داوری مرکز داوری اتاق ایران، (تهران: شهر دانش، چ 1، ۱۳۸۹).
    3. مافی، همایون، شرحی بر قانون داوری تجاری بین‌المللی ایران، (تهران: دانشگاه علوم قضایی و خدمات اداری، چ 2، ۱۳۹۷).

    - مقاله‌ها

    1. امینی، منصور و حمیدیان، حمید، «اصول و روش تفسیر قراردادهای بیمه»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، دورۀ ۴۶، ش ۴ (1395).
    2. خدابخشی، عبدالله، «معیار تمایز داوری و کارشناسی» در: سالنامۀ ایرانی داوری از محسن محبی، (تهران: شهردانش، چ 1، ۱۳۹۸).

    ب) انگلیسی

    - کتاب‌ها

    1. Blackaby Nigel. Partasides QC Constantine. Redfern Alan, Hunter Martin, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, sixth edition, Oxford University Press, 2015.
    2. Born Gary B, International Commercial Arbitration, (2d Edition, Kluwer Law International 2014).
    3. Gabrielle kaufmann-kohler, Antonio rigozzi. International arbitration: Law and practice in Switzerland. Oxford Univ. Press, 2015.
    4. Gaillard Emmanuel, Savage John, (eds)‚ Fouchard‚ Gillard‚ Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration‚ (Kluwer Law International 1999).

    10.Kurkela Matti s, Turunen Santtu, Due Process in International Commercial Arbitration, Second Edition, (Oxford University Press 2010).

    - مقاله‌ها

    11.Bermann George A, “Domesticating the New York Convention: the Impact if the Federal Arbitration Act”, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 2, No. 2 (2011).

    12.Celik Devrim Deniz, “International and Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements under English Law and U.S. Law”, Revue d'arbitration et de médiation, Volume 4, Numéro 1.

    13.Frankel Richard, “The Arbitration Clause as Super Contract”, 91 wash. u. l. rev. 531(2014).

    14.Hanotiau Bernard, “What Law Governs the Issue of Arbitrability?” Arbitration International, vol. 12, No. 4, 1996.

    15.Karrer Pierre A, “The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement, A Civilian Discusses Switzerland's Arbitration Law and Glances Across the Channel”, (2014) 26 SAcLJ.

    16.Peterson Patricia and Grave Serge, “French Law and Arbitration Clauses--Distinguishng Scope from Validity: Comment on ICC Case No. 6519 Final Award”, 1992 37-2 McGill Law Journal 510, 1992 CanLIIDocs 78.

    17.Yifei Lin, “Judicial Review of Arbitration Agreements in China”, Arbitration International, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2012.

    18.Welser Irene and Molitoris Susanne, ‘The Scope of Arbitration Clauses- or “All Disputes Arising out of or in Connection with this Contract”, in: Christian Klausegger and others (eds), Austrian Yearbook of International Arbitration (MANZ’sche Wien 2012).

    ج) رویۀ قضایی و داوری

    - داخلی

    19.دادنامۀ شمارۀ 9909974126000603 مورخ 20/05/1399 صادره از شعبۀ ۲۹ دادگاه عمومی حقوقی تبریز در پروندۀ 9809984126001219.

    20.دادنامۀ شمارۀ  9309970238000079  مورخ 30/01/1393 از شعبۀ 55 دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران (پژوهشگاه قوۀ قضائیه، سامانۀ ملی ﺁرای قضایی).

    21.نظریۀ مشورتی ادارۀ کل حقوقی قوۀ قضائیه تحت شمارۀ ۲۸۶۵/۹۷/۷ مورخ ۲۳/۱۰/139۷.

    22.دادنامۀ 9109970221800825 مورخ 27/06/1391؛ دادنامۀ 9209970269501691 مورخ 28/12/1392؛ دادنامۀ 9109970221500943 مورخ 03/08/1391 از شعبۀ 15 دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران (پژوهشگاه قوۀ قضائیه، سامانۀ ملی ﺁرای قضایی).

    23.دادنامۀ 9309970221500411 مورخ 16/04/1393 از شعبۀ 15 دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران (پژوهشگاه قوۀ قضائیه، سامانۀ ملی ﺁرای قضایی).

    24.دادنامۀ 9309972130600195 مورخ 29/02/1393 شعبۀ ۶۱ دادگاه تجدیدنظر تهران، پژوهشگاه قوۀ قضائیه، سامانۀ ملی ﺁرای قضایی.

    - خارجی

    25.Collins & Aikman Products Co. v. Building Systems Inc, 58 F.3d 16 (2d Cir. 1995).

    26.Judgment of 6 August 2012, 30(4) ASA Bull, (Swiss Federal Tribunal) (2012).

    27.Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, Supreme Court of the United States.

    28.Fillite (Runcorn) Ltd v. Aqua-Lift (1989) 45 BLR 27 (English Ct. App.)

    29.Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., 815 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1987).

    30.Me­diterranean Enterprises Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp, 708 e .2d 1458 (9th cir. 1983).

    31.Judgment of the Swiss Federal Court 4A_136 / 2015 of September 15, 2015.

    32.Judgment of 22 January 2008, 26 ASA Bull. (Swiss Federal Tribunal) (2008).

    33.Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. v. Privalov [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 891, [2007] UKHL 40 (House of Lords).

    34.Mar. 13, 1978, Hertzian v. Electronska Industrija, 1979 REV. ARB. 339.

    35.Overseas Union Ltd v. AA Mut. Int’l Ins. Co. Ltd [1988] 2 Lloyds Rep 62  (English High Ct.)

    36.Amco Asia Corp. v. Repub. of Indonesia, Award on Jurisdiction in ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1 of 25 September 1983, 23 Int’l Legal Mat. 351, 359 (1983).

    37.Interim Award in ICC Case No. 7929, XXV Y.B. Comm. Arb. 312, 317 (2000).

    38.Insigma Tech. Co. Ltd v. Alstom Tech. Ltd, [02 June2009], CA 155/2008, (Singapore Ct. App).

    39.Walter Rau Neusser Oel und Fett AG v. Cross Pac. Trading Ltd, (Australian Fed. Ct. 2005).

    40.Stolt-Nielsen SA v. Animal Feeds, (559 U.S. 662, 130 S. Ct. 1758, 2010).

    41.Judgment of the Swiss Federal Court 4A_136 / 2015 of September 15, 2015.

    42.Československa obchodní banka, AS v. Slovak Repub., Decision on Jurisdiction in ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4 of 24 May 1999, 14 ICSID Rev.-For. Inv. L.J. 251, 263 (1999); Amco Asia et al. v. Indonesia, Decision on Jurisdiction of September 25, 1983, 23 I.L.M. 359 (1984).

    43.Judgment of 27 January 2010, 29 ASA Bull. 396,401-02 (Swiss Federal Tribunal) (2011).

    44.Kaplan v. First Options of Chicago, Inc., 19F.3d 1503, 1512 (3rd Cir. 1994).

    45.Judgment of the Swiss Federal Court 4A_136 / 2015 of September 15, 2015

    46.Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 63 (U.S. S. Ct. 1995).

    47.Karnette v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 444 F.Supp.2d 640, 646 (E.D. Va. 2006).

    48.Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626 (U.S. S. Ct. 1985).

    49.Felman Prod. Inc. v. Bannai, 476 F.Supp.2d 585, 587 (S.D. W.Va. 2007).

    50.Judgment of 17 November 1995, 1996 RIW 239, 240 (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf).

    51.Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 dated 9 October 2020.

Jurisprudence and Islamic Law
Volume 11, Issue 21
September 2019
Pages 151-188

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics