Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Administrative arbitration award"

Recent legislative amendments regarding an arbitration agreement incorporated into the agreement of accession have contributed to the formation of the concept in the Russian doctrine giving additional argumentation in favor of qualifying clauses envisaging the consideration of domain disputes under the UDRP as arbitration agreements. Taking into account a number of procedural and legal consequences determined by both the fact of the conclusion of the arbitration agreement and the fact of the award, the author raises the question of the nature of clauses providing for the consideration of disputes under the UDRP procedure. The study of the main properties and characteristics of the clauses under consideration leads to the conclusion that the balance between public law and private law foundations defined in the doctrine inherent to the arbitral agreement, does not meet the nature of the dispute resolution clauses under the UDRP (the impossibility for the domain name holder to refuse from the clause; the absence of the derogatory effect of the clause, etc.). Accordingly, enforceability of this clause cannot be determined under the provisions of the Federal Law on Arbitrazh [Arbitration] of 2015 and the Law of the Russian Federation on International Commercial Arbitration of 1993, providing the conclusion of the arbitration agreement, which, for example, include the principle of effective interpretation of an arbitration agreement that does not exclude in a number of cases the competence of the arbitral tribunal in the absence of the agreement signed by the parties. In this regard, the author questions the argumentation in favor of unenforceability of the clause under consideration based on the named laws.The study of certain principles of dispute resolution proceedings under the UDRP (limited list of remedies; resolution of the dispute in the form of oral hearings only on the initiative of an administrative commission; the unduly short period of time provided for both response to the claim and going to a competent court; the disparity of the dispute resolution clause, etc.) allows the author to conclude that, in some cases, such a clause is burdensome for the owner of the domain name due to the violation of the principles of legality and independence in the establishment and formation of a specific administrative commission.

ABSTRACT: With the reform of the current arbitration act, Spain tries to unify the criteria of the case law in all kind of questions related to arbitration, concentrating the competence in the High Courts of the Autonomous Regions, remaining the first instance courts the only competent for the enforcement of arbitral awards. The corporate arbitration for the solution of disputes in the so called "sociedades de capital" and with its shareholders is expressively ruled. It is no longer necessary that in arbitration proceedings according to law, the arbitrator is a lawyer admitted to a bar, being sufficient to be jurist. The previous activity as mediator is not compatible with the arbitrator. The arbitral award always need to have a motivation, not being possible another agreement between the parties. In case of an institutional arbitration procedure, the institution has to procure for the capacity and the independency of the arbitrator, who also has to contract an insurance police. The non-compliance with the six months period for rendering the award, which is maintained, does not affect neither the validity of the arbitration clause nor the award. In case of an insolvency procedure, in principle the arbitration commitment is maintained. Finally, the law provides for a mechanism for the resolution of disputes between the General Administration of the State and its different entities.

Abstract This article critically interrogates the experience of African States within the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) system through an analysis of certain procedural issues. Such issues cover a very wide terrain of different issues during the arbitration process, excepting the determination of the substantive rights and obligations of the disputants. The primary focus of this article is on issues relating to the constitution of tribunals and applications for the disqualification of arbitrators by African States as parties to disputes under the ICSID regime. Finally, it briefly mentions post-award actions within the ICSID regime, in which African States have also been active. It concludes that the engagement of African States within the ICSID regime will increase with the growth of cross-border intra-African investment activities. This will also lead to an increase in the participation of African lawyers in the ICSID system. This will be achieved through their appointment as counsel, arbitrators, conciliators and experts—not just by the Chairman of the ICSID Administrative Council but also by these African parties. Finally, this increased participation of African parties and States will continue to contribute to the development of the ICSID jurisprudence and its influence on the development of international investment law.

This text contains a general, althought synthetic, analysis on the administrative arbitration law, in Portugal. It begins with a reference to the appearance of administrative arbitration law in Portugal, followed by an analysis of the “arbitrable” administrative disputes and the challenging and enforcement of the arbitral awards. Finally, it focus the publicity of arbitral awards.

