INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION - FALL 2008
Course Syllabus
Peter B. Maggs
The materials for this course are: (1) Várady, Barceló and von Mehren, International Commercial Arbitration: A Transnational Perspective, Third Edition (2006) (2) Documents Supplement to International Commercial Arbitration: A Transnational Perspective, Third Edition (2006).
Grades in this course will be based entirely upon the final examination. The examination will be a completely open-book, open-notes, open-computer examination. You may bring and use any printed, typed, photocopied, or handwritten material, whether prepared by yourself or others. You will be expected to bring the Casebook and Statutory Supplement assigned for the course. You may bring a computer and use anything stored on its hard disk or other storage media, but may not use the Internet, databanks, e-mail, chat, etc. You may connect to the law school network only in accordance with instructions from the law school computer staff in order to submit your completed answers. The examination software required by the law school does not allow "cutting and pasting," but it does allow "dragging and dropping," so you can highlight and then "drag and drop" previously prepared material into your exam answers. However, putting material in an exam answer that you do not clearly and specifically relate to the issues in the exam question will reduce your grade even if the material is a correct statement of the law.
If you take a makeup or late exam you should know: (1) your anonymity may be compromised, since I must start grading the bulk of the exams immediately to meet grading deadlines and (2) support by the law school computer staff may not be available.
This syllabus, some old exams from this course, and some information about me may be found at my website:
http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/p-maggs/
You can generally find me in my office, Room 120, on the first floor of the faculty office wing, when I am not either teaching Contracts (Monday 8:30-9:20 & 11:00-11:50, Tuesday 8:30-9:20, Wednesday 8:00-8:50) or at a faculty or committee meeting (unpredictable times).
You can send me email through the law school computer system or through the Internet; I check and reply to my email regularly.
My email address is: p-maggs@uiuc.edu
My office telephone is: 333-6711.
COURSE OUTLINE AND ASSIGNMENTS
(Generally we will cover one of the “units” below in each class. Page numbers refer to pages in the casebook. When an assignment covers an international convention, model law, law, rules, or code contained in the Documents Supplement, you should familiarize yourself with the relevant document.)
UNIT 1
Preface to the 1st Edition- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - v
Preface to the 2nd edition- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -ix
Preface to the 3rd Edition- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -xi
Chapter I. Introduction- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
I.1. Approaches to Dispute Resolution- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
I.1.a. Note- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
I.1.b. Arbitration and Mediation- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2
World Intellectual Property Organization Guide to WIPO Mediation- - - - - - - - - 2
Rules of Arbitration and Conciliation of the International
Arbitral Center of the Federal Economic Chamber Vienna- - - - - - - - - - -9
Zurich Chamber of Commerce,
Rules of Procedure for the Zurich Mini-Trial- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10
I.1.c. Technical Expertise- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -11
International Chamber of Commerce, Rules for Expertise- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11
I.1.d. Adaptation of Contracts- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12
Frydman v. Cosmair, Inc.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16
UNIT 2
I.1.e. Arbitration and Litigation- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17
American Almond Products Co. v. Consolidated Pe-
can Sales Co., Inc.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -17
James H. Carter, Dispute Resolution and International
Agreements - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -18
Christian Bühring-Uhle, Arbitration and Mediation in International
Business: Designing Procedures for Effective Conflict Management- - - -20
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20
I.1.f. Institutional and Ad Hoc Arbitration- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21
Gerald Aksen, Ad Hoc Versus Institutional Arbitration- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -21
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29
I.1.g. Fast-Track Arbitration- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -30
Hans Smit, Fast-Track Arbitration- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -30
Stockholm Rules for Expedited Arbitrations- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34
UNIT 3
I.2. On the Evolution of the Standing of Arbitration Within the Legal System - - - - - - - - -38
I.2.a. Note - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -38
Tibor Varady, The Standing of Arbitration Within the
Legal System- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -38
I.2.b. A Glimpse Back in History - A French Case- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 39
L’Alliance v. Prunier- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 39
I.2.c. A Note on the Relevance of the International Dimension- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -41
Arthur Von Mehren, International Commercial Arbitra-
tion: The Contribution of the French Jurisprudence- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 41
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44
I.2.d. Another Glimpse Back in History - A U.S. Case- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45
Kulukundis Shipping Co., S.A. v. Amtorg Trading Corp.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50
I.2.e. A Comparative Historical Survey on the Standing of
