Mezinárodní a srovnávací právní revue číslo 7/2003

Transkript

1 Mezinárodní a srovnávací právní revue číslo 7/2003 Prof. Dr. Jörg Peter geb Studium: Rechtswissenschaften und (zeitweise) Ökonomie, Stipendiat der Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes, Assessorexamen. Mehrjährige wissenschaftliche Tätigkeiten an den Universitäten Hannover und Göttingen. Mehrjährige praktische Tätigkeiten als Vorstandsassistent bei einem Industriehaftpflichtversicherer und einem Industriehaftpflichtversicherungsmakler. Rechtsvergleichende Arbeiten an den Universitäten Leeds, Lancaster und am British Institute of International and Comparative Law. Professor für Deutsches und Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht an der TFH Wildau, Studiengangsprecher Wirtschaft und Recht. Fächer- und Veröffentlichungsschwerpunkte Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Englisches Recht, insbesondere Zivil- und Wirtschaftsrecht, Handels- und Gesellschaftsrecht, insbesondere Konzernrecht Umweltrecht (insbesondere Umwelthaftung und Umwelthaftpflichtversicherung) Prof. Dr. Jörg Peter nar Studoval práva a ekonomii, získal stipendium nadace Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes, složil druhou státní zkoušku. Víceleté vědecké činnosti se věnoval na univerzitách v Hanoveru a Göttingenu. Několikaletou praxi absolvoval jako asistent ředitele pro oblast pojištění povinného ručení v průmyslu a zároveň pojišťovacího makléře v dané oblasti. Komparativní práce sepsal na univerzitách v Leedsu, Lancastru a na Britském institutu mezinárodního a srovnávacího práva. Je profesorem německého a mezinárodního hospodářského práva na na TFH ve Wildau, obor ekonomie a právo. Obory mezinárodní hospodářské právo, anglické právo, především soukromé právo a hospodářské právo, obchodní právo a právo obchodních společností, zvláště koncernové právo, právo životního prostředí (zejména odpovědnost za škody způsobené na životním prostředí a tomu odpovídající pojištění povinného ručení) 70

2 International and Comparative Law Review No. 7/2003 IV. Foreign Arbitral Awards based on Lex Mercatoria I. Introduction International business contracts of some importance often contain arbitration agreements to solve contractual disputes. The advantages of arbitration are: shorter time of proceedings compared with state courts and arbitrators regularly have deeper insight into commercial matters than state judges. 1 At the beginning of the arbitration one of the most important questions to decide is what substantive law 2 is to be applied to solve the case. 3 This is a question parties already have to think of when concluding the specific contract or the arbitration agreement. To rely on conflict of law rules often leads to unpredictable outcomes. 4 Therefore, the question of choice of law arises. If state law is explicitly chosen, no problem will arise. However, sometimes parties to an international contract will not regard state law as suitable. For example, in contracts between a private company and a governmental entity, no state law is likely to be ideal. The governmental party will resist being subject to another state s law, while the private party will be sceptical about receiving fair treatment under the other state s law, 5 since the latter might comprise specific rules which grant certain legal privileges to governmental entities. Further some national laws are unsuited to international contracts. So, parties could think of choosing globally accepted rules for merchants or leaving the choice to the arbitrators who, then, might invoke such rules. These rules for merchants are often labelled as Lex Mercatoria, which means law merchant. Sometimes they are labelled as New Lex Mercatoria to distinguish See Weigand, Introduction, marginal nos. 12 et. seq. (pp. 8 et seq.), in Weigand (ed.), Practitioner s Handbook on International Arbitration, Substantive law means the law which deals with rights, duties, and all other matters that are not matters purely of procedure. This article deals with this question only. Lex Mercatoria problems can also arise within questions of the validity of the arbitration agreement itself (see Weigand (n. 1 above), marginal nos. 38 et seq. (p. 19)) and in the context of procedural law (cf. Zöller/Geimer, Zivilprozeßordnung, 23 rd ed. 2002, 1061 Rn. (marginal no.) 11), cf. for both Craig/Park/Paulsson, International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration, 3 rd ed (ICC Publication No. 594), (p. 626). Craig/Park/Paulsson (n. 3 above), 8.04 (p. 109). See Rivkin, Enforceability of Arbitral Awards Based on Lex Mercatoria, (1993) 9 Arbitration International