The introduction of compulsory arbitration in New South Wales in 1901 did not lead to increased union membership levels among building and construction industry workers. The administration of the Act proved largely unworkable and delivered positive results to building employers rather than unionists. Instead, the recovery of unionism in this sector after the 1890s depression was due to a range of economic and other institutional factors, including the positive stimulus provided by the Public Works administration of E. W. O'Sullivan. The introduction of a revamped arbitration framework in 1908 probably did contribute to the strong growth in union membership in succeeding years, given the greater accessibility to awards it provided. Still, much of this encouragement was at best indirect. Here again, though, other factors— economic, industrial relations and political—were probably at least as important. Among these were a sustained building boom, the changed structure of the industry's workforce, the increasing scale of projects and a growing worker dissatisfaction with arbitration's meagre fruits.

The Egyptian Arbitration Law No. 27/1994 (the ‘Egyptian Arbitration Law’) was enacted without delineating the subject of arbitrability of administrative contracts. This was one of the hottest pre-existing debates preceding the promulgation of the Egyptian Arbitration Law, yet the latter has succinctly mentioned that arbitration is valid between public and private entities. The Legislature did not find such wording sufficient to settle this debate and decided in 1997 to introduce a specific amendment elaborating this issue. The 1997 amendment might have settled the arbitrability of administrative contracts debate, however, it initiated another debate when it required that arbitration agreements under administrative contracts be approved by the competent minister. Until now, there are some unsettled issues concerning this ministerial approval requirement. For instance, which party is liable to procure such ministerial approval: the administrative authority or its private counterparty? Could this ministerial approval be implied? For example, what if the competent minister has attended the contract signing ceremony, would that be enough? Another recurring question is whether such a ministerial approval pertains to public policy or not. This article tries to answer these questions in light of the recent decisions rendered by the Egyptian courts and arbitral tribunals. Ministerial Approval Requirement, Administrative Contracts, State Contracts, Egyptian Arbitration, Public Policy, Annulment of Arbitral Awards, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Implied Consent, ex officio, Egyptian State Council

The effort to attract commercial arbitration to the Permanent Court of Arbitration [hereinafter PCA] in 1962 by introducing the Rules of Arbitration and Conciliation for Settlement of International Disputes between Two Parties of Which only One is a State [hereinafter the 1962 Rules], has met with little success. In other articles of this issue of the Leiden Journal of International Law the reasons for this failure are discussed. These articles also contain suggestions on how changes in the legal framework and the administration of the PCA may improve this situation.

The implementation of the arbitral award is the final stage of the arbitration process, which is the substance of the arbitration agreement, since the control is based on the principle of the authority of the administration and as it is the focus of this research, the arbitration judgment, as well as the implementation of the arbitral award, will be discussed in addition to the terms of the enforceable judgment, as well as judicial control over the execution of the award to reach the result that the legislator was not successful in organizing methods of appeal by arbitration. The Jordanian legislator adopted the broad concept of executive bonds and then not limited to judgments and decisions, but included official and ordinary bonds and tradable commercial papers. The executive bonds are the documents specified in the law of enforcement or any other law and are the reason for establishing the right to implement execution and Article 6 of the Jordanian Enforcement Law referred to this. In addition, the Jordanian Arbitration Law No. 31 of 2001 approved the implementation of the arbitrators' judgments if the court ruled to uphold these provisions. The focus of our study was to implement the arbitral award as an executive bond and for its specificity as a judgment issued by natural persons with no jurisdiction. Only derive their task from the will of individuals. The parties to the dispute, but the reality that made the arbitration at the present time of the features that make it more acceptable by individuals to settle their disputes from resorting to the jurisdiction of the state, and respect for the legislator and his quest for stability and security made those decisions executive bonds under certain conditions are implemented through them. It is on this basis that this study is divided into sessions and we will address the concept of arbitral award. Then the implementation of the arbitration award and then we will discuss the terms of the arbitral award and enforceable judicial control over it and then move to the conclusion and its recommendations.

