Lendermann Procedure Shopping Through Hybrid Arbitration Agreements

Considerations on party autonomy in institutional international arbitration
1. Auflage 2018
ISBN: 978-3-8452-8944-1
Verlag: Nomos
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, Band 16, 572 Seiten, Format (B × H): 153 mm x 227 mm

Reihe: Studien zum internationalen Wirtschaftsrecht/Studies on international Economic Law

When parties choose an arbitration institution, are they free to determine the arbitration rules they apply? This book deals with the extent and limits of party autonomy in institutional international arbitration based on the example of hybrid arbitration agreements. Such agreements allow for arbitration administered by one institution but under the rules of another. In this study, the author analyses the problems that arise from such agreements under arbitration law, contract law, intellectual property law and unfair competition law from a transnational perspective and with regard to different legal systems. Moreover, she compares the rules and actors of leading European, Asian and American arbitration institutions. Practitioners and scholars will find this book to be a valuable guide when dealing with the specifics of institutional arbitration.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Lendermann, Nathalie

Fachgebiete

• Rechtswissenschaften Internationales Recht und Europarecht Internationales Recht Internationales Zivilprozess- und Schiedsverfahrensrecht

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Cover;1
2; Introduction;29
2.1;§1 Problem identification and delimitation;30
2.1.1;A. The concept of hybrid arbitration clauses;31
2.1.2;B. Procedure shopping - Reasons for hybrid arbitration clauses;32
2.1.3;C. The Insigma v. Alstom case;35
2.1.4;D. Other hybrid arbitration cases;37
2.1.5;E. Recent developments in institutional arbitration;39
2.2;§2 State of discussion;43
2.3;§3 Structure and research approach;48
3;Chapter 1: Party autonomy and the legislative framework;56
3.1;§4 Party autonomy to agree on hybrid arbitration under the law;57
3.1.1;A. Importance of party autonomy in international arbitration;57
3.1.1.1;I. An interplay of contract and private international law;58
3.1.1.2;II. Party autonomy in international arbitration conventions;59
3.1.1.3;III. Recognition of party autonomy by national arbitration laws;60
3.1.1.4;IV. Reasons for the supremacy of party autonomy;63
3.1.2;B. Limits to party autonomy and applicable laws;65
3.1.2.1;I. Law of arbitration: the seat principle;68
3.1.2.1.1;1. Choosing a place of arbitration;69
3.1.2.1.2;2. Place of arbitration, place of hearing, seat of the institution;71
3.1.2.1.3;3. Application of arbitration laws of states other than the seat?;74
3.1.2.2;II. Laws affecting the arbitration agreement;75
3.1.2.2.1;1. The search for conflict of laws rules for validity issues;77
3.1.2.2.2;2. Initial considerations: substance v. procedure;78
3.1.2.2.3;3. Law of the arbitration agreement beyond the lex arbitri;81
3.1.2.2.4;4. Law applicable to the operability of the arbitration agreement;83
3.1.3;C. Limits to party autonomy in arbitration laws;86
3.1.3.1;I. Mandatory arbitration law - an overview;87
3.1.3.2;II. In particular: mandatory arbitration law against hybrid arbitration?;90
3.1.3.2.1;1. No general due process concerns;90
3.1.3.2.2;2. The skeletal legislation on institutional arbitration;91
3.1.3.2.2.1;a. Stipulations in international conventions;92
3.1.3.2.2.2;b. Rarity of national legislation on institutional arbitration;97
3.1.3.2.2.3;c. The quasi-regulative force of institutional practice;104
3.1.4;D. Relevant limits to party autonomy outside arbitration laws;106
3.2;§5 Private rules and party autonomy;107
3.2.1;A. Types of arbitration rules;108
3.2.2;B. Legal status and regime of arbitration rules;110
3.2.2.1;I. Lacking legislative or regulatory power of arbitral institutions;112
3.2.2.2;II. Arbitration rules as standard terms of the arbitration agreement?;114
3.2.2.3;III. Law applicable to arbitration rules;115
