29687國(guó)際商法原書(shū)chapter3

3-1CHAPTER3DISPUTESETTLEMENT3-2CHAPTER3

DISPUTERESOLUTIONTopicsforthischapter:SettlementofDisputesThroughDiplomacySettlementofDisputesinInt.TribunalsSettlementofDisputesinMunicipalCourtsImmunitiesofStatesfromtheJurisdictionofMunicipalCourtsChoosingtheGoverningLawRefusaltoExerciseJurisdictionOppositiontotheExerciseofJurisdictionProvingForeignLawRecognitionofForeignJudgments3-3SettlementofDisputes

ThroughDiplomacyDiplomacyisaformofinternationaldisputesettlementthatusesnegotiation,mediation,orinquiry.Negotiationistheprocessofreachinganagreementbydiscussion.Itmaybedonethroughdiplomaticauthorities,commissions,oratasummitconference.3-4SettlementofDisputes

ThroughDiplomacyMediationusesanimpartialthirdpartytoprovideachannelofcommunication,knownasofferingtheirgoodoffices.Themediatormayengageinconciliation,wherebytheyinvestigateandmakeasettlementproposaltotheparties.Allpartiesmustconsenttoamediation.Aninquiryistheprocessbywhichanimpartialthirdpartymakesaninvestigationtodeterminethefactsunderlyingadisputewithoutresolvingthedisputeitself.Inquiriesareusedtoinvestigatethefactsofaspecificincident,suchasthesinkingofaship.3-5SettlementofDisputesinInternationalTribunalsIfdiplomacyfails,thepartiesusuallyturntoacourttoresolvethedispute.DisputesbetweenstatesorIGOsaretakentoaninternationaltribunal,suchastheICJoradisputeresolutionpaneloftheWorldTradeOrganization.Disputesinvolvingaprivateorcompanyusuallyendupinarbitrationorinamunicipalcourtofastate.3-6InternationalCourtofJusticePrincipaljudicialorganoftheUnitedNations.Ithasjurisdictiontohear:Disputesbetweenstatespursuanttoitscontentiousjurisdiction.CasesfromorgansandspecializedagenciesoftheUNpursuanttoitsadvisoryjurisdiction.Nopowertohearcasesinvolvingindividuals.Comprisedof15judgeselectedtonine-yearterms.3-7ICJJurisdictionForacontentiouscase,allthepartiesmusthaverecognizedtheICJ’scontentiousjurisdiction.OptionalClauseJurisdiction–unilateralgrantofjurisdictionbyastatetotheICJ.Moststatesputrestrictionsonthetypeofcasestheywillletthecourthear.3-8ICJJurisdictionUndertheruleofreciprocity,astatemustrespondtoasuitbroughtagainstitonlyifthestatebringingthesuithasalsoacceptedthejurisdictionoftheICJunder.Underaself-judgingreservationorConnallyReservationclauseastatemayexcludefromthejurisdictionoftheICJanydisputethatitdeterminesisadomesticmatter.3-9ICJJurisdictionandJudgmentsTheICJ’sadvisoryjurisdictionisthepowerofthecourttogiveopinionsaboutissuesofinternationallawattherequestoftheUnitedNationsoroneofitsspecializedagencies.AjudgmentoftheICJhasnobindingforceexceptbetweenthepartiesastothatparticularcase.Thereisnowaytoforceastatetocomplywithajudgment.Mostcomplyvoluntarily.3-10InternationalCriminalCourtTheICCisanindependentcourtoflastresortthattriespersonsaccusedofthemostseriousinternationalcrimes.TheICCmayexercisejurisdictionoverindividualsaccusedof:GenocideCrimesagainsthumanityWarcrimesAssistingthosecommittingtheabovecrimes.AccusedmustbenationalofstateorcommitcrimeinstatethatacceptsICCjurisdiction.3-11WorldTradeOrganization