The arbitrability of anti-competition disputes in the Philippines remains to be tested. It is since the Philippine Competition Act is relatively at its infancy, and cases are yet to be brought before the courts. This area entails much complexity considering that competition disputes are by nature imbued with public policy concerns, a mandatory exception for arbitration. This paper aims to examine the arbitrability of competition disputes under the Philippine domestic arbitration regime. After conducting an examination of cases and literature both in the Philippines and abroad, the paper argues that the Philippines may consider the US and French positions as to the arbitrability of competition disputes despite the presence of various public policy concerns. The public policy issues should only be taken into consideration when an arbitral award is brought before judicial bodies for recognition and enforcement and should not bar domestic arbitral bodies from taking cognizance of these disputes. It is to accommodate the state policy regarding alternative means of settling disputes such as arbitration in rendering speedy administration of justice. Whenever an award is granted, the same will be subject to court's intervention for recognition with due respect to the public policy concerns. In so doing, arbitration is being promoted without sacrificing the competition law policy of the Philippines.

The administration of Justice in Italy has raised difficult problems, due to the high number of judicial proceedings pending before judges. Usually it takes three years for the first degree, other three years for the appeal, two years for the Cassation. Among other devices, the Minister of Justice has improved any kind of ADR. Arbitration is the most important because is a (private) proceeding equaled to a judicial one (see Order of Cassation, October 25,2013,n. 24153). The Minister has created a Commission for studying and proposing means of expansion of ADR in order to reduce the charge of judges. Mediation, conciliation, settlement agreements (particularly in family matters) are already very frequent, but the situation should be improved. The proposals suggested to the Minister (and to the Parliament) by the Commission concerning arbitration were: introducing arbitration in labor litigation; possibility of immediate appeal before the Court of Cassation on the grounds of invalidity of the award; including into the Code of Civil Procedure the rules concerning arbitration for disputes between shareholders; extending arbitration for settlement of disputes between private subjects and public Administration are only some of the devices for reaching a speed and technically reliable solution of the conflicts.

Today we live in a world where international trade accounts for a significant proportion of the daily trade for an enormous number of companies and institutions. The number of international commercial deals that are made every day is countless. The sheer scale of international trade invariably results in an increase in the number of disputes between international partners. However, where there are problems, methods to resolve the disagreements will invariably appear. One of the main and mostly preferred methods is arbitration. Arbitration is preferred for it is convenient and cost-effective method to resolve disputes between business partners. Saudi Arabia has recently reformed its Arbitration Regulations through the implementation of new regulations in 2012. This replaces previous regulations dating from 1983 and the implementation rules of 1985. This thesis examines, analyses and criticises these regulations and compare them to the English and the Scottish arbitration laws. Throughout this study, the old Saudi regulations and implementation rules are examined in order to determine how the rule of arbitration worked in the country. Following this, the new regulations are presented to see what has changed and if there has been any improvement. This is subsequently followed by a discussion on the scale of the improvement and whether further improvements are required in Saudi Arabia. This thesis will also carry out a comparison with the English Act of 1996 and the Arbitration Scotland Act of 2010. The conclusion address and highlight the main differences between the regulations, when present and highlights what the Saudi legislator can benefit from the laws under consideration. One of the main aims of this study was to find if the Saudi Arbitration Regulations have improved and addressed the issues that concerned researchers and commentators in the past. The research finds that there are significant improvements in the Saudi regulations.