3.2.3;C. Soft law and arbitrator discretion;116
3.2.4;D. Interplay of institutional and arbitral discretion and party autonomy;119
3.3;§6 Hybrid arbitration from a normative perspective;122
3.3.1;A. Arbitral procedure and the hierarchy of norms;122
3.3.2;B. Validity of hybrid arbitration agreements in principle;124
4;Chapter 2: Qualifying hybrid arbitration (agreements);126
4.1;§7 Categorisation of hybrid arbitration as institutional;126
4.1.1;A. Hybrid arbitration as a problem of defining institutional arbitration;127
4.1.1.1;I. Rejection of definitions based on the constitution of the tribunal;128
4.1.1.2;II. Rejection of definitions focussing on the applicable rules;129
4.1.1.3;III. Preference for definitions based on institutional involvement;129
4.1.1.4;IV. Degree of involvement of arbitral institutions;131
4.1.2;B. Advantages and disadvantages of institutional arbitration;134
4.1.2.1;I. Objective advantages;135
4.1.2.2;II. Subjective advantages;136
4.1.2.3;III. Objective, possible and perceived disadvantages;139
4.1.2.3.1;1. Cost;139
4.1.2.3.2;2. Bureaucracy;140
4.1.2.3.3;3. Intransparency and lack of control;142
4.1.2.4;IV. Shopping for advantages with hybrid arbitration agreements?;145
4.1.3;C. Reality of intermediate forms of arbitration;146
4.1.3.1;I. Institutions acting as appointing authority;147
4.1.3.2;II. Facilitated ad hoc arbitration;147
4.1.3.3;III. Semi-institutional arbitration, e.g. Hamburg Friendly Arbitration;150
4.1.3.4;IV. »Wildcat arbitration« - ad hoc arbitration under institutional rules;151
4.1.3.4.1;1. Articles 1 (2) and 6 (2) of the ICC Rules & ad hoc cases;152
4.1.3.4.2;2. The Bovis Lend v. Jay-Tech case;154
4.1.3.5;V. »Switching« from institutional to ad hoc arbitration;156
4.1.4;D. Hybridity of arbitration administered under another institution's rules;157
4.2;§8 Qualification of hybrid arbitration agreements as pathological;157
4.2.1;A. Essentialia and optional elements of an arbitration agreement;158
4.2.2;B. The principle of effective interpretation and its limits;161
4.2.3;C. Case study: Pathological institutional arbitration agreements;163
4.2.3.1;I. Initial pathology: Drafting defects in the parties' sphere;163
4.2.3.1.1;1. Ambiguous references to one or more institutions;164
4.2.3.1.1.1;a. BGH judgment of 2 December 1982;166
4.2.3.1.1.2;b. Lovelock v. Exportles - a decision of the English Court of Appeals;170
4.2.3.1.1.3;c. Cour de Cassation, decisions of 20 February 2007 and 4 June 2009;172
4.2.3.1.2;2. Hybrid arbitration a solution to ambiguity?;174
4.2.3.1.2.1;a. The case HKL v. Rizq;174
4.2.3.1.2.2;b. Critical comments of the decision;175
4.2.3.1.3;3. Distinction between deliberately hybrid & ambiguous clauses;177
4.2.3.1.3.1;a. HCCI Court award of 18 April 2000;178
4.2.3.1.3.2;b. The »ICC 500« case;181
4.2.3.2;II. Subsequent pathology: obstacles in the institution's sphere;184
4.2.3.2.1;1. Retrospective: Dissolution of the GDR's chamber of foreign trade;185
4.2.3.2.1.1;a. BGH decision of 20 January 1994;186
4.2.3.2.1.2;b. Evaluation and relevance for modern arbitration law;187
4.2.3.2.2;2. A current issue: The CIETAC split;190
4.2.3.2.2.1;a. The background of the creation of SHIAC and SCIA;190
4.2.3.2.2.2;b. Problems with »old« Shanghai or Shenzhen arbitration clauses;193
4.2.3.2.2.3;c. Some local Chinese jurisprudence on the CIETAC split;195
4.2.3.2.2.4;d. The SPC's 2013 notice on the CIETAC split;198
4.2.3.2.2.5;e. Further guidance from the SPC: the 2015 reply;199
4.2.3.2.2.6;f. Evaluation;200
4.2.3.2.3;3. Hybrid arbitration as a solution to subsequent pathology?;202
4.2.3.3;III. Are hybrid arbitration clauses initially or subsequently pathological?;203
4.3;§9 The qualification's consequences: inadvisability and possible cure;207
5;Chapter 3: Opting-out aspect - derogation from institutional rules;209
5.1;§10 Institutions' flexibility in relation to their rules;209
5.1.1;A. Institutional attitudes towards rule modifications: a case study;210
5.1.1.1;I. An example for the ICC's position: The Qimonda arbitration;210