DisputeSettlementProceduresImplementsandenforcestherulesofinternationaltradebetweennations.Rulesarecontainedinagreements.Eachagreementhasthreeobjectives:TohelptradeflowfreelyToachieveliberalizationthroughnegotiationTosetupmeanstoresolvedisputesWTOdisputesettlementprocessgovernedbytheUnderstandingonRulesandProceduresGoverningtheSettlementofDisputes(DSU)3-12TheDSUProcessTheDSUencouragesstatestoresolvedisputesthroughconsultation.Partiesmustenterintoconsultationwithin30daysorDisputeSettlementPanelisformed.TheorganschargedwithcarryingouttheDSUare(1)theDisputeSettlementBody,(2)theDisputeSettlementPanels,and(3)theAppellateBody.3-13DisputeSettlementPanelMadeupofthreepanelistsfromstatesnotinvolvedinthedispute.FunctionistoassisttheDSBbymakinganobjectiveassessmentofthefactsanddeterminingtheapplicabilityandconformitywithWTOagreements,thenmakingfindingstohelptheDSBmakemendationsandrulings.ThepaneldecisionmaybeappealedtoAppellateBodybyapartytothedispute.3-14Case3-1

Japan-TaxesonAlcoholicBeveragesComplaintsbyEuropeanCommunities,Canada,andUSagainstJapanoverJapaneseLiquorTaxLaw.Japanwantedpaneltorelyuponpriorpanelreportsinvolvingdifferentcomplainants.AppellateBodyheldthatpanelreportshelpinterprettheGATTbutarenotbindingexceptwithresolvingtheparticulardisputebetweenpartiestothatdispute.3-15InternationalCenterfortheSettlementofInvestmentDisputesPurposeistoencourageprivateinvestmentinunderdevelopedcountries.ICSIDprovidesamechanismforresolvingdisputesbetweenaninvestorandthecountryofinvestment.Adoptedrulesforconciliationsandarbitrations.Thirdpartystates,includingtheinvestor’sstate,maynotintervene.3-16TheICSIDProcessBeforeICSIDcanconveneapanel,twostepsmustbesatisfied:ThehoststateandthestateoftheinvestormustbothbepartiestotheWashingtonConvention.TheinvestorandhoststatemustbothconsenttoICSIDjurisdiction.JurisdictionoftheICSIDshallextendtoanylegaldisputearisingdirectlyoutofaninvestment.Consenttojurisdictionmaynotbewithdrawn.3-17TheICSIDArbitrationProcessPartiesmayselectanyoddnumberofarbitratorstheyagreeupon.Majoritymustbefromstatesnotinvolvedinthedispute.ArbitrationsnormallytakeplaceinWashington,D.C.,butthepartiescanagreeonanotherlocationwithapproval.OnceconsenttoICSIDarbitrationisgiven,itistheexclusiveremedyforthepartiesandtheymaynotaskfordiplomaticintervention.3-18ICSIDJurisdictionICSIDmusthavejurisdictionoverboththepartiesandoverthesubjectmatterofthedispute.PersonalJurisdiction–Partiesappearingmustbeastatepartyandnationalofanothercontractingstate.Astatepartyisthestateitself,itsagencies,oritssubdivisions.Thenationalofanothercontractingstatecanbeanaturalperson(human)orajuridicalperson(businessentity).Juridicalpersonmusthaveahomestateoutsidetheinvestmentstate.(51%foreignownershiporforeignmanagement.)3-19ICSIDJurisdiction(cont.)SubjectMatterJurisdiction–ICSIDarbitrationpanelscanonlydecidemattersthatare:Disputes–Cannotbeacollusiveactioninwhichthepartiesarenotatodds.Mustbealegaldisputewherethereisadisagreementastotheexistenceofalegalrightorobligation.Ariseoutofaninvestment–theICSIDconventiondoesnotdefineinvestment.Absentanagreement,giventheordinarymeaningofputtingcapitalintoaventurewiththeexpectationofreceivingaprofit.3-20ICSIDandNAFTANAFTAprovisionsprotectcross-borderinvestorsandfacilitatethesettlementofinvestmentdisputes.EachpartymustaccordinvestorsfromotherNAFTApartiesnationaltreatmentandnotexpropriateinvestments.InvestorsmayinitiatearbitrationunderICSIDrules.Case3-2involvesNAFTApartiesandanarbitrationcommencedbyCanadiancompanyagainsttheUS.3-21Case3-2