Il a été longuement discuté de savoir si le système d'arbitrage est applicable pour régler les litiges administratifs qui concernent certains contrats administratifs ou d’autres sans rapport avec le contrat administratif. Dans cette thèse, les trois questions spécifiques sont analysées tour à tour : (1) Est-il possible pour un arbitre ou un tribunal arbitral de trancher des questions relevant du droit administratif? (2) Y a-t-il, ou devrait-il y avoir, des limitations à l'autorité des arbitres et des tribunaux arbitraux? (3) Enfin, après la délivrance d'une sentence arbitrale, quel rôle devrait jouer l'État dans la phase de contrôle judiciaire? La première question concerne l'arbitrabilité et a été discutée dans la première partie (FIRST PART: ARBITRABILITY). La deuxième question a été discutée dans la deuxième partie (SECOND PART: PARTICULAR QUESTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS IN ARBITRATION PROCEDURE). Enfin, sur la dernière question a fait l’objet d’une troisième partie (THIRD PART: JUDICIAL REVIEW AND EXECUTION OF ARBITRATION AWARD). Dans cette thèse, nous avons comparé les systèmes de quatre pays (Canada, Chine, France, Taïwan). En conclusion, nous pouvons donc conclure que l’évolution de la conception du contrat administratif implique de nombreux aspects, y compris les aspects juridiques, économiques, politiques et même culturels. Le développement de la fonction de contentieux administratif, comme ‘’subjectivement orienté" ou "objectivement orienté" aura une incidence sur l'acceptation de l'arbitrage en matière administrative. Dans l'ensemble, l'arbitrage sera plus acceptable dans les systèmes dont la fonction est plus ‘’subjectivement orientée" que dans ceux dont la fonction est "objectivement orientée"
While arbitration has traditionally been considered as a means to resolve private disputes, its role in disputes involving administrative contracts is a crucial question in administrative law. In brief, the three specific questions are (1) Can arbitrators or arbitral tribunals decide issues involving administrative law? and (2) Is there, or should there be, any limitation on the authority of arbitrators or arbitral tribunals? (3) Moreover, after the issue of an arbitration award, what role should the State play in the judicial review phase? The first question, the issue of arbitrability, is discussed in part 1 (FIRST PART: ARBITRABILITY). The second question will be discussed in part2 (SECOND PART: PARTICULAR QUESTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS IN ARBITRATION PROCEDURE). Finally, on the question of what happens after the arbitration award, we will discuss judicial review in part 3 (THIRD PART: JUDICIAL REVIEW AND EXECUTION OF ARBITRATION AWARD). We compare legal systems between the four countries: in France, in Canada, in China and in Taiwan. We believe that an administrative contract, at least in its function and conception, is gradually becoming different from a private contract. Innovation with respect to administrative contracts will also reflect the concentration and function of the administrative litigation systems in each country. In addition, the “objective” or “subjective” function of administrative litigation will also affect the degree of arbitrability, as well as arbitration procedures. Taken together, arbitration will be more acceptable in systems whose function is more “subjectively oriented” than in those whose function is “objectively oriented". Finally, “the arbitration of administrative matters” traditionally has been an important question in administrative and arbitration law. In the future, we will continue to see it shine in the doctrine and jurisprudence of both the administrative and arbitration law fields

South Africa’s employment law has undergone more frequent and dynamic changes than any area of the law, in recent years. The ability of employers and employees to regulate their respective rights and duties vis-à-vis each other by independent agreement has been progressively whittled down by statutory intervention. In so limiting the capacity of parties to the employment relationship to regulate the nature of their relationship, South Africa has followed development in Western industrialised nations. Against this background, the drafters of the Labour Relations Act1 (LRA), as amended, proposed a comprehensive framework of law governing the collective relations between employers and trade unions in all sectors of the economy. The LRA2 created a specialised set of forums and tribunals to deal with labour and employment related matters. It established Bargaining Councils, the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), the Labour Court (LC) and the Labour Appeal Court (LAC). It also created procedures designed to accomplish the objective of simple, inexpensive and accessible resolution of labour disputes. In redesigning labour law, the legislature decided that some disputes between employers and employees should be dealt with by arbitrators and others by judges. It is this distinction that resulted in the creation of the CCMA and the Labour Court to perform arbitration and adjudication respectively. The result of adjudication is generally subject to appeal to a higher court. The result of arbitration is generally subject to review. Arbitration was given statutory recognition in South Africa by the Arbitration Act3. That Act provides a framework within which parties in dispute may if they wish appoint their own “judge” and supply him or her with their terms of reference tailored to their needs. With the foregoing in mind, the purpose of this work is the provision of a selection of landmark cases that dealt with the review function of CCMA awards. This selection 1 Act 66 of 1995 as amended comprises of landmark judgments of the different courts of the land. The study uses, as it departure point, legislative framework to elicit the extent to which review is extended to the litigants. Apart from looking at the legislative provisions towards review grounds, reference is made to specific landmark judgments that have an effect on this subject in order to provide a comprehensive and explicit picture of how CCMA arbitration awards may be taken on review. This study focuses on substantive law developed by the Labour Court, High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and finally the Constitutional Court. This is informed by the very nature and scope of the study because any concentration on procedural and evidentiary aspects of review could lead to failure to achieve the objectives of the study. It looks at specific South African case law, judgments of the courts and the jurisprudence in the field of employment law so that the reader is presented with a clearer picture of recent developments in addressing review of arbitration awards. The concluding remarks are drawn from a variety of approaches used by the authorities in the field of employment law in dealing with review of CCMA arbitration awards and issues for further research are highlighted.

