The Hague international arbitration:

Author(s):  
Raphaël Cheriau
Author(s):  
Wüstemann Tina ◽  
Huber Roman

This chapter argues that Switzerland’s importance as centre for trust services as well as its longstanding tradition in international arbitration make it a perfect venue for trust arbitration, particularly in light of the scarcely developed arbitration law and practice in several offshore trust jurisdictions. Against this background, it examines whether trust disputes can be arbitrated in Switzerland, with a particular focus on the recognition of arbitration clauses in trust deeds. While Switzerland does not provide for the institution of trusts in its substantive law, it has ratified the Hague Trust Convention with took effect from 1 July 2007 and has enacted new conflict of law provisions, in particular Articles 149a to 149e of the Private International Law Statute (PILS), which operate so as to allow the full ‘implantation’ (or incorporation) of foreign trusts into Swiss law.


1997 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-32
Author(s):  

AbstractAfter the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on 4 November 1979 and the taking of 52 American citizens as hostages, and after President Carter in retaliation froze Iranian assets in the United States banks, at home and overseas, valued at some 12 billion dollars, the grave crisis was not finally settled until 19 January 1981, after 444 days. The hostages were released and arrangements were made for the free transfer of the frozen Iranian assets. The settlement also provided for the establishment of an Arbitral Tribunal at the Hague for the solution of a wide range of specified claims. An ``insider'' tries in this article to describe the complex and burdensome building up and organisation of the largest and most important international arbitration to date.


1911 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Cullen Dennis

On the 9th of April, 1911, the Hague court will celebrate its first decennial. The first decade of the court was opened by the submission on the part of the United States and Mexico of the Pious Fund case to the tribunal for its decision, and of the eight cases so far submitted to the court and brought to trial during the first decade, the United States has been a party in four, and in a fifth, the Japanese House Tax case, the United States agreed to abide by the result. The last case to be tried was the Orinoco Steamship Company case submitted by the United States and Venezuela.Both the Pious Fund and the Orinoco Steamship Company case raised important questions vitally affecting the future of international arbitration. Both cases were peculiar in that they dealt with a question which had already been once before decided by an arbitral tribunal. In both cases the effect of the previous arbitral decision was submitted as a preliminary question to the Hague court. In the Pious Fund case the preliminary question submitted was as to whether the claim, as a consequence of the former decision of Sir Edward Thornton, umpire under the convention between the United States and Mexico of 1868, was within the principle of res judicata. The court sustained the contention of the United States, by holding that the rule of res judicata applies to international arbitral sentences “ rendered within the limits of the jurisdiction fixed by the compromise,” and accordingly rendered judgment in favor of the United States, without considering the merits of the claim.


1921 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-32
Author(s):  
George A. Finch

International arbitration is the oldest and most favored method of settling disputes between nations when diplomacy fails. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes both declare that “In questions of a legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of international conventions, arbitration is recognized by the Contracting Powers as the most effective, and at the same time the most equitable, means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle.”.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-187
Author(s):  
Irina Artamonova

This article analyses the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration that were published in December 2019. The Hague Rules state how arbitration proceedings should resolve disputes arising from the influence of commercial activity in general on human rights. The purpose of the article is to assess the efficiency of the Hague Rules in settling such disputes by examining their features. The first part of the article studies the possibility of referring human rights disputes to international arbitration. In particular, the author examines the current practice of international investment tribunals and specifies the following situations where arbitrators deal with issues of human rights violations: to accept jurisdiction over counterclaims by host states against foreign investors; to interpret and provide guidance for establishing international investment law standards; to reasonably reduce the amount of compensation awarded to foreign investors in the event of violation by the host state. The author also emphasises that the application of the Hague Rules will enable tribunals to fully exercise their jurisdiction over human rights disputes and to examine such disputes on their merits. Having established the general possibility of referring human rights disputes to international arbitration, the author proceeds by analysing certain features of the Hague Rules, and then considering provisions on the importance of collaborative settlement mechanisms, special requirements to arbitrators, culturally appropriate arbitration proceedings, the possibility of bringing multiparty claims, enhanced requirements to the transparency of the arbitration proceedings and other issues. Finally, the author delves into certain challenges that may impede the practical application of the Hague Rules. In particular, such challenges may include: the fact that the Hague Rules do not solve the problem of the companies’ lack of obligations to protect human rights; the problem of enforcing awards taken in accordance with the Hague Rules; the hindered access of individuals to arbitration proceedings. Despite the above challenges, the author concludes that the Hague Rules may become a rather powerful instrument as an additional mechanism to resolve human rights disputes.


1993 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.C.W. Pinto

The Hague Peace Conference of 1899 was attended by 27 states, the Conference of 1907 by 43, the overwhelming majority being from Europe and America. Among the participants were four from Asia: China, Japan, Persia and Siam. Their delegates, trained in the best European legal and diplomatic traditions, were assisted by European experts in explaining their positions on ‘projects’ (or drafts) of European or American origin.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document