5.1.1.2;II. SIAC's search for an acceptable position;211
5.1.1.3;III. CIETAC's apparent position;212
5.1.1.4;IV. The LCIA's flexibility proven in the Softwood Lumber Arbitrations;213
5.1.1.5;V. A recall of the »ICC 500« case to indicate the AAA-ICDR's position;215
5.1.1.6;VI. Recall of the DIS/DAS awards;215
5.1.1.7;VII. The approach of one Swiss cantonal chamber of commerce;216
5.1.2;B. A focus on essential (»mandatory«) institutional rules;218
5.1.2.1;I. Essential ICC Rules;219
5.1.2.2;II. Essential SIAC Rules;220
5.1.2.3;III. Essential CIETAC Rules;222
5.1.2.4;IV. Essential LCIA Rules;224
5.1.2.4.1;1. Party autonomy under article 14 of the LCIA Rules (1998);224
5.1.2.4.2;2. Revisions introduced by the LCIA Rules (2014);225
5.1.2.4.3;3. General restrictions to modify powers of the institution;225
5.1.2.5;V. Essential AAA-ICDR Rules;227
5.1.2.6;VI. Essential DIS Rules;228
5.1.2.7;VII. Essential Swiss Rules;229
5.1.3;C. Controlling or lenient: negotiability of institutional services and rules;231
5.2;§11 The institution's right to refuse the administration of a case;232
5.2.1;A. No duty of the institution to conclude a contract with the parties;233
5.2.1.1;I. Nature and content of the Administration Contract;235
5.2.1.2;II. Law applicable to the Administration Contract;236
5.2.1.2.1;1. Law of the seat of the institution;237
5.2.1.2.2;2. Law applicable to the arbitration agreement;238
5.2.1.2.3;3. Law of the place of arbitration;239
5.2.1.2.4;4. Own view and determination of the administering institution's »seat«;240
5.2.1.3;III. Contract formation theories;243
5.2.1.3.1;1. Theory 1 - parties accept the institution's offer ad incertas personas;244
5.2.1.3.2;2. Theory 2 - request for arbitration as offer accepted by the institution;245
5.2.1.3.3;3. Theory 3 - contract only concluded with the respondent's answer;247
5.2.1.4;IV. Conclusions for requests for arbitration under different rules;247
5.2.2;B. Practice test: refusal to administer as contract termination;251
5.2.2.1;I. Problem: Timing and communication of the institution's refusal;251
5.2.2.2;II. Solution: Flexible contract with a both-sided termination right;252
5.2.2.2.1;1. Arguments for a right to terminate the Administration Contract;253
5.2.2.2.2;2. Limit to the right to termination;254
5.2.2.2.3;3. Contractual termination & jurisdictional decision of the institution;255
5.2.2.3;III. Support of the solution: hybrid arbitration and the »battle of forms«;255
5.2.2.3.1;1. The »battle« of institutional rules;255
5.2.2.3.2;2. Solutions discussed for »battle of forms« problems;257
5.2.2.3.3;3. Appeasing the battle of institutional rules;260
5.2.2.4;IV. The institution's restricted right to disregard rule derogations;263
5.2.3;C. Effect on the arbitration agreement;264
5.2.3.1;I. Overview of the République of Guinée cases;264
5.2.3.1.1;1. The factual background;264
5.2.3.1.2;2. The decisions of the TGI, Paris;265
5.2.3.1.3;3. Partial annulment of the decisions by the CA, Paris;265
5.2.3.2;II. Evaluation of the CA's ruling;266
5.2.3.3;III. Fate of the arbitration agreement: reconsidering the TGI's decisions;268
5.3;§12 Hybrid arbitration agreements and autonomy of the institution;269
6;Chapter 4: Opting-in aspect - applying another institution's rules;271
6.1;§13 The legality of administering hybrid arbitrations;272
6.1.1;A. Institutional rules and copyright of the issuing institution;273
6.1.1.1;I. Copyrightability of arbitration rules;275
6.1.1.1.1;1. The originality/creativity threshold;276
6.1.1.1.2;2. Arbitration rules as works in the public domain?;284
6.1.1.2;II. Hybrid arbitration as infringement? - the idea/expression dichotomy;288
6.1.1.2.1;1. A parallel: copyright infringement of game rules and show formats?;291
6.1.1.2.2;2. Exceptional protection of the content and integrity of a work;293
6.1.1.2.3;3. Application to the use of another institution's arbitration rules;295
6.1.1.3;III. Jurisdiction and applicable law problems: a hypothetical example case;297