Following the Aramco arbitration in 1963, Saudi Arabia’s approach to international arbitration resulted in a reputation for being an arbitration unfriendly country. This was addressed to some extent by the Arbitration Law of 1983. However, arbitration under the 1983 law remained dependent on the approval of the national courts. With too much scope for judicial intervention, the legal framework undermined the final and binding nature of the award, constrained party autonomy and created inefficient delays. In 2012, a new Law of Arbitration was passed to replace the 1983 law with a legal framework intending to meet the needs of international commercial parties. The question addressed by this thesis is whether the Arbitration Law of 2012 (SAL 2012) succeeds in creating a legal framework that is consistent with the three core principles that provide the foundations for modern international commercial arbitration. These core principles of party autonomy, procedural justice and cost-effectiveness were used as normative tools for assessing the provisions of the SAL 2012, which were based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. Relying on those principles, the SAL 2012 was subjected to a comparative legal analysis, using the Model Law and the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 as comparators. Although hampered by a lack of available case law involving the SAL 2012, the analysis concluded that the SAL 2012 is a very significant development, providing a legal framework that facilitates arbitration, encourages a pro-arbitration culture and achieves a balance between the three core principles that should meet the needs of international commercial parties. Despite this, the law could be further reformed to make Saudi Arabia even more attractive as a location for arbitration. While acknowledging that future reform should be guided by empirical research on arbitration in Saudi Arabia, proposals were made for the further development of a pro-arbitration legal framework.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2018-06-04T12:33:35Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Felipe Faiwichow Estefam.pdf: 2310697 bytes, checksum: 3f61fa6a85f2fe50b39853c4fe70aea5 (MD5)
Made available in DSpace on 2018-06-04T12:33:35Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Felipe Faiwichow Estefam.pdf: 2310697 bytes, checksum: 3f61fa6a85f2fe50b39853c4fe70aea5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-02-27
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES
This thesis deals with arbitration, as a method of dispute resolution between the Public Administration and private parties. The research question is: what are the mandatory provisions of the arbitration clause agreed between the Administration and a private party, in view of the legal-administrative regime? The text is divided into four chapters. The first chapter examines the use of arbitration by the Administration in the context of state reform, whereby the application of private methods of dispute resolution became meaningful in the public sphere. This chapter also copes with investigating the evolution of arbitration in the Brazilian legal system and jurisprudence. In addition, the chapter studies the conformation of arbitration in the Administrative Law scenario. The second chapter ventures into the study of the peculiarities of arbitration involving the Administration, bringing the main legal provisions that condition the use of the arbitration. The third chapter, in its turn, addresses objective arbitrability, dealing with some contributions of foreign law; about the criteria for the definition of ‘rights that may be disposed’; regarding arbitrability in the context of government contracts and on the content of the arbitration clause in light of arbitrability. In this chapter, a specific legal principle, regarding the content of the arbitration clause, is constructed. In the fourth chapter, the investigation analyzes how the arbitration clause must be structured, in view of the peculiar provisions of the legal-administrative regime and of the principle built by this thesis. The fourth chapter also promotes a practical investigation of arbitration clauses used in government contracts already concluded. Finally, the research question is answered in the conclusion
Esta tese versa sobre a arbitragem, como método de resolução de controvérsias entre a Administração Pública e o particular. A questão central de investigação (research question) é: quais são os preceitos obrigatórios da cláusula arbitral firmada pela Administração e o particular, em vista do regime jurídico-administrativo? O texto é dividido em quatro capítulos. No primeiro capítulo, averígua-se que o uso da arbitragem pela Administração insere-se no contexto de reforma do Estado, pelo qual a aplicação de métodos privados de resolução de controvérsias passou a fazer sentido na esfera pública. Este capítulo também se ocupa de investigar a evolução da arbitragem no ordenamento jurídico e na jurisprudência brasileiros. Ainda, o capítulo estuda a conformação da arbitragem no cenário do Direito Administrativo. O segundo capítulo incursiona no estudo das peculiaridades da arbitragem envolvendo a Administração, trazendo as principais disposições jurídicas que condicionam o uso do instituto. O terceiro capítulo, por sua vez, aborda a arbitrabilidade objetiva, tratando sobre alguns contributos do direito estrangeiro; acerca dos critérios para a definição da disponibilidade; a respeito da arbitrabilidade no contexto dos contratos administrativos e sobre o conteúdo da cláusula arbitral em face da arbitrabilidade. Neste capítulo, constrói-se um princípio jurídico específico a respeito do conteúdo da cláusula arbitral. No capítulo quarto, a investigação analisa como a cláusula arbitral deve ser estruturada, em vista dos preceitos peculiares do regime jurídico-administrativo e do princípio construído por esta tese. O capítulo quarto promove, outrossim, uma investigação prática a respeito de cláusulas arbitrais já usadas em contratos administrativo. Finalmente, responde-se à pergunta inicialmente realizada, apresentando-se uma conclusão

