L'arbitrage commercial international et les garanties procédurales

Cette recherche aborde un sujet complexe, qui est en plein débat doctrinal en droit de l'arbitrage international: L'arbitrage commercial international et les garanties procédurales. Au fait, l'arbitrage commercial international revêt le mode traditionnel des règlements de litiges du commerce international et des relations économiques internationales. À cause de l'hybridité de sa nature (contractuelle et juridictionnelle), il est le plus souvent préféré par les parties aux tribunaux étatiques. Cette faveur vis-à-vis de ce mode de règlements de litiges internationaux s'explique par le développement de l'économie internationale, par la globalisation du marché, par la conclusion de nombreuses conventions internationales en la matière, par la création des centres d'arbitrage, enfin par la modernisation des lois et règlements nationaux. En revanche, il est constaté que l'arbitrage souffre d'un déficit de prévisibilité et de certitudes pour les acteurs du commerce international. Que l'on songe seulement à la multiplication des rattachements législatifs et des contrôles judiciaires: conflits de lois, conflits entre les règles de conflits, etc. Nous avons démontré que la solution aux difficultés de la méthode conflictualiste serait l'harmonisation de la procédure arbitrale internationale et que ce mode de règlement de différends débouche de plus en plus sur le rapprochement entre traditions juridiques différentes (Common Law et droit civil).Toutefois, ce mouvement de convergence est loin d'être achevé. Beaucoup d'autres pratiques arbitrales continuent de garder l'empreinte de la diversité des procédures étatiques et celle des grands systèmes juridiques mondiaux.

Procedural Justice in International Criminal Courts: Assessing Civil Parties’ Perceptions of Justice at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

Procedural justice advocates argue that fair procedures in decision making processes can increase participant satisfaction with legal institutions. Little critical work has been done however to explore the power of such claims in the context of mass violence and international criminal justice. This article critically examines some of the key claims of procedural justice by exploring the perceptions of justice held by victims participating as Civil Parties in the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). The ECCC has created one of the most inclusive and extensive victim participation regimes within international criminal law. It therefore provides a unique case study to examine some of claims of ‘victim-centred’ transitional justice through a procedural justice lens. It finds that while procedural justice influenced civil parties’ overall perceptions of the Court, outcomes remained of primary importance. It concludes by analysing the possible reasons for this prioritisation.

Alternatives to Reparations in International Investment Arbitration– A Debate Between Theory and Practice

An analysis of the alternatives of compensation in relation to international investment disputes is relevant, because a pecuniary award is not always the appropriate remedy to solve disputes arising between investors and States. This is the case because States may be increasingly interested in opting for a different type of compensation. Furthermore, it is still not clear whether arbitral tribunals have recognised alternative types of awarding damages in respect of international investments disputes. This analysis comprises two principal components, the first, is to identify whether or not the tribunals may render an award that not only demands the payment of a sum of money but also considers some other means of compensation. The second, centres on how compliance with these non-pecuniary awards may be demanded. Our approach to these two principal components will always revolve around the idea of respecting the sovereignty of the State, bearing in mind that the execution of an arbitral award, which obliges the State to refrain from or to perform an act in its territory, relies precisely on the sovereignty of the State to execute it. 

International arbitration based on investor-state dispute settlement clauses in international investment agreements: challenges for Latin America and the Caribbean

Incluye bibliografía

Arbitration in international controversy,

Bibliographical foot-notes.

Freedom versus security in regulating ADR and international arbitration

What further benefit, if any, might Australia get from the ALI-III Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases?

In 2006, the American Law Institute (ALI) and the International Insolvency Institute (III) established a Transnational Insolvency Project and appointed Professor Ian Fletcher (United Kingdom) and Professor Bob Wessels (Netherlands) as Joint Reporters. The objective was to investigate whether the essential provisions of the ALI Principles of Cooperation among the NAFTA Countries (ALI-NAFTA Principles) and the annexed Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communication in Cross-border Cases (ALI-NAFTA Guidelines) may, with certain necessary modifications, be acceptable for use by jurisdictions across the world. In 2012, Professor Fletcher and Professor Wessels presented the report Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases (“ALI-III Report”) to the Annual Meetings of the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute. In 2013, the Australian Academy of Law (AAL) provided support to the authors to undertake research on the possible benefits for Australia of courts and insolvency administrators of referring to the ALI-III Report when addressing international insolvency cases. This AAL project was at the request of the Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand. This research Report compares the Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases with the Cross-border Insolvency Act 2008 and the UNCITRAL Model Law as it has been adopted and has force of law in Australia. Further, it examines the Global Guidelines for Court-to-Court Communications in International Insolvency Cases in light of Australian cross-border insolvency and procedural law. Finally, it makes brief reference to and commentary on the Global Rules on Conflict–of-Laws Matters in International Insolvency Cases annexed to the ALI-III Report from the perspective of Australian choice of law rules.

An Australian perspective on the ALI-III global principles for cooperation in International insolvency cases

In 2012, Professor Ian Fletcher (United Kingdom) and Professor Bob Wessels (The Netherlands) presented a Report to the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute entitled Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases (“Global Principles”). This followed their appointment as Joint Reporters to investigate whether the essential provisions of the American Law Institute Principles of Cooperation among the North American Free Trade Agreement Countries with their annexed Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communication in Cross-border Cases may, with certain necessary modifications, be acceptable for use by jurisdictions across the world. This article comments on the Global Principles from the perspective of a jurisdiction which has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency (“Model Law”). In 2008, Australia enacted a standalone statute, the Cross-border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) to which is annexed the Model Law. In that process, it made minimal changes to the Model Law text. Against the background of the 2008 Act, related procedural laws as well as Australia’s general insolvency statutes and recent cross-border insolvency jurisprudence, this article comments on the potential relevance of the Transnational Insolvency Report as a point of reference for Australian courts and insolvency administrators when addressing international insolvency cases. By comparing the Global Principles with the Model Law as closely adopted in Australia, this analysis is a resource for other Model Law jurisdictions when considering the potential relevance of the Global Principles for their own international insolvency practice.