Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
3shallWestTankerswww.fulbright.comApril2011ReactionstotheProposalandItsImplicationsConclusionpartynominatesanarbitratororrequeststhesupportofanarbitralinstitutionauthorityoracourttoconstitutethetribunal.ProposedArticle333.Article29alsoallowsacourtofaMemberStatetodeclinejurisdictioninthecircumstancesdescribedaboveifthenationallawofthatMemberStatesoprescribes.FurtherinwhatappearstoaddressthepotentialproblemofincompatibilitywiththeNewYorkConventionArticle29statesthatwheretheexistencevalidityoreffectsofthearbitrationagreementareestablishedthecourtseiseddeclinejurisdiction.ProposedArticle294emphasisadded.AswithpriorrecommendationsforreformreactionstotheProposalsurfacedquickly.ForsometheProposalisamuchneededxtotheproblemofparallelarbitrationandlitigationaspresentedin.Howeverothersworrythatfrivolousclaimsallegingtheexistenceofanarbitrationagreementmayderaillegitimatecourtproceedings.ToillustrateassumeanaggrievedclaimantfilesalawsuitincourtinEUMemberStateA.IfthedefendantbringsacourtclaiminEUMemberStateBallegingthattheseatofarbitrationunderanarbitrationagreementisStateBandthatthemattershouldbesubmittedtoarbitrationunderproposedArticle294thecourtinStateAshallstayproceedings.IftheproceedingbroughtinStateBisfrivolouslegitimatecourtproceedingsinStateAcouldneverthelessbeinterrupted.DespitetheforgoingissueArticle294spermissiveprovisionregardingacourtsabilitytodeclinejurisdictionasopposedtostayproceedingshasbeenwelcomedbycommentators.IncertainEuropeancountriessuchasFrancecourtssometimesdeclinejurisdictionwhentheexistenceofanarbitrationagreementiscontestedeitherbeforeanarbitraltribunalorbeforeapriorcourt.TheProposaldoesnotalterthisapproachwhichhasbeenadoptedbymanyasthecorrectone.MoregenerallytiminghasproventobeanissueforresolvingjurisdictionalquestionsundertheRegulation.ForexampletheproposedArticle333providesthatatribunalisdeemedtobeseisedofamatterwhenapartyhasnominatedanarbitratororwhenithasrequestedthesupportofanarbitralinstitutionorcourttoconstitutethetribunal.Thismaynotentirelyresolvethequestionoftimingifforexamplethenominatedarbitratorischallengedanddoesnotultimatelybecomeamemberofthetribunal.Inthatcaseitwouldbedifficulttomaintainthatwhenthechallengedarbitratorwasinitiallynominatedthetribunalwasseisedofthematter.Thismayalsoimpactthewaycourtstreatproceedingsbroughtintheinterimi.e.betweenthetimethearbitratorisinitiallynominatedandwhenthechallengeisupheld.DespitedisagreementamonginternationalarbitrationexpertsonhowtoclarifyorreformtheRegulationsinteractionwitharbitrationthereisconsensusthatthestatusquoisinsufcient.ThusevenwithitsshortcomingstheProposalhasgenerallybeenreceivedasaworthwhileundertaking.TheadoptionofformalrevisionstotheRegulationisstilllikelyyearsawayastheprocessmovesforwardwithinthevariousEUbodies.InthemeantimeinputfromstakeholderswilllikelycontinuetoshapethinkingontheProposalandtohelpaddressitsgaps.q