La thèse porte sur « L’exécution des sentences arbitrales contre les personnes publiques de l’OHADA ». Elle a pour but de démontrer comment mettre en œuvre ces sentences sans se heurter à l’immunité d’exécution des personnes qui en bénéficient. En effet, en l’absence d’une exception arbitrale, l’interdiction de l’exécution forcée et des mesures conservatoires à l’encontre de ces personnes semble s’étendre à l’exécution forcée des sentences arbitrales contre les personnes publiques de l’OHADA. Or, comme ces dernières, l’immunité d’exécution a également un fondement contractuel ; c’est une règle d’ordre public de protection à laquelle le bénéficiaire peut renoncer. Donc, son application ne serait requise que si son bénéficiaire n’y a pas renoncé. Mais, pour être valable, la renonciation à l’immunité d’exécution doit être expresse, au sens du droit international coutumier, dont fait partie la Convention des Nations Unies sur l’immunité juridictionnelle des Etats et de leurs biens du 2 décembre 2004, applicable en droit OHADA, pour raison de droit. Cette condition de validité de la renonciation pose le problème de l’efficacité des contrats soumis aux règles impératives du droit public ou des conventions et règlements d’arbitrage. Alors, faudrait-il envisager la réécriture des modèles habituels de conventions et règlements d’arbitrage pour y intégrer cette condition ? Cette approche garantirait l’effectivité des sentences arbitrales administratives, sur le fondement de la force obligatoire des contrats (Pacta sunt servenda) et de leur exécution de bonne foi. Aussi, pourrait-on renforcer cette renonciation par la mention de biens affectés à l’activité en cause ou à l’exécution de la sentence qui s’ensuivra sans lien avec l’activité qui y a donné lieu. En tout état de cause, l’immunité d’exécution ne s’oppose ni à l’identification des débiteurs des condamnations pécuniaires des personnes publiques, ni à l’exequatur des sentences arbitrales adm inistratives, ni même à l’exécution volontaire ou spontanée desdites sentences. Ainsi, en dépit de sa conception absolue ou stricte, l’immunité d’exécution de l’OHADA a des limites à l’égard des sentences arbitrales administratives
The thesis focuses on " The execution of arbitral awards against public persons of OHADA ". Its purpose is to demonstrate how to implement these sentences without coming up against the immunity from execution of the persons who benefit from them. Indeed, in the absence of an arbitration exception, the prohibition of forced execution and interim measures against these persons seems to extend to the forced execution of arbitral awards against public persons of the OHADA. However, like the latter, immunity from execution also has a contractual basis ; it is a rule of public order of protection which the beneficiary can waive. Therefore, its application would only be required if its beneficiary has not waived it. However, to be valid, the waiver of immunity from execution must be express, within the meaning of customary international law, of which the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunity of States and their Property of December 2, 2004 forms part. applicable in OHADA law, for legal reasons. This condition of validity of the waiver poses the problem of the effectiveness of contracts subject to the mandatory rules of public law or arbitration agreements and regulations. So, should we consider rewriting the usual models of arbitration agreements and rules to include this condition ? This approach would guarantee the effectiveness of administrative arbitration awards, based on the binding force of contracts (pacta sunt servenda) and their performance in good faith. Also, this waiver could be reinforced by the mention of property assigned to the activity in question or to the execution of the award which will ensue unrelated to the activity which gave rise to it. In any event, immunity from execution does not preclude either the identification of the debtors of the pecuniary judgments of public persons, nor the exequatur of administrative arbitration awards, nor even the voluntary or spontaneous execution of the said sentences. T hus, despite its absolute or strict design, OHADA immunity from execution has limits with respect to administrative arbitral awards