Arbitration Within the Legal System- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 51
Arthur Von Mehren, A General View of Contract- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 51
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 58
UNIT 4
I.3. The Sources of Relevant Norms and Possible Conflicts Between Various Sources- - - - -58
I.3.a. Note -The Sources- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 58
I.3.b. Conflicts between various sources- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -64
I.3.b.i. Party Stipulation Versus Institutional Rules- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 65
Preliminary Award Made in Case No. 2321 in 1974 (ICC)- - - - - 65
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 66
I.3.b.ii. Party Stipulation Versus State Norms- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 68
Al Haddard Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. M/S Agapi- - - - - - - - - - - 68
Rederi Aktiebolaget Sally (Finland) v. S.R.L. Termarea (Italy)- -70
Tarmarea S.R.L. (Italy) v. Rederiaktiebolaget Sally (Finland)- - 73
Albert Jan Van Den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention
of 1958: Towards a Uniform Judicial Interpretation- - - - -77
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 78
UNIT 5
I.3.b.iii. Institution Versus Institution- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 80
Award of the Court of Arbitration at the Hun garian Chamber of
Commerce and Industry No: Vb99130- - - - - - - - - - - - - 80
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 82
Chapter II. On the Authority of Arbitration Tribunals- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 85
II.1. The Arbitration Agreement as the Cornerstone of the Arbitration Process- - - - - - - - - - 85
II.1.a. Note - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -85
II.1.a.i. Variations of the Arbitration Agreement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 85
II.1.a.ii. “Referring the Parties to Arbitration . . .”- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -85
II.1.a.iii. Existence, Validity, and Scope Issues Before Courts and
Arbitrators- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 86
II.1.a.iv. Formal Requirements- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 92
II.1.a.v. Scope Revisited- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -92
II.1.a.vi. Further Issues Pertaining to the Range and Limits of the
Arbitration Agreement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 94
II.1.b. Compelling the Reluctant Party to Arbitrate: An Overview and
Introduction to Separability- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -95
Tennessee Imports, Inc. V. P.P. Filippi & Prix Italia S.R.L.- - - - 95
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 102
UNIT 6
II.1.b.i. Parallel Proceedings- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 103
Pepsico Inc. v. Oficina Central De Asesoria y
Ayuda Tecnica, C.A.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 103
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 106
II.1.b.ii. Waiver of the Right to Compel Arbitration- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -107
Menorah Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Inx Reinsurance Corp.- - - - - - 107
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 112
II.1.c. Kompetenz-Kompetenz and Separability- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 113
Texaco Overseas Petroleum Co. & California Asiatic Oil Co.
v. the Government of the Libyan Arab Republic- - - - - - 113
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 119
UNIT 7
II.1.c.i. Negative Kompetenz-Kompentenz in U.S. Law- - - - -121
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan,
et ux. and Mk Investments, Inc.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -122
Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc- - - - - - - - - - - - 125
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 127
II.1.c.ii. Negative Kompetenz-Kompetenz in French Law- - - - 128
American Bureau of Shipping v. Jules Verne et al.- - - - - - - - - 128
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 129
II.1.c.iii. Separability Revisited and the Void Ab
Initio Doctrine- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 130
Sojuznefteexport (SNE) (USSR) v. Joc Oil, Ltd.
(Bermuda)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 130
Harbour Assurance Co. (UK), Ltd. v. Kansa General
International Assurance Co., Ltd.- - - - - - - - - - 137
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 141
UNIT 8
II.1.d. The Form of the Arbitration Agreement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -146
II.1.d.i. “An Agreement in Writing”- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -146
Howard M. Holtzmann & Joseph E. Neuhaus, A Guide
to the UNCITRSL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration: Legislative History
and Commentary- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -146
United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea- - 148
Neil Kaplan, Is the Need for Writing as Expressed in the New
York Convention and the Model Law Out of Step With
Commercial Practice?- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -149
Robobar Limited (UK) v. Finncold Sas (Italy)- - - - - - - - - - - -151
Compagnie de Navigation Et Transports
Sa (France) v. Mediterranean Shipping
Co. Sa (Switzerland)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 153
Sphere Drake Insurance PLC v. Marine
Towing, Inc.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -157
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 159
II.1.d.ii. Can a Battle of Forms Yield an Arbitration Agreement?- - - - - - 161
Nokia-Maillefer Sa (Switzerland) v. Mazzer (Italy)- - - - - - - - - 161
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 163
UNIT 9
II.1.e. Jurisdiction by Virtue of Tacit or Post-Agreement
Submission or Estoppel- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -164
William Co. v. Guangzhov Ocean Shipping Co.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -164
Jiangxi Provincial Metal and Minerals Import and Export Corp. v.
