UDC 341.63

DOI 10.37749/2308-9639-2024-9(261)-7

O. O. Gaidulin, Doctor of Law, Professor, Chief Researcher, Academician F. G. Burchak Research Institute of Private Law and Entrepreneurship of the National Academy of Laws and Regulations of Ukraine

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1269-7007

O. S. Perepelynska, PhD student, Academician F. G. Burchak Research Institute of Private Law and Entrepreneurship of the National Academy of Laws and Regulations of Ukraine

ORCID ID: hhttps://orcid.org/0009-0001-3188-4430

THE CONCEPT OF ARBITRAL LEGAL ORDER (ORDRE JURIDIQUE ARBITRAL) AS AN ALTERVERSION OF ARBITRAL JURISDICTION (ARBITRAL JURISDICTION)

The article is devoted to  a comparative analysis of two concepts: English-language (arbitral jurisdiction) and French-language (ordre juridique arbitral) terms in order to identify the common semantic (meaningful) core and significant differences in the content of arbitral jurisdiction and ordre juridique arbitral in order to further organize these basic concepts through the internationalization of their semantic content.

The works of French researchers are analyzed, who consider the “freedom of arbitrators to determine their own jurisdiction” to be the most important for revealing the essence of the ordre juridique arbitral and try to consider such jurisdiction in close connection with its bearers, that is, they understand it, in fact, as a certain competence.

The authors state the departure of the French doctrine from the statist understanding of arbitration to a self-regulating, autonomous arbitration legal order. Thus, E. Gaillard distinguishes three conceptual approaches to determining the nature and essence of the arbitration legal order: (1) as a component of a single national legal order; (2) as a result of the plurality of national legal orders; (3) as an autonomous arbitration legal order.

The priority use of the term “arbitration legal order” in comparison with “arbitration jurisdiction” provides important tactical advantages in the criticism of the statist concept of the source of legitimacy of arbitration. After all, this allows us to conditionally leave the discussion about the primacy of the relationship between arbitration legislation and the autonomy of the will of the parties and arbitrators, which has historically been conducted using positivist terminology, and to translate this dispute into the channel of legal naturalist vocabulary.

Keywords: arbitration legal order, arbitration jurisdiction, sources of legitimacy of arbitration, legitimacy of the freedom of the parties, legality of international arbitration.

LIST OF REFERENCES

  1. Gaidulin O. O. State jurisdiction and arbitral jurisdiction: ordering basic concepts.
  2. Oppetit, B. Philosophie de l’arbitrage commercial international, Journal Du Droit International Volume 120, Issue 4, 1993, P. 811–827.
  3. Bollée, S. Les méthodes du droit international privé à l’épreuve des sentences arbitrales, Paris, Economica, 2004. 428 pp.
  4. Arfazadeh, H.; Abi-Saab G.; Jacquet J.-M. Ordre public et arbitrage international à l’épreuve de la mondialisation: une théorie critique des sources du droit des relations transnationales, Geneva, Schulthess, 2 nd ed., 2006. xx, 352 pp.
  5. Romano, S. L’ordre juridique, translation by Lucien François and Pierre Gothot, with an introduction by Phocion Francescakis, Paris, Dalloz, 1975. 174 pp.
  6. Lagarde, P. Approche critique de la lex mercatoria, Le Droit Des Relations Economique Internationales : études offertes à Berthold Goldman. Paris: Librairies Thechiniques, 1982, p. 125–134.
  7. Gaillard, Emmanuel. Legal Theory of International Arbitration. BRILL, Leiden, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff, 2010. 204 pp.
  8. Goldman, B. Les conflits de lois dans l’arbitrage international de droit privé. Collected Courses , volume 109 (1963). P. 347-374.
  9. Gaillard, E. Aspects philosophiques du droit de l’arbitrage international. Boston [Mass.]: Leiden [The Netherlands]. M. Nijhoff Publishers, 2008. 240 pp.
  10. Gaillard, E. La jurisprudence du CIRDI, Vol I (Paris, Pedone, 2004) 541 pp., Vol II (Paris, Pedone, 2010) 750 pp.
  11. Gaillard, E. Dialogue des ordres juridiques: ordre juridiques arbitral et ordres juridiques étatiques / 2018 (3) Revue de l’arbitrage. Volume 2018, Issue 3 (2018). P.493–512.
  12. Tibor Varady, John J. Barceló (III), Arthur Taylor Von Mehren International Commercial Arbitration: A Transnational Perspective. Thomson/West, 2012. 1073 pp.
  13. von Mehren, AT Limitations on Party Choice of the Governing Law: Do They Exist for International Commercial Arbitration? The Mortimer and Raymond Sackler Institute of Advanced Studies, Tel Aviv University, 1986, P. 19–20.
  14. Bank Mellat v. Helliniki Tachniki SA United Kingdom / 28 June 1983 / England and Wales, Court of Appeal. [1983] 3 WLR 783; [1984] 1 QB 291 (CA). URL: https://newyorkconvention1958.org/ index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1485&opac_view=6.
  15. Paulsson, J. Interference by National Courts in The Leading Arbitrators’ Guide to International Arbitration (LW Newman & RD Hill eds.), Huntington, Juris Publishing, 3 d ed., 2014. P. 33–62.
  16. Himpurna California Energy Ltd. v. Indonesia, Interim Award and Final Award, September 26, 1999 and October 16, 1999, XXV Yearbook Commercial Arbitration (2000), p. 109, par. 175.
  17. Gaillard, E. Sociology of international arbitration in Arbitration International, The Official Journal of the London Court of International Arbitration, 2015, 31, P. 1–17. doi: 10.1093/arbint/aiv021.
  18. Gaillard, E. The Emergence of Transnational Responses to Corruption in International Arbitration, The Official Journal of the London Court of International Arbitration, 2019, 35, P. 1–19. doi: 10.1093/arbint/aiz004.
  19. Gaillard, E. Coordination or Chaos: Do the Principles of Comity, Lis Pendens and Res Judicata Apply to International Arbitration? Volume 29: Issue 3 (2018). P. 205–243.
  20. Gaillard, E. 2018 LALIVE LECTURE The Myth of Harmony in International Arbitration in ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal , Volume 34, Issue 3, Fall 2019, P. 553–568, URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siz034.
  21. Gaidulin O. O. Institute of Interpretation (ius interpretatio = law of interpretation): methodological foundations of civil theory: monograph: in 2 volumes. Kyiv: Academician F. G. Burchak Research Institute of Private Law and Entrepreneurship of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 2020. Vol. 1. 453 p., Vol. 2. 544 p.