Le développement des modes alternatifs de règlement des différends dans les contrats administratifs est une nécessité. En effet, l’encombrement des juridictions administratives, conjugué au besoin d’un règlement des différends plus consensuel et apaisé, plaide en faveur de l’émergence d’une justice alternative. Néanmoins, l’ordre public encadrant l’activité des personnes publiques, et protégé par des normes impératives, impose que le développement des modes alternatifs soit régulé. À ce titre, l’étude du droit positif démontre que ce phénomène n’est pas inconnu dans le règlement des différends intéressant les contrats administratifs. Par exemple, les parties à un différend peuvent déjà librement recourir aux modes amiables (médiation, conciliation ou transaction), et quelques dérogations au principe d’interdiction faite aux personnes publiques de recourir à l’arbitrage sont prévues. Cela étant, les lacunes et les défaillances du régime actuel des modes alternatifs dans les contrats administratifs (absence de véritable statut du médiateur, défaut d’encadrement de la conciliation inter partes, complexité de la notion de concessions réciproques ou, encore, difficulté pour le juge administratif d’asseoir sa compétence en matière d’arbitrage international...) complexifient leur compréhension et leur mise en œuvre et risquent, par suite, d’accroître les violations de l’ordre public. Il est donc nécessaire de proposer un régime pérenne des modes alternatifs permettant d’assurer, d’une part, la protection des normes impératives du droit public et, d’autre part, la liberté des parties dans le choix et la conduite d’une justice alternative. Pour cela, leur futur régime devra autoriser l’arbitrage dans les contrats administratifs et le doter de garanties procédurales prenant en compte sa nature spécifique mais, aussi, certaines caractéristiques inhérentes aux personnes publiques et au droit administratif. De même, les procédures de médiation et de conciliation devront être améliorées afin d’assurer aux parties, un encadrement souple et favorable à la conclusion de transactions équilibrées et sécurisées. Enfin, ce régime devra définitivement consacrer le rôle du juge administratif. À cet effet, ce dernier pourra être amené à assister les parties dans la mise en œuvre des modes alternatifs (création d’un juge administratif d’appui dans l’arbitrage, combinaison des procédures de référé avec les modes amiables...). Le juge administratif devra être aussi chargé du contrôle de conformité de la solution alternative à l’ordre public. Cette attribution de compétence, qui résonne de plus fort en matière d’arbitrage international, est indispensable à la protection de l’intérêt public. Ce n’est qu’à ces conditions, que le développement des modes alternatifs de règlement des différends pourra prendre toute sa place dans les contrats administratifs
The development of alternative dispute resolution in administrative contracts is a necessity. Indeed, the congestion of the administrative courts, combined with the need for a more consensual and calm settlement of disputes, pleads in favour of the emergence of an alternative justice. Nevertheless, the public order governing the activities of public bodies, and protected by imperative norms, requires that the development of alternative methods be regulated. As such, the study of positive law shows that this phenomenon is not unknown in the settlement of disputes concerning administrative contracts. For instance, the parties to a dispute can already freely resort to amicable methods (mediation, conciliation or settlement agreement), and some exceptions to the principle prohibiting public bodies from resorting to arbitration are provided for. However, the voids and shortcomings of the current system of alternative dispute resolution in administrative contracts (lack of proper status of the mediator, paucity of framework for inter partes conciliation, complexity of the concept of reciprocal concessions or, difficulty for the administrative judge to assert its competence in international arbitration...) make its understanding and implementation more complex and more prone to increasing public order violations. It is therefore necessary to propose a sustainable regime of alternative methods to ensure, on the one hand, the protection of peremptory norms of public law and, on the other hand, the freedom of the parties in the choice and conduct of an alternative justice. For that purpose, the future regime will have to authorize arbitration in administrative contracts and endow it with procedural guarantees taking into account its specific nature but also certain characteristics inherent in public entities and administrative law. Furthermore, the mediation and conciliation procedures will have to be improved in order to provide the parties with a flexible framework conducive to the conclusion of balanced and secure settlement agreements. Finally, this regime must definitively establish the role of the administrative judge. To this end, that judge may be called upon to assist the parties in the implementation of alternative methods (creation of an administrative support judge in arbitration, combination of interim reliefs with amicable procedures...). The administrative judge must also be responsible for checking the compliance of the alternative solution to the public order. This attribution of jurisdiction, which is resonates all the more in international arbitration, is fundamental for the protection of the public interest. It is only under these conditions that the development of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can take its place in administrative contracts