6.1.1.3.1;1. Jurisdictional considerations;298
6.1.1.3.2;2. Conflict of laws analysis;301
6.1.2;B. Hybrid arbitration and trademark protection;304
6.1.2.1;I. Trademark mentioning v.trademark infringement;304
6.1.2.2;II. Dilution without confusion?;306
6.1.2.3;III. Excursus: The CIETAC split as a potential trademark issue;308
6.1.3;C. Administering hybrid arbitrations as unfair competition?;310
6.1.3.1;I. The problem to identify common principles among jurisdictions;311
6.1.3.2;II. Applicability of unfair competition law to arbitral institutions;313
6.1.3.2.1;1. Unfair competition in the non-profit sector;314
6.1.3.2.2;2. The market for administering arbitral proceedings;315
6.1.3.2.3;3. Relationship between unfair competition law and IP law;317
6.1.3.3;III. Unfair competition concepts possibly applicable to hybrid arbitration;321
6.1.3.3.1;1. The concept of exploitation or tarnishment of reputation;322
6.1.3.3.2;2. »Parasitisme« - a concept of exploitation of efforts;324
6.1.3.3.3;3. Common law: Passing off and misappropriation;327
6.1.3.3.4;4. A glance at Chinese unfair competition law;329
6.1.3.3.5;5. The tort of undue interference with contractual relations;331
6.1.3.4;IV. Jurisdiction and applicable law: three hypothetical situations;333
6.1.3.4.1;1. Relevance of the market place for jurisdiction?;334
6.1.3.4.2;2. Qualification of the reproached conduct and localisation of the market;336
6.1.4;D. Concluding reflections on the economics of exclusive institutional rules;340
6.2;§14 The feasibility of administering hybrid arbitrations;344
6.2.1;A. The test: applying substitution theory to a conflict of arbitration rules;344
6.2.1.1;I. A contract perspective: general contract interpretation rules;345
6.2.1.2;II. A rule perspective: introduction to substitution and adaptation theories;346
6.2.1.3;III. Parameter of equivalence: the applicable rule's purpose;351
6.2.1.3.1;1. The functional equivalence test;352
6.2.1.3.2;2. Equivalence of actors or acts?;353
6.2.1.4;IV. Art. 1 (2) of the ICC Rules - per se an exclusion of substitution?;354
6.2.2;B. Rules referring to the arbitral institution and their purpose;355
6.2.2.1;I. Commencement of the proceedings;357
6.2.2.2;II. Institutional decision on jurisdiction;361
6.2.2.2.1;1. Distinction: review of filing requirements and contractual acceptance;362
6.2.2.2.2;2. Rules on institutional decisions on jurisdiction and their scope;363
6.2.2.3;III. Constitution of the arbitral tribunal;366
6.2.2.3.1;1. Institutional determination of the number of arbitrators;367
6.2.2.3.2;2. Appointment upon agreed or unopposed party nomination;368
6.2.2.3.3;3. Confirmation of a co-arbitrator nominated by one party alone;371
6.2.2.3.4;4. Institutional selection of a co-arbitrator for a defaulting party;372
6.2.2.3.5;5. Default rules for the designation of the chairperson;375
6.2.2.3.6;6. Institutional selection of a sole arbitrator or chairperson;377
6.2.2.4;IV. Challenge and replacement of arbitrators;378
6.2.2.5;V. Institutional control of the proceedings after the tribunal is constituted;381
6.2.2.6;VI. Institutional influence on the award;384
6.2.2.7;VII. Financial control;386
6.2.3;C. General comparison of actors of different arbitral institutions;388
6.2.3.1;I. The secretariats;388
6.2.3.2;II. Multi-person bodies;391
6.2.3.2.1;1. Comparison of the ICC, LCIA, SIAC and SCCAM;392
6.2.3.2.2;2. The »Arbitration Court(s)«» under CIETAC Rules (2015);394
6.2.3.2.3;3. Other, multi-person bodies;395
6.2.3.3;III. Individuals: President, Chairman, Registrar, Secretary General;397
6.2.3.4;IV. The »administrator« under AAA-ICDR Rules;398
6.2.4;D. Adaptation of the rules to the administering institution's system;399
6.3;§15 Implementing hybrid arbitration: an institutional perspective;400
7;Chapter 5: Hybrid Arbitration Clauses Before State Courts;402
7.1;§16 Enforcing & challenging hybrid arbitration agreements;402
7.1.1;A. Enforcement in relation to the other party;403
7.1.1.1;I. Overview of potentially available actions;404
7.1.1.1.1;1. Action for dismissal or stay of litigation;404