3 Mezinárodní a srovnávací právní revue číslo 7/2003 them from the Medieval Lex Mercatoria. 6 This article deals with the current (global) Lex Mercatoria only. 7 However, the question remains what this really is. 8 II. The possible meanings of Lex Mercatoria Sometimes statutory and non-statutory rules are regarded as being parts of Lex Mercatoria; that is to say public international law, certain uniform laws, general principles of law, rules of international organisations, customs and usages of international trade, standard form contracts 9 and arbitral case law. 10 Sometimes a more narrow view is taken and statutory laws are excluded as sources of Lex Mercatoria. 11 Thus, in this opinion international conventions and uniform laws Cf. Baron, Do the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts form a new lex mercatoria?, 1 et seq. = (1999) 15 Arbitration International 115 et seq. and v. Breitenstein, Rechtsordnung und Lex Mercatoria Zur vergeblichen Suche nach einem anationalen Recht für die internationale Arbitrage, in Berger et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Otto Sandrock zum 70. Geburtstag, 2000, 111 (115). Because of the world-wide approach, this article does not deal with the phenomenon of several Lex Mercatoria, or in other words Leges Mercatoriae. This means that there might be rules and principles common for parts of the trading world only, for example for Europe (accordingly there is a commission of mostly academics compiling and elaborating Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) (see Lando/Beale (eds.), Principles of European Contract Law, 2000)). The existence of Leges Mercatoriae does not necessarily mean that their principles and rules are different to the world-wide Lex Mercatoria. They might be only more detailed (for Leges Mercatoriae cf. Mistelis, Is Harmonisation a Necessary Evil? The Future of Harmonisation and New Sources of International Trade Law, in Fletcher/Mistelis/Cremona (eds.), Foundations and Perspectives of International Trade, 2001, et seq. (pp. 24 et seq.)). However, the latter question, too, is beyond the scope of this article. For a general overview of what could be regarded as Lex Mercatoria see the elaborate study by De Ly, Emerging New Perspectives Regarding Lex Mercatoria in an Era of Increasing Globalization, in Berger et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Otto Sandrock zum 70. Geburtstag, 2000, 179 (181 et seq.) and Craig/Park/Paulsson (n. 3 above), 35 (pp. 623 et seq.). Some concepts are even irreconcilable with each other, see Mustill, The New Lex Mercatoria, in Bos/Brownlie (eds.), Liber Amicorum for Lord Wilberforce, 1987, 149 et seq. (who himself is sceptical about Lex Mercatoria). For example by FOSFA (Federation of Oil Seeds and Fats Association) and GAFTA (The Grain and Feed Trade Association). Examples can be found in Bridge, The International Sale of Goods Law and Practice, 1999, Appendix 1 (FOSFA Contract No. 53), p. 449 and Appendix 2 (GAFTA Contract No. 100), p Berger, International Economic Arbitration, 1993, p. 526; Goldstajn, The New Law Merchant, [1961] JBL (Journal of Business Law) 12 et seq.; Kappus, Conflict Avoidance durch lex mercatoria und UN-Kaufrecht 1980, RIW (Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft) 1990, 788 (790); Lando, The Lex mercatoria and International Commercial Arbitration, (1985) 34 ICLQ (International and Comparative Law Quarterly) 747 (748 et seq.); Rivkin (n. 5 above), 67; Dalhuisen, Dalhuisen on International Commercial, Financial and Trade Law, 2000, p. 99. However, the authors mentioned differ in their opinions, but what they have in common is the reference to statutory and non-statutory sources. A hierarchy of these sources within Lex Mercatoria has been set out by Dalhuisen, pp. 73, 98 et seq. with general principles at the top. Goldman, The Applicable Law: General Principles of Law the lex mercatoria, in Lew (ed.), Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration, 1987, 113 (114); Goode, Usage and its Reception in Transnational Commercial Law, (1997) 46 ICLQ 1 (2). 72