Les litigants sollicitent les centres d’arbitrage pour diriger l’arbitrage dans toutes ses phases afin de donner une garantie supplémentaire qui assure la validité de la sentence arbitrale. Compte tenu du rôle important que les centres d’arbitrage jouent pendant l’instance arbitrale, les litigants mécontents de la sentence arbitrale ou du jugement annulant la sentence tentent d’engager la responsabilité du centre d’arbitrage dès lors qu’il a surveillé, dirigé et participé au rendu de la sentence.De plus en plus la responsabilité des centres d’arbitrage est mise en cause devant les juridictions étatiques différentes, les fonctions et les pouvoirs exercés par les centres d’arbitrage ainsi que le régime de responsabilité leur est applicable font l’objet d’une attention critique de la part de la doctrine dans plusieurs systèmes juridiques. On s’interroge sur l’origine des rapports qui lient les centres d’arbitrage aux autres acteurs de l’arbitrage, sur les obligations et les pouvoirs conférés aux centres d’arbitrage, et sur les fonctions exercées par les centres d’arbitrage pour établir enfin un régime de responsabilité homogène et pertinent à l’égard des fonctions exercées par les centres d’arbitrage qui a une vocation à s’appliquer dans la majorité des systèmes juridiques
Parties to arbitration seek arbitral institutions to administrate their arbitration in order to have an extra guarantee that ensures the validity of the arbitral award. Given the role that arbitral institutions play during the arbitral procedure, parties unsatisfied either by the arbitral award or the annulment of the award tend to claim the liability of arbitral institution for the awards it had supervised, administered and participated in.The more the allegations of liability raise against the arbitral institutions before courts, the more the issue of arbitral institutions’ functions, powers and liability becomes controversial in different jurisdictions. Therefore, the present study tends to clarify the origin of the relationship existing between arbitral institutions and other parties involved in the arbitration at issue, the duties and powers assigned to the arbitral institutions and the functions performed by the arbitral intuitions, which helps eventually in establishing a kind of liability that complies with the functions performed by the arbitral institutions and can be applied in many jurisdictions

This chapter discusses the international arbitration rules of the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (‘ICDR’), the international arm of the American Arbitration Association (‘AAA’). It first provides a background on the AAA and the ICDR before analysing the ICDR’s International Dispute Resolution Procedures and the significant revisions to the ICDR Rules. It then offers a commentary on some key Articles of the ICDR Rules and explains how the ICDR Rules differ from those of other arbitral institutions. The comments particularly highlight the 2014 amendments and cover topics such as the scope of the ICDR Rules; joinder and consolidation; appointment of the arbitral tribunal; arbitral jurisdiction; arbitral awards, orders, decisions and rulings; and costs of arbitration. The chapter concludes with an overview of other important AAA/ICDR innovations, rules and practices, including those with regard to international expedited procedures, administrative conferences, appointment and qualifications of the arbitrator, and the arbitral award.