7.1.1.1.2;2. Action for interlocutory declaratory relief;405
7.1.1.1.3;3. Actions for injunctive relief;407
7.1.1.1.4;4. Actions for review of arbitral decisions on jurisdiction;409
7.1.1.1.5;5. Actions for state court support;412
7.1.1.2;II. Selected problems of enforcing hybrid arbitration agreements;413
7.1.1.2.1;1. Allocation of competence;413
7.1.1.2.1.1;a. Negative effect of competence-competence?;414
7.1.1.2.1.2;b. Overview of national approaches;415
7.1.1.2.1.3;c. Plea for limited review of operability issues by state courts;419
7.1.1.2.1.4;d. A case for court support;422
7.1.1.2.2;2. The limited subjective res judicata effect;430
7.1.1.2.2.1;a. Institutions not concerned by inter partes effect of court orders;431
7.1.1.2.2.2;b. The decision HKL v- Rizq II;433
7.1.1.2.2.3;c. Anti-arbitration injunctions to solve institutional conflicts?;434
7.1.1.2.3;3. Review of and deference to institutional decisions;435
7.1.1.2.3.1;a. Myth of the »administrative nature« of institutional acts - part I;435
7.1.1.2.3.2;b. Provisional nature of the institution's decision on jurisdiction?;438
7.1.1.2.3.3;c. No interlocutory review of institutional confirmation of jurisdiction;439
7.1.1.2.3.4;d. Indirect court »review« of institutional decline of jurisdiction;440
7.1.1.3;III. State court powers to enforce (hybrid) institutional arbitration clauses;442
7.1.2;B. Enforcement in relation to the designated institution;444
7.1.2.1;I. Justiciability - the myth of the »administrative nature« - part II;444
7.1.2.2;II. Liability of arbitral institutions;447
7.1.2.2.1;1. Excursus: contractual liability of arbitrators;448
7.1.2.2.1.1;a. Statutory provisions limiting arbitrator liability;448
7.1.2.2.1.2;b. Judicial rulings on arbitrator liability;449
7.1.2.2.1.3;c. Arbitration rules excluding arbitrator liability;451
7.1.2.2.2;2. Application of the same principles to arbitral institutions?;452
7.1.2.2.3;3. Institutional liability risks connected to hybrid arbitration;455
7.1.2.3;III. Available remedies;457
7.1.3;C. The fork in the road to enforce hybrid arbitration agreements;459
7.2;§17 Challenging & enforcing hybrid arbitration awards;461
7.2.1;A. Probable grounds for challenge;463
7.2.1.1;I. Invalidity of the arbitration agreement;463
7.2.1.2;II. Procedural irregularities;465
7.2.1.3;III. Irregularity in the constitution of the arbitral tribunal;469
7.2.1.4;IV. Public policy;470
7.2.1.4.1;1. What is public policy?;471
7.2.1.4.2;2. Can private rules shape public policy?;473
7.2.1.4.3;3. Public policy to protect interests of the rules issuing institution?;475
7.2.2;B. Party invocation, preclusion and outcome-relevance;476
7.2.3;C. The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court's ruling;480
7.2.3.1;I. Insigma's objections to recognition and enforcement;480
7.2.3.2;II. The Hangzhou court's factual findings on the arbitration procedure;482
7.2.3.2.1;1. The initial commencement of ICC arbitration;482
7.2.3.2.2;2. The circumstances of the case transferral to SIAC;482
7.2.3.2.3;3. The constitution of the arbitral tribunal;483
7.2.3.2.4;4. The hearing on jurisdiction and the Singapore courts' decisions;484
7.2.3.2.5;5. The hearing on the merits and the awards;484
7.2.3.3;III. The ratio of the Hangzhou court's decision;485
7.2.3.4;IV. Evaluation;485
7.3;§18 Enforcement risks of hybrid arbitration agreements;487
8; Conclusion;489
8.1;§19 Summary of findings;489
8.2;§20 Looking back for a way forward: A plea for institutional cooperation;495
8.3;§21 Recall of key propositions;497
9; Deutschsprachige Zusammenfassung (summary in German);500
9.1;§22 Themeneinführung;500
9.2;§23 Ergebnisse;503
9.3;§24 Thesen der Arbeit;511
10; Bibliography;515
10.1; Primary sources;559
10.2; Treaties / conventions & multilateral declarations;559
10.3;EU legislation (Regulations & Directives);560
10.4; National legislation, regulations and instruments issued by state organs;561
10.5; United Nations Model Laws, principles and reports;566
10.6; Arbitration rules & guidelines;567