The scope of rights of appeal (not recourse) from arbitration awards

<p>This paper examines the scope of rights of appeal from arbitration awards in New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. In countries that have drafted their legislation after the UNCITRAL Model Law appeals are often excluded and only recourse based on very narrow grounds is available. While many countries are more permissive with regards to appeals than the Model Law in that they allow the parties to opt for more expansive review, none of the examined jurisdictions give the parties the right to opt for appeals on questions of law and fact. In several cases parties have tried to expand the rights of appeal by agreement. Such agreements are deemed invalid in all jurisdictions. When examining whether the invalid clause renders the entire arbitration agreement invalid, courts in common law jurisdictions have applied the doctrine of severance in some variations. Civil law courts usually examine whether the parties would have concluded the contract without the invalid clause (“but for”-test). This paper suggests that many of these tests are not suitable for arbitration agreements where the parties do not exchange considerations but rather promise one another exactly the same. The preferable approach is to combine the “but for”-test with a test that assesses if severance alters the nature of the agreement.</p>

The scope of rights of appeal (not recourse) from arbitration awards

<p>This paper examines the scope of rights of appeal from arbitration awards in New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. In countries that have drafted their legislation after the UNCITRAL Model Law appeals are often excluded and only recourse based on very narrow grounds is available. While many countries are more permissive with regards to appeals than the Model Law in that they allow the parties to opt for more expansive review, none of the examined jurisdictions give the parties the right to opt for appeals on questions of law and fact. In several cases parties have tried to expand the rights of appeal by agreement. Such agreements are deemed invalid in all jurisdictions. When examining whether the invalid clause renders the entire arbitration agreement invalid, courts in common law jurisdictions have applied the doctrine of severance in some variations. Civil law courts usually examine whether the parties would have concluded the contract without the invalid clause (“but for”-test). This paper suggests that many of these tests are not suitable for arbitration agreements where the parties do not exchange considerations but rather promise one another exactly the same. The preferable approach is to combine the “but for”-test with a test that assesses if severance alters the nature of the agreement.</p>

The scope of rights of appeal (not recourse) from arbitration awards

<p>This paper examines the scope of rights of appeal from arbitration awards in New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. In countries that have drafted their legislation after the UNCITRAL Model Law appeals are often excluded and only recourse based on very narrow grounds is available. While many countries are more permissive with regards to appeals than the Model Law in that they allow the parties to opt for more expansive review, none of the examined jurisdictions give the parties the right to opt for appeals on questions of law and fact. In several cases parties have tried to expand the rights of appeal by agreement. Such agreements are deemed invalid in all jurisdictions. When examining whether the invalid clause renders the entire arbitration agreement invalid, courts in common law jurisdictions have applied the doctrine of severance in some variations. Civil law courts usually examine whether the parties would have concluded the contract without the invalid clause (“but for”-test). This paper suggests that many of these tests are not suitable for arbitration agreements where the parties do not exchange considerations but rather promise one another exactly the same. The preferable approach is to combine the “but for”-test with a test that assesses if severance alters the nature of the agreement.</p>

The scope of rights of appeal (not recourse) from arbitration awards

<p>This paper examines the scope of rights of appeal from arbitration awards in New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. In countries that have drafted their legislation after the UNCITRAL Model Law appeals are often excluded and only recourse based on very narrow grounds is available. While many countries are more permissive with regards to appeals than the Model Law in that they allow the parties to opt for more expansive review, none of the examined jurisdictions give the parties the right to opt for appeals on questions of law and fact. In several cases parties have tried to expand the rights of appeal by agreement. Such agreements are deemed invalid in all jurisdictions. When examining whether the invalid clause renders the entire arbitration agreement invalid, courts in common law jurisdictions have applied the doctrine of severance in some variations. Civil law courts usually examine whether the parties would have concluded the contract without the invalid clause (“but for”-test). This paper suggests that many of these tests are not suitable for arbitration agreements where the parties do not exchange considerations but rather promise one another exactly the same. The preferable approach is to combine the “but for”-test with a test that assesses if severance alters the nature of the agreement.</p>

The Rule of Law in the Athenian Demokratia: Origins, History, and Oratory

<p>According to Aristotle, demokratia is an invalid form of constitution unless it operates in conjunction with the rule of law. Historically, the idea of the rule of law was connected with wealthy elites in Athens. However, after a series of upheavals between the Athenian mass and elites, the demos accepted the rule of law as a valid check on demotic power. Rule of law required legal codification, which outlined a framework within which democratic law functioned. The Athenian law court became the arena for enforcing the law, thereby ridding the city of negative socio/political influences. Hybris, political corruption, and general questions of legality all came under the power of the democratic courts of law, which exerted the legitimate power of the combined community. Nevertheless, tradition maintained a strong influence on law, especially in the law courts. Bound up in legal arguments were ideas of Athenian identity and it became accepted that the juries would assess the character of the accused against the character of the Athenian demos in the course of making its decision. Athenian elites who previously continued feuds extra-legally submitted to the law courts, which offered an arena for dispute resolution. Ultimately, the rule of law in the Athenian demokratia upheld Athenian law, created a legal framework, and allowed personal and political disputes to be settled before they dissolved into stasis, offering the Athenian demokratia its most successful mechanism for creating social, political, and legal, stability.</p>

The Rule of Law in the Athenian Demokratia: Origins, History, and Oratory

<p>According to Aristotle, demokratia is an invalid form of constitution unless it operates in conjunction with the rule of law. Historically, the idea of the rule of law was connected with wealthy elites in Athens. However, after a series of upheavals between the Athenian mass and elites, the demos accepted the rule of law as a valid check on demotic power. Rule of law required legal codification, which outlined a framework within which democratic law functioned. The Athenian law court became the arena for enforcing the law, thereby ridding the city of negative socio/political influences. Hybris, political corruption, and general questions of legality all came under the power of the democratic courts of law, which exerted the legitimate power of the combined community. Nevertheless, tradition maintained a strong influence on law, especially in the law courts. Bound up in legal arguments were ideas of Athenian identity and it became accepted that the juries would assess the character of the accused against the character of the Athenian demos in the course of making its decision. Athenian elites who previously continued feuds extra-legally submitted to the law courts, which offered an arena for dispute resolution. Ultimately, the rule of law in the Athenian demokratia upheld Athenian law, created a legal framework, and allowed personal and political disputes to be settled before they dissolved into stasis, offering the Athenian demokratia its most successful mechanism for creating social, political, and legal, stability.</p>

The role of international law in dealing with national legislative deficit

International law and national law and legal regime.The paper analyzed all situations in which the two systems of laws positively interact.The lacuna en droit is detested by the doctrine and all court levels,however,the national and international judges tend invariably to apply rules of exaequo et Bono,these rules are applicable by international arbitratios and law courts. The paper analyzed as well the rules that enable international law to perform it's job and the challenges they encounter the function.