Private International Law and Arbitration

Edited by Jack J. Coe, Jr. and Donald Earl Childress III, Professors of Law, Pepperdine University, School of Law, US

Contents:

Research ReviewJack J. Coe, Jr. and Donald Earl Childress III

PART I THE PROPER FORUM
A. FORUM SHOPPING
1. Friedrich K. Juenger (1989), ‘Forum Shopping, Domestic and International’, Tulane Law Review, 63, 553–74

2. Franco Ferrari (2013), ‘Forum Shopping in the International Commercial Arbitration Context: Setting the Stage’, in Forum Shopping in the International Commercial Arbitration Context, Munich, Germany: Sellier European Law Publishers GmbH, 1–21

B. ALLOCATING ADJUDICATORY ASSIGNMENTS ABSENT AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE
3. Arthur T. von Mehren (1997), ‘The Case for a Convention-mixte Approach to Jurisdiction to Adjudicate and Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments’, Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht – Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law, 61 (1), January, 86–92

4. Friedrich K. Juenger (2001), ‘Traveling to The Hague in a Worn-Out Shoe’, Pepperdine Law Review: International Law Weekend - West Symposium, 29 (1), 7–14

5. Ralf Michaels (2007), ‘Some Fundamental Jurisdictional Conceptions as Applied in Judgment Conventions’, in Eckart Gottschalk, Ralf Michaels, Giesela Rühl and Jan von Hein (eds.) Conflict of Laws in a Globalized World, Section II, Chapter 4, New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 29–62

C. PARTY AUTONOMY – DESIGNATING FORA
6. William W. Park (1995), ‘Illusion and Reality in International Forum Selection’, Texas International Law Journal, 30, 135–204

7. Louise Ellen Teitz (2005), ‘The Hague Choice of Court Convention: Validating Party Autonomy and Providing an Alternative to Arbitration’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 53 (3), Summer, 543–58

D. THE ARBITRATION ALTERNATIVE – FIRST AMONG EQUALS
8. Morris S. Rosenthal (1946), ‘Arbitration in the Settlement of International Trade Disputes’, Law and Contemporary Problems, Special Issue: International Trade Barriers, 11 (4), Summer–Autumn, 808–34

9. Soia Mentschikoff (1952), ‘The Significance of Arbitration – A Preliminary Inquiry’, Law and Contemporary Problems, Special Issue: Commercial Arbitration: Part II, 17 (4), Autumn, 698–710

10. Henry P. deVries (1984), ‘International Commercial Arbitration: A Transnational View’, Journal of International Arbitration, 1 (1), 7–20

11. Gilles Cuniberti (2008), ‘Beyond Contract – The Case for Default Arbitration in International Commercial Disputes’, Fordham International Law Journal, 32 (2), 417–88

12. Gary Born (2014), ‘BITs, BATs and Buts: Reflections on International Dispute Resolution’, Young Arbitration Review, 13, April, 6–14

13. Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (2006), ‘The Role of Arbitration within Today’s Challenges to the World Community and to International Law’, Arbitration International, 22 (2), June, 165–77

PART II GOVERNING LAW AND SOURCES
A. SYSTEMIC FUNDAMENTALS – TRANSNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS
14. F. A. Mann (1967), ‘Lex Facit Arbitrum’, in Pieter Sanders (ed.), International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum for Martin Domke, The Hague, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 157–83

15. William W. Park (1983), ‘The Lex Loci Arbitri and International Commercial Arbitration’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 32 (1), January, 21–52

16. Jan Paulsson (1983), ‘Delocalisation of International Commercial Arbitration: When and Why it Matters’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 32 (1), January, 53–61

17. Julian D. M. Lew (2006), ‘Achieving the Dream: Autonomous Arbitration’, Arbitration International, 22 (2), June, 179–203

18. Emmanuel Gaillard (2012), ‘The Emerging System of International Arbitration: Defining “System”’, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, 106, March, 287–92

B.NATIONAL AND A-NATIONAL RULES OF DECISION IN ARBITRATION
19. Julian D. M. Lew (1997), ‘Determination of Applicable Substantive Law’, International Business Lawyer, 25, April, 157–60