Sulanser Co., Ltd.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 169
Claimant (Austria) v. Respondent (Germany)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 171
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -173
UNCITRAL Working Group Draft Proposal to
Amend Model Law Article 7- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 176
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -177
II.1.f. Scope of the Arbitration Clause - Settlements and
Renewals- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 178
Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 178
Ermenegildo Zenga Corp. v. Lanificio Mario Zenga S.P.A.- - - - - - - - - - - - - -182
UNIT 10
Hart Enterprises International, Inc. v. Anhui Provincial Import &
Export Corp.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -186
Becker Autoradio v. Becker Autroadiowerk- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 189
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -191
II.1.g. The Position of the Parties Who Are Not Signatories of the Arbitration
Agreement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 193
Cosmotek Mumessillik Ve Ticaret Limited Sirkketi v.Cosmotek Usa, Inc.- - - - -193
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -197
UNIT 11
II.1.h. Split Arbitration Clauses- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 203
Astra Footwear Industry v. Harwyn International, Inc.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -203
Yugoslav Co. v. PDR Korea Co.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 206
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -210
II.1.i Changed Circumstances- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -213
Partial Decision of April 2, 1992- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 213
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -215
II.2. Limits on Arbitrability - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -217
II.2.a. Note- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -217
UNIT 12
II.2.b. Statutory Definitions of Arbitrability and Their Interpretation- - - - - - - - - - - - -219
Fincantieri-Cantieri Navali Italiani Spa (Italy) v. Ministry of Defense,
Armament and Supply Di rectorate of Iraq, Republic of Iraq- - - - - - - 221
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -226
II.2.c. Arbitrability Tested in Court Practice- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -231
II.2.c.i. Arbitrability of Antitrust Claims- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 231
Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler
Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 231
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 238
UNIT 13
Baxter International, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories- - - - - - - - - - 243
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 247
II.2.c.ii. Arbitrability of Cargo Damage (COGSA) Claims- - - - - - - - - - -248
Vimar Seguros Y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer- - - - - - - 250
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 258
II.2.d. Law Applicable to Arbitrability- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -260
M.S.A. (Belgium) v. Company M (Switzerland)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 260
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -262
UNIT 14
Chapter III. The Arbitrators- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 265
III.1. The Arbitrators - Qualifications, Rights and Responsibilities- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -265
III.1.a. Note- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -265
III.1.b. Qualifications of the Arbitrators and the Koran (Quran)- - - - - - - - - - - 268
Syed Khalid Rashid, Takhim or Arbitration in the Shari’ah- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 269
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -271
III.1.c. Oaths as Safeguards of Impartiality- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 271
M. Tod, International Arbitration Amongst the Greeks- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -271
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -272
III.1.d. More Modern Considerations and Devices (Nautrality,
Independence, Disclosure)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 273
Giorgio Bernini, Report on Neutrality, Impartiality, and Independence- - - - - 273
Andreas F. Lowenfeld, The Party-Appointed Arbitrator in International
Controversies: Some Reflections- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -279
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -279
UNIT 15
III.1.e. How to Get (or Not to Get) the Right Arbitrator- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -289
Lord David Hacking: Well, Did You Get the Right Arbitrator?- - - - - - - - - - - 289
Dr. K.V.S.K. Nathan: Well, Why Did You Not Get the Right Arbitrator?- - - - 294
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -299
III.1.f. Codes of Ethics- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 300
The IBA Rules of Ethics for International Arbitrators- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 301
Robert Lutz, Partisan Arbitrators and the Case Against Bias in International
Arbitration- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 302
Bruce Meyerson and John Townsend, Revised Code of Ethics for Commercial
Arbitrators Explained- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 304
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -313
UNIT 16
III.1.g. Rights and Responsibilities of the Arbitrators- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 316
Philippe Fouchard, Relationships Between the Arbitrator and the Parties
and the Arbitral Institution- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -316
K/S Norjarl A/S v. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -325
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -337
UNIT 17
III.1.h. Rights and Responsibilities of the Arbitral Institution- - - - - - - - - - - - - 340
Cubic Defense Systems Inc. v. ICC- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 340