4 International and Comparative Law Review No. 7/2003 cannot be qualified as Lex Mercatoria. Other authors view three concepts of Lex Mercatoria: 12 It could be an autonomous legal order, 13 a comprehensive body of substantive rules sufficient to decide a dispute or a mere usage in international trade. 14 However, the Unidroit 15 Principles of International Commercial Contracts 16 are more or less generally regarded as the nucleus of a modern Lex Mercatoria. 17 According to Unidroit its principles state the law common to civilised states. From a practical point of view it is not necessary to decide what is really covered by the term Lex Mercatoria. Parties do not refer to the term Lex Mercatoria itself, but to principles that can be regarded as parts of Lex Mercatoria. 18 However, even such a reference is very seldom the case. 19 If arbitrators think of choosing Lex Mercatoria, they, too, will regularly think of applying such principles. It is not their job to give an abstract definition of Lex Mercatoria. So, this article focuses on such principles and elements which would be regarded as being parts of Lex Mercatoria in any case Craig/Park/Paulsson (n. 3 above), 35 (pp. 623 et seq.). Craig/Park/Paulsson (n. 3 above), (pp. 626 et seq.). Craig/Park/Paulsson (n. 3 above), 7.04, (pp. 102, 633 et seq.). Unidroit means Institut International pour l Unification du Droit Privé or (in English) International Institute for the Unification of Private Law. It is an independent intergovernmental organisation, located in Rome, with the purpose of examining ways of harmonising and co-ordinating the private law of states and groups of states (for details see For a description see Frick, Die UNIDROIT-Prinzipien für internationale Handelsverträge, RIW 2001, 416 et seq. A text of the principles can be found in ICC/Dossier of the Institute of International Business Law and Practice, UNIDROIT Principles for International Commercial Contracts: A New Lex Mercatoria?, 1995 (ICC publication no. 490/1), 17 et seq. Cf. Baron (n. 6 above), 6 et seq.; Berger, Einheitliche Rechtsstrukturen durch außergesetzliche Rechtsvereinheitlichung, JZ (Juristen-Zeitung) 1999, 369 (373 et seq.) with further references; Komarov, Remarks on the Applications of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts in International Commercial Arbitration, in ICC/Dossier of the Institute of International Business Law and Practice, UNIDROIT Principles for International Commercial Contracts: A New Lex Mercatoria? (n. 16 above), 155 (162). However, the principles themselves refer to Lex Mercatoria in ss. 3 of the preamble in a sense that they might be understood as instruments to help with the interpretation of Lex Mercatoria (this is the understanding of Pfeiffer, Die Entwicklung des Internationalen Vertrags-, Schuld und Sachenrechts , NJW (Neue Juristische Wochenschrift) 1999, 3674 (3678), though referring to ss. 2, he definitely deals with ss. 3). The text is: They [the principles] may be applied when the parties have agreed that their contract be governed by general principles of law, the lex mercatoria or the like. (ICC/Dossier of the Institute of International Business Law and Practice (n. 16 above), 17). This text is open to an understanding that the principles are a detailing/specification of Lex Mercatoria (this is, for example, the opinion of Drobnig, The Use of the UNIDROIT Principles by National and Supranational Courts, in ICC/Dossier of the Institute of International Business Law and Practice (n. 16 above), 223 (226)). Therefore the principles, in fact, can be regarded as the nucleus of a modern Lex Mercatoria. However, Craig/Park/Paulsson (n. 3 above), (p. 633) view them as a competitor and not as a saviour of Lex Mercatoria. See Dalhuisen (n. 10 above), p. 118; Komarov (n. 17 above), 158; Rivkin (n. 5 above), 68. Craig/Park/Paulsson (n. 3 above), (p. 338). 73

5 Mezinárodní a srovnávací právní revue číslo 7/2003 III. How parties choose elements of Lex Mercatoria If parties want to choose the Unidroit Principles they can select one of two model clauses provided by Unidroit: The standard clause is: This contract shall be governed by the UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (1994) [except as to Articles.]. An alternative model clause is provided for parties who may wish for the law of a particular jurisdiction to supplement the Unidroit Principles: This contract shall be governed by the UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (1994) [except as to Articles.], supplemented when necessary by the law of [Jurisdiction X]. These two model clauses are designed to be tailored by parties based on the circumstances at hand in any given transaction. 20 If parties merely refer to internationally accepted principles to be applied as the substantive law they can, for example, choose as follows: First example of choice: Disputes arising out of the contract are to be settled by arbitration, and the arbitrator s award is to be consistent with the legal principles familiar to civilized nations. 21 An example for such a principle is pacta sunt servanda which means agreements are to be kept. Another principle is that the performance as well as a possible renegotiation of the contract because of changed circumstances, shall be carried out in good faith. 22 Second example of choice: The Law governing the substantive issues between the parties shall be determined by the Tribunal having regard to the quality of the Parties, the transnational character of their relations and the principles of law and practice prevailing in the modern world See (for the text of the clauses, too) Brower, The Privatization of Rules of Decision in International Commercial Arbitration, in Briner/Fortier/Berger/Bredow, Law of International Business and Dispute Settlement in the 21 st Century. Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft und Streiterledigung im 21. Jahrhundert. Liber Amicorum Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, 2001, 111 (119). Petroleum Development (Qatar) Ltd. v. Ruler of Qatar; cf. Rivkin (n. 5 above), 68. See Rivkin (n. 5 above), 68. Government of the State of Kuwait v. American Independent Oil Company (AMINOIL); see Rivkin (n. 5 above),