20. Marc Blessing (1997), ‘Choice of Substantive Law in International Arbitration’, Journal of International Arbitration, 14 (2), 39–65

21. George A. Bermann (2010), ‘Mandatory Rules of Law in International Arbitration’, in Franco Ferrari and Stefan Kröll (eds), Conflict of Laws in International Arbitration, Munich, Germany: Sellier European Law Publishers, 325–39

22. Emmanuel Gaillard (2001), ‘Transnational Law: A Legal System or a Method of Decision Making?’, Arbitration International, 17 (1), March, 59–71

23. Friedrich K. Juenger (1995), ‘American Conflicts Scholarship and the New Law Merchant’, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 28, 487–501

24. Lord Justice Mustill (1988), ‘The New Lex Mercatoria: The First Twenty–five Years’, Arbitration International, 4 (2), April, 86–119

25. Andreas F. Lowenfeld (1990), ‘Lex Mercatoria: An Arbitrator’s View’, Arbitration International, 6 (2), June, 133–50

26. Emmanuel Gaillard (1999), ‘Use of General Principles of International Law in International Long-Term Contracts’, International Business Lawyer, 27 (5), May, 214–24

27. Klaus Peter Berger (1997), ‘The Lex Mercatoria Doctrine and the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts’, Law and Policy in International Business, 28 (4), 943–90

28. Ralf Michaels (2014), ‘The UNIDROIT Principles as Global Background Law’, Uniform Law Review, 19 (4), December, 643–68

PART III NATIONAL AND A–NATIONAL PROCEDURAL STRUCTURES IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
A. CONFLICTS OF LEGAL CULTURE AND ARBITRAL FLEXIBILITY
29. Andreas F. Lowenfeld (1985), ‘The Two-Way Mirror: International Arbitration as Comparative Procedure’, Michigan Yearbook of International Legal Studies, 7, 163–185

30. Siegfried H. Elsing and John M. Townsend (2002), ‘Bridging the Common Law-Civil Law Divide in Arbitration’, Arbitration International, 18 (1), March, 59–65

31. William W. Park (2003), ‘The 2002 Freshfields Lecture – Arbitration’s Protean Nature: The Value of Rules and the Risks of Discretion, Arbitration International, 19 (3), September, 279–301

B. STATUTORY CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE
32. Gerold Herrmann (1984), ‘UNCITRAL’s Work Towards a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration’, Pace Law Review: International Commercial Arbitration Issue, 4 (3), Spring, 537–80

33. Pieter Sanders (1995), ‘Unity and Diversity in the Adoption of the Model Law’, Arbitration International, 11 (1), March, 1–37

34. Fabien Gélinas (2013), ‘From Harmonized Legislation to Harmonized Law: Hurdles and Tools, Judicial and Arbitral Perspectives’, in Frédéric Bachand and Fabien Gélinas (eds), The UNCITRAL Model Law after Twenty–Five Years: Global Perspectives on International Commercial Arbitration, Part V, Chapter 13, New York, NY, USA: JurisNet, LLC, 261–75

35. Lord Justice Mustill (1990), ‘A New Arbitration Act for the United Kingdom? The Response of the Departmental Advisory Committee to the UNCITRAL Model Law, Arbitration International, 6 (1), March, 3–62

36. Daniel M. Kolkey (1990), ‘Reflections on the U.S. Statutory Framework for International Commercial Arbitrations: Its Scope, Its Shortcomings, and the Advantages of U.S. Adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law’, American Review of International Arbitration, 1 (4), 491–534


Volume II

Contents:

Introduction An introduction to both volumes by the editors appears in Volume I

PART I ENFORCEMENT AND CONTROL OF AWARDS
A. QUALITY CONTROL BROADLY
1. William W. Park (2001), ‘Why Courts Review Arbitral Awards’, in Robert Briner, L. Yves Fortier, Klaus P. Berger and Jens Bredow (eds), Law of International Business and Dispute Settlement in the 21st Century: Liber Amicorum Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Cologne, Berlin, Bonn and Munich, Germany: Carl Heymanns Verlag, 595–606

2. Linda Silberman and Maxi Scherer (2013), ‘Forum Shopping and Post-Award Judgments’, in Franco Ferrari (ed.), Forum Shopping in the International Commercial Arbitration Context, Munich, Germany: Sellier European Law Publishers GmbH, 313–45

B. INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION’S DUAL SYSTEM
3. Alan Scott Rau (2010), ‘Understanding (and Misunderstanding) “Primary Jurisdiction”’, American Review of International Arbitration, XXI (1–4), 47–188

4. George A. Bermann (2011), ‘The UK Supreme Court Speaks to International Arbitration: Learning from the Dallah Case’, American Review of International Arbitration, XXII (1), 1–20

PART II ARBITRATION INVOLVING STATES
A. THE ARBITRAL FORUM – SOME HISTORIC BENCHMARKS
5. Arthur Nussbaum (1950), ‘The Arbitration between the Lena Goldfields, Ltd. and the Soviet Government’, Cornell Law Quarterly, 36 (1), Fall, 31–53
6. V. V. Veeder (1998), ‘The Lena Goldfields Arbitration: The Historical Roots of Three Ideas’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 47 (4), October, 747–92

7. Robert B. von Mehren and P. Nicholas Kourides (1981), ‘International Arbitrations between States and Foreign Private Parties: The Libyan Nationalization Cases’ American Journal of International Law, 75 (3), July, 476–552


B. GOVERNING LAW WHEN A STATE IS A PARTY
8. F. A. Mann (1960), ‘State Contracts and State Responsibility’, American Journal of International Law, 54 (3), July, 572–91

9. R. Y. Jennings (1961), ‘State Contracts in International Law’, British Yearbook of International Law, 37, 156–82

10. Richard B. Lillich (1994), ‘The Law Governing Disputes under Economic Development Agreements: Reexamining the Concept of “Internationalization’’’, in Richard B. Lillich and Charles N. Brower (eds), International Arbitration in the 21st Century: Towards “Judicialization” and Uniformity?, Chapter IV, Irvington, NY, USA: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 61–114

11. Georges R. Delaume (1989), ‘Comparative Analysis as a Basis of Law in State Contracts: The Myth of the Lex Mercatoria’, Tulane Law Review, 63 (3), February, 575–611

C. DECIDING DISPUTES INVOLVING ONE OR MORE STATE PARTIES
12. Oscar Schachter (1960), ‘The Enforcement of International Judicial and Arbitral Decisions’, American Journal of International Law, 54 (1), January, 1–24

13. Henri C. Alvarez (2004), ‘Setting Aside Additional Facility Awards: The Metalclad Case’, in Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi (eds), International Arbitration Series: Annulment of ICSID Awards: A Joint IAI-ASIL Conference, Washington, D.C. – April 1, 2003, Huntington, NY, USA: Juris Publishing, Inc., 267–88

14. Jack J. Coe, Jr. (2002), ‘Domestic Court Control of Investment Awards: Necessary Evil or Achilles Heel Within NAFTA and the Proposed FTAA?’, Journal of International Arbitration, 19 (3), 185–207

15. Timothy G. Nelson (2010), ‘Annulment of International Arbitration Awards: The Orinoco Steamship Case Sails On’, ASA Bulletin, 28 (2), June, 205–229

16. D. A. Redfern (1987), ‘ICSID – Losing its Appeal?’, Arbitration International, 3 (2), April, 98–118

17. W. Michael Reisman (1989), ‘The Breakdown of the Control Mechanism in ICSID Arbitration’, Duke Law Journal, 4, September, 739–807

18. Aron Broches (1991), ‘Observations on the Finality of ICSID Awards’, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 6 (2), Fall, 321–79

19. W. Michael Reisman (1992), ‘Repairing ICSID’s Control System: Some Comments on Aron Broches’ “Observations on the Finality of ICSID Awards”’, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 7 (1), Spring, 196–211

Index