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -348
III.1.i. Can the Arbitrators Abandon Their Function? (Truncated Tribunals)- - - - - - - 350
Stephen M. Schwebel, The Validity of an Arbitral Award Rendered by a
Truncated Tribunal- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -350
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -361
UNIT 18
III.2. Appointments and Appointing Authorities- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 364
III.2.a. Note-Options in Appointment of Arbitrators- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -364
Tibor Varady, On Appointing Authorities in International Commercial
Arbitration- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 364
III.2.b. Appointment by Courts- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -370
III.2.b.i. Note on Appointment by Courts- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -370
Tibor Varady, on Appointing Authorities in International
Commercial Arbitration- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 370
III.2.b.ii. Selected Legislative Provisions on Appointment by Courts- - - - - - - - - 374
III.2.b.iii. Appointment by Court in Order to Prevent Denial of Justice- - - - - - - - - - - -378
National Iranian Oil Co v. Israel- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 378
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 380
UNIT 19
III.2.c. Appointing Authorities Chosen by the Parties- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 382
III.2.c.i. The Nature of the Decision of the Appointing Authority- - - - - -382
Sapphire International Petroleums Ltd. v.National Iranian
Oil Company- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 382
Anstalt F. (Liechtenstein) v. Company T, (Panama)- - - - - - - - -386
Elf Aquitaine Iran (France) v. National
Iranian Oil Co. (Iran)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 388
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 390
III.2.c.ii. An Appointing Authority Not Relied Upon- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -394
Philips Hong Kong, Ltd. (Hong Kong) v. Hyundai Electronics
Industries Co. Ltd. (Hong Kong)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 394
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 398
UNIT 20
III.2.c.iii. An Appointing Authority That Ceased to Exist- - - - - - - - - - - - 399
Gatoil International, Inc. (Panama) v. National Iranian
Oil Co. (Iran)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 399
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 402
III.2.d. The Role of Lists of Arbitrators in the Process of Appointment-403
Encyclopaedia Universalis, S.A. v. Encyclopaedia
Britannica, Inc.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -404
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 412
III.2.e. Multi-Party Arbitration and Selection of Arbitrators- - - - - - - - - - - - - -414
Siemens AG and BKMI Industrieanlanger Gmbh v.
Dutco Construction Co., Ltd.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 414
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 416
UNIT 21
III.3. Challenges- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -416
III.3.a. Introduction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -416
Albert Jan Van Den Berg, Report on the Challenge Procedure- - - - - - - - - - - -416
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -426
III.3.b. Challenges - How Conclusive Is the Challenge before the Arbitral
Institution?- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 426
Refineries of Homs and Banias (Syria) v. International Chamber of
Commence- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 426
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -428
III.3.c. Challenge of Arbitrators in the Context of Challenging the Award - the
Issue of Disclosure- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 428
State of Qatar v. Creighton Ltd. (Cayman Islands)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 428
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -430
UNIT 22
Andros Compania Maritima v. Marc Rich & Co., A.G.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -431
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -440
AT&T Corporation and Another v. Saudi Cable Company- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 442
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -449
UNIT 23
Chapter IV. Focal Points in the Arbitration Process- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -451
IV.1. Selected Elements of Procedure Before Arbitration Tribunals- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -451
IV.1.a. Note- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -451
IV.1.b. The Scope and the Relative Importance of the Lex Arbitri- - - - - - - - - -453
Union of India v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -453
Howard M. Holtzmann & Joseph E. Neuhaus, A Guide to the UNCITRAL
Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: Legislative
History and Commentary- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -459
Rules of the ICC International Court of Arbitration- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 463
World Intellectual Property, Organization Arbitration Rules- - - - - - - - - - - - - 463
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -464
IV.1.c. Organizing Arbitral Proceedings- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 466
UNCITRAL Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 466
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -466
IV.1.d. Party Discretion, Discretion of the Arbitrators, and Due Process- - - - - 466
Abati Legnami (Italy) v. Fritz Häupl- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 466
Firm P (U.S.A.) v. Firm F (F.R.G.)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 467
Roger K. Ward, The Flexibility of Evidentiary Rules In International Trade
Dispute Arbitration: Problems Posed to American-Trained Lawyers- - 469
Questions and Comments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -470
UNIT 24
I