6 International and Comparative Law Review No. 7/2003 The latter clause has two aspects. Though the parties have indicated that the applicable law is what could be regarded as parts of Lex Mercatoria, the clause technically leaves the choice of substantive law up to the arbitrators. IV. The quality of Lex Mercatoria As pointed out, sometimes the contract and the arbitration agreement do not contain any choice of law rule. In such cases parties regularly have agreed on applying the rules of the ICC. 24 These are the arbitration rules most frequently used. 25 Art. 17 (1) of these rules 26 states that in the absence of a choice of law, the arbitral tribunal shall apply the rules of law which it determines to be appropriate. If in such a case the tribunal applies elements of Lex Mercatoria the question arises if these elements are rules of law or if a decision based on them is a decision based on equity. This distinction is of great importance, since according to Art. 17 (3) of the ICC Rules a decision based on equity is only effective if the parties have explicitly given the tribunal the power to decide on equity, 27 which is very seldom the case. 28 Thus, in case of absence of a choice of law clause and no agreement of the parties that the tribunal should decide on equity an award based on elements of Lex Mercatoria would be void if these elements were not regarded as rules of law. Therefore, it is not possible to leave this question undecided, as sometimes is the case when regarding Lex Mercatoria as (mere) usage in international trade. 29 It has to be noted that Art. 17 ICC Rules speaks of rules of law instead of law only. This refers to a distinction according to which law is state-made and International Chamber of Commerce. For an overview of the ICC Arbitration Rules cf. Bühler/Jarvin, The Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce, Introduction to the 1998 ICC Rules of Arbitration, marginal nos. 1 et seq. (pp. 103 et seq.), in Weigand (n. 1 above). For the procedure see, for example, D Arcy/Murray/Cleave, Schmitthoff s Export Trade The Law and Practice of International Trade, 10 th ed. 2000, (pp. 493 et seq.). For a very recent survey on problems of the ICC Rules in practice see Kreindler, Aktuelle (Streit-)Fragen bei der Anwendung der ICC-Schiedsgerichtsordnung 1998 Praxisüberblick, RIW 2002, 249 et seq. Wheeler, International Arbitration Rules a comparative guide, 2000, 1. In her book other frequently used arbitration rules are stated and compared with the ICC rules. The text refers to the new version which entered into force as of January 1 st Corresponding rules can be found in such statutory state arbitration laws which refer to the UNCITRAL Model Law. Cf. for example s.( ) 1051 ss. 3 of the German Civil Procedure Rules (ZPO). See Bühler/Jarvin (n. 24 above), Introduction to the 1998 ICC Rules of Arbitration, marginal no. 33 (p. 108). Cf. Craig/Park/Paulsson (n. 3 above), (p. 638) on the hand and (pp. 640 et seq.) on the other. 75

7 Mezinárodní a srovnávací právní revue číslo 7/2003 rules of law may be created otherwise. 30 Nonetheless, the above mentioned core question of the quality of Lex Mercatoria (law or equity) remains. Since this article has a practical approach, there shall be only a few remarks on the theoretical background. The main argument against the classification as law is that Lex Mercatoria does not have any state authority from which it can derive its binding force, that is to say that only state authority can make a rule law. 31 This opinion would deny the above mentioned distinction between law and rules of law. Moreover, it is argued, that the incompleteness, vagueness and incoherence of Lex Mercatoria make it impossible to regard it as an autonomous body of law. 32 For some authors these are reasons to argue that there is no Lex Mercatoria at all. 33 As pointed out the question of what is really covered by Lex Mercatoria seems to be a theoretical one only, since arbitral awards usually do not refer to the abstract term Lex Mercatoria in general but to concrete principles (as for example pacta sunt servanda ). 34 Moreover, state law systems often seem to be vague and incomplete as well. 35 Nevertheless, the first argument seems to be a strong one. But it is based on a jurisprudence of positivism, which means (in short) that rules recognised by the business community only cannot become binding, that is to say law. However, there is no logical impediment to acknowledge rules established by a process of recognition by the acting persons as law as well, 36 as is mirrored in the abovementioned understanding of rules of law. Yet, within academic scholarship there is still an ongoing discourse aimed at clarifying the foundations, meanings and limitations of this more or less plain principle which the author adheres to in detail. These questions are dealt with by legal philosophy, various sociolegal approaches, the theory of legal pluralism, See Bühler/Jarvin (n. 24 above), Comments on Art ICC Rules of Arbitration, marginal no. 6 (p. 220); Komarov (n. 17 above), 158; Roth, The UNCITRAL Model Law - Comments on Art. 28, marginal no. 5 (p. 1253), in Weigand (n. 1 above). Cf. Baron (n. 6 above), 5; v. Breitenstein (n. 6 above), 118 and Sandrock, Zur Auslegung des Art. 13 Abs. 3 und 5 der Verfahrensordnung des Internationalen Schiedsgerichtshofes der Internationalen Handelskammer oder: wie die sog. lex mercatoria zur Anwendung kommen kann, auch wenn eine Partei sich dieser Anwendung widersetzt hat, Jahrbuch für die Praxis der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit 1990, 131 et seq.; all with further references. Sandrock is a very strong opponent to the concept of Lex Mercatoria and has doubted it in several further publications, see the compilation in v. Breitenstein (n. 6 above), 118 (Fn. 25). See Chukwumerije, Choice of Law in Commercial Arbitration, 1994, p. 112; Triebel/Petzold, Grenzen der lex mercatoria in der internationalen Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, RIW 1988, 245 (246); same tendency Craig/Park/Paulsson (n. 3 above), (p. 333). Sandrock, Das Privatrecht am Ausgang des 20. Jahrhunderts: Deutschland Europa und die Welt, JZ 1996, 1 (8 f.) with further references. Cf. II. This is rightly pointed out by Baron (n. 6 above), 5. See Baron (n. 6 above), 5; Lando (n. 10 above), 752 and especially Goldman, Frontières du droit et lex mercatoria, Archive de philosophie du droit 1964, 177 (183). 76