IntheMatteroftheLoewenGroupInc.v.UnitedStatesLoewen,aCanadiancompanythatownedfuneralhomesintheUS,lostanpetitivepracticeslawsuitinMississippi.Jurysetdamagesat$500M.LoewenchallengedjuryverdictunderNAFTA.ICSIDformed3-personNAFTAarbitrationpanel.U.S.arguedthatjurydecisioninprivatecontractlitigationdidnotconstituteagovernmentalmeasureunderNAFTA.PanelfoundNAFTAjurisdiction,placingnolimitsonwhattypeofcourtdecisionitconsiderscoveredbyNAFTA.OpensuppossibilityofreviewofevenU.S.SupremeCourtdecisionsbyNAFTA.Loewen’sclaimwasultimatelyrejectedforfailuretoexhaustallremediesintheU.S.courts.3-22SettlementofDisputes

inMunicipalCourtsTheabilityofanationalcourttoexercisethepowertohearacaseisknownasjurisdiction.Theabilityofapartytoescapethejurisdictionofacourtisknownasimmunity.Naturalandjuridicalpersonshavefewimmunitiesfromamunicipalcourt.Evenstateagencies,suchasnationalairlines,arerarelyabletoclaimimmunity.3-23JurisdictioninCriminalCasesCriminalprosecutionsmaybeconductedwherethereissomenexusbetweentheregulatingnationandthecrimeorcriminal.Theconnectionbetweentheformandpersonmustbereasonable.Fournexusesjustifycriminaljurisdiction:Territorialnexus–placewherethecrimeiscommitteddeterminesjurisdiction.Nationalitynexus–looksatnationalityofpersoncommittingthecrimetodeterminejurisdiction.Protectivenexus–jurisdictionlieswhennationalorinternationalinterestoftheforumisinjured.Universalitynexus–courtshavejurisdictionovercrimesofuniversalconcern,suchasslaveryandhijacking.3-24JurisdictioninCivilCasesJurisdictionincivilcasesisbaseduponeitherinpersonamorinremprinciples.Inpersonamjurisdictionisthepowertodecidemattersconcerningnaturalorjuridicalpersons,whileinremjurisdictionisthepowerofacourttodetermineownershiprightsofproperty.Personssubjecttoinpersonamjurisdiction:NationalsoftheforumIndividualspresentwithinthestateIndividualsdomiciledinthestateIndividualswhoconsenttojurisdiction3-25Case3-3

Bumperv.Comm.ofPoliceReligiousartifactdiscoveredinIndiaandillegallysoldtoBumperinLondon.ThetempleinIndiasuedtorecovertheartifact.QuestionwaswhetheraninstitutionthatwasnotrecognizedasapersonunderEnglishlawwasentitledtosueasalegalentitybecauseitwasrecognizedunderthelawsofitsownstate.Held:Ifanothercountryrecognizesaninstitutionasalegalentity,thentheEnglishcourtswillacceptthemaspartiestosuits.3-26JurisdictionOver

JuridicalPersonsSubjecttoinpersonamjurisdictioninamunicipalcourtmuchinthesamewaythatindividualsare.Domesticentitiesarelegalentitiescreatedwithinthestate.Foreignentitiessubjecttojurisdictiononlyif(1)theyarerecognizedasjuridicalpersonsand(2)theygivetheirconsent.Theentitymustbeproperlyformedbyarecognizedgovernment.Oftenuseforumselectionclauseinagreementstochooseacourtorarbitrationtribunal.3-27Case3-4

Shellv.R.W.Sturge,Ltd.Plaintiff’swereOhioresidentswhoinvestedintheSocietyofLloyd’s,alsoexecutinganagencyagreementwithSturgetorepresentthemwithLloyd’sastheirMember’sAgent.TriedtosueunderOhiosecuritieslaws.AgreementscontainedbothchoiceoflawandforumselectionclausesnamingEngland.AselectionforumclauseinaninternationalagreementshouldbeenforcedunlessEnforcementwouldbeunreasonableandunjustorTheclausewasinvalidforreasonsoffraudoroverreaching.3-28ImmunitiesofStatesFromtheJurisdictionofMunicipalCourtsSovereignstatesareimmunefromthejurisdictionofforeigncourtswhentheyengageinactivitiesthatareuniquetosovereignsandwheretheyactofficiallywithintheirownterritory.Thedoctrineofsovereignimmunitysaysthatdomesticcourtsmustdeclinetohearcasesagainstforeignsovereigns.Absolutesovereignimmunityhasgivenwaytorestrictivesovereignimmunitywherebyaforeignstateisnotimmunewhenthecauseofactionforasuitisbasedonconductunrelatedtothestate’sgovernmentalactivities(mercialactivities).3-29Case3-5

Abbottv.RepublicofSouthAfricaPlaintiff,aforeignnational,workedattheembassyofSouthAfricaasabilingualsecretary.SuedinSpanishcourtafterherdismissalandwonjudgment.Triedtocollectjudgmentbyexecutingagainstbankaccountsheldbytheembassy.Held:ViennaConventiononDiplomaticRelationsprovidesimmunityforforeignstatepropertyusedforgovernmentalactivities.3-30ActofStateDoctrineDoctrinethatrestrainsmunicipalcourtsfromexercisingjurisdictionoverforeignstates.Theactofagovernmentwithintheboundariesofitsownterritoryisnotsubjecttoscrutinyinaforeigncourt.Amunicipalcourtwillnothearadisputebasedonsuchactsiftodosowouldinterferewiththeforumstate’sforeignpolicy.TheUSimplementsthisrulebaseduponthegeneralsystemofseparationofpowers.U.S.Constitution(PublicdomainphotofromNat.Archives)3-31Case3-6

Int.Assoc.ofMachinistsv.OPECIAMsuedOPECforanti-trustviolationsarisingoutofOPEC’sprice-settingactivities.3-32Case3-6

IAMv.OPEC(cont.)IAMallegeddeliberateprice-fixingandsoughtinjunctiverelief.TheOPECcountriesrefusedtorecognizethecourt’sjurisdiction.ThecourtreliedupontheactofstatedoctrineasstatedinUnderhillv.Hernandez,168U.S.250(1897):EverysovereignStateisboundtorespecttheindependenceofeveryothersovereignState,andthecourtsofonecountrywillnotsitinjudgmentontheactsofthegovernmentofanotherdonewithinitsownterritory.Despitecommercialactivity,thecourtrefusedtoenterthedelicateareaofforeignrelationsanddismissedtheaction.3-33ChoosingtheGoverningLawPrivaterightsacquiredunderthelawsofforeignstateswillberespectedandenforcedinourcourts.Indecidingwhichlawstoapplytoadispute,acourtwillfollowchoiceoflawrulestodetermineiftheyshouldapplytheirownlaworthelawofanotherstate.3-34ChoosingtheGoverningLawChoiceoflawisatwo-stepprocedure:Ifthepartiesagreetoapplicationofthelawsofacertainstate,thatlawwillapply.Ifnoagreementonchoiceoflaw,thecourtwill:FollowstatutorydictatesDeterminewhichstatehasthemostsignificantrelationshipwiththedispute,orSeewhichstatehasthegreatestinterestinthee.3-35ChoosingtheGoverningLaw:

AgreementofthePartiesByusingachoiceoflawclauseinanagreement,thepartiesagreeinadvanceastowhatlawshouldapplytoanydisputethatarises.Partiesmayagreebytheirstatementstoacourtorbystatingtheirpositioninpleadings.Onrareoccasions,courtswillinfertheintentionofthepartiesastochoiceoflawbasedupontheiractions.Courtwillmostalwaysskipoverthisoptionandlooktostatutoryprovisions.3-36ChoosingtheGoverningLaw:

StatutoryChoiceofLawProvisionsIfthereisnoagreementbytheparties,thecourtwillapplythelawofthestatewheretherightsofthepartiestothesuitbecamelegallyeffectiveunderthevestedrightsdoctrine.Todeterminewheretherightsvest,thecourtneedonlylooktoastatute(e.g.,contractrightsvestwherethecontractwasenteredinto).Forsuitsinvolvingdelicts(privatewrongsorinjuries)ortorts,thegoverninglawistheplacewherethewrongwascommitted.3-37ChoosingtheGoverningLaw:

MostSignificantRelationshipThemajorityofcivillawstatesdonotfollowtherigidvestedrightsdoctrinebuthaveoptedforeitherthemostsignificantrelationshipdoctrineorthegovernmentalinterestsdoctrine.Underthelostsignificantrelationshipdoctrine,thecourtwillapplythelawofthestatethathasthemostcontactwiththeparties.3-38ChoosingtheGoverningLaw:

MostSignificantRelationshipCourtswillconsiderthefollowinggeneralfactorsinallcaseswhenseekingtoapplythemostsignificantrelationshipdoctrine:Whichstate’slawbestpromotestheneedsoftheinternationalsystem?Whichstate’slawwillbefurtheredthemostbyapplyingittothecaseathand?Whichstate’slawwillbestpromotetheunderlyingpoliciesofthelegalsubjectmatterareainvolved?3-39ChoosingtheGoverningLaw:

MostSignificantRelationshipCourtwillalsoconsiderspecificfactorsdependinguponthetypeofcase.Fortortcases,thespecificfactorsare:PlaceofinjuryPlaceoftheactNationality,domicile,residenceofthepartiesPlacewhererelationshipbetweenpartieswascentered3-40ChoosingtheGoverningLaw:

MostSignificantRelationshipForpersonpropertycases,thespecificfactorsare:ThelocationofthepropertyandThenationality,domicile,residence,orplaceofincorporationoftheparties.Forrealpropertycases:Locationoftheproperty3-41ChoosingtheGoverningLaw:

MostSignificantRelationshipThespecificfactorsincontractcasesare:Theplaceofcontracting,Theplaceofnegotiation,Theplaceofperformance,Thelocationofthesubjectmatter,andThenationality,domicile,residence,orplaceofincorporationoftheparties.ThemostsignificantrelationshipdoctrineisillustratedinCase3-7.CONTRACTTOSELL

KNOWALLMENBYTHESEPRESENTS:

ThisCONTRACTTOSELL,madeandexecutedthis____dayof_________,2008byandbetween:

(NAMEOFSELLER/VENDOR),oflegalage,single/marriedto

(Nameof

3-42Case3-7

BankofIndiav.NaraindasSadhwaniIssuewaswhetherBankofIndiasuitagainstguarantors(residentsofHongKong)whoowned60%ofJapanesecompanythatreceivedfundsshouldberesolvedusingIndian,British,orJapaneselaw.3-43Case3-7

BankofIndiav.NaraindasSadhwaniUnderthree-prongtest,whentheintentionofthepartiestoacontractwithregardtothelawgoverningitisnotexpressandcannotbeinferredfromthecircumstances,thecontractisgovernedbythesystemoflawwithwhichthetransactionhasitsclosestandmostrealconnection.ThesystemoflawwiththeclosestconnectionwasJapanbecauseofseveralfactors:placeofperformanceresidenceoftwoguarantors(Japan)moneywasusedforJapaneseoperationsSinceJapaneselawexcusedtheguarantor,thecasewasdismissed.3-44RefusaltoExerciseJurisdictionAmunicipalcourtwillrefusetohearadisputewhenitcanbebetterormoreconvenientlyheardinaforeigncourt.Thedoctrineusedbycommonlawcourtstorefusejurisdictioniscalledforumnonconveniens.Plaintiffscannotresistforumnonconveniensonthebasisofunfavorablesubstantivelawinalternativeforums.Issuesarisewhentheconvenientforumisseenascorruptorgrosslyinefficient.3-45Case3-8

Gonzalezv.ChryslerMexicannational’ssonkilledwhenairbagdeployed.PlaintifffiledsuitinTexas.Thecourtconsideredthefollowingfactsaspartofitsforumnonconveniensanalysis:NeithercarnorairbagweredesignedormanufacturedinTexas.AccidenttookplaceinMexico.AccidentinvolvedMexicancitizens.WitnesseswereallMexicancitizens.CarwaspurchasedinMexico.3-46Case3-8

Gonzalezv.ChryslerIssue:WhetherthelimitationimposedbyMexicanlawontheawardofdamages(only$2,500forachild)ren