8 International and Comparative Law Review No. 7/2003 legal realism, law and economics, the approach of law in action, only to name the most important. 37 Nevertheless, the existence of an anational legal order as a matter of fact is the natural consequence of the globalisation of the international professional activities in commercial and financial transactions. 38 The question if Lex Mercatoria rules are rules of law is especially dealt with by courts in the proceedings of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Foreign means that the seat of the arbitral tribunal was in a state different to that in which enforcement and recognition is sought. This question is of practical impact, since nowadays contrary to former findings elements and principles of Lex Mercatoria are applied in practice. 39 V. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Within these proceedings the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 40 is regularly to be applied. However, it has to be noted that according to Art. VII of the New York convention the convention neither excludes the application of other conventions 41 nor does it overrule national law dealing with this issue. In cases of other conventions or national law the law which is most favourable to the party who seeks recognition and enforcement is to applied. 42 Nevertheless, contrary to the other conventions, the New York convention is applicable world-wide, 43 and because of this really international scope of application there will be reference to that convention only See the excellent up-to-date description and discussion of the different approaches in De Ly (n. 8 above), 189 et seq. This is rightly pointed out by Dalhuisen (n. 10 above), pp. 98, 125. Cf. Berger, Lex Mercatoria Online, RIW 2002, 256 (257) with further empirical references and Craig/Park/Paulsson (n. 3 above), (pp ) which is a little bit contrary to 17.03, (pp. 337, 625). For a good overview of that convention see Haas, Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, June 10, 1958 Preliminary Remarks, marginal nos. 1 et seq. (pp. 339 et seq.), in Weigand (n. 1 above). For example the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, see Baumbach/Lauterbach/Albers/Hartmann/Albers, Zivilprozeßordnung, 60 th ed. 2002, 1061 Rn. 3 with further references. For an example see BayObLG (Oberlandesgericht = higher regional court = court of second instance), Beilage (supplement) 12 BB (Betriebs-Berater) 2000, Recht und Praxis der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, 10 (11) which deals with the question what documents are to be presented when seeking recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Concerning that question s of the German ZPO is more favourable than Art. 4 of the New York Convention. Cf. Lörcher, Schiedsspruch mit vereinbartem Wortlaut Notizen zur Vollstreckbarkeit im Ausland, Beilage 12 BB 2000, Recht und Praxis der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, 2. On October 1 st 1999 the number of contracting states was 147, see Kühn, Foreword, VII, in Weigand (n. 1 above). 77

9 Mezinárodní a srovnávací právní revue číslo 7/2003 The New York convention does not mention Lex Mercatoria explicitly, but in Art. V (1) lit. c) it is stated that at the request of the party against whom the award is invoked recognition and enforcement may be refused if the award is beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. A decision based on mere equity without an agreement of the parties that the tribunal is allowed to decide on equity is such an award beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. 44 So, in the absence of such an agreement and a decision based on Lex Mercatoria the qualification of Lex Mercatoria decides whether the award is effective or void. If Lex Mercatoria is regarded as mere equity the award will be void, if it is regarded as being law the award will be effective and it will be recognised and enforced. 45 A second impediment to the recognition of Lex Mercatoria could be Art. V (2) lit. b). According to that provision recognition and enforcement of an award may also be refused if in the country in which recognition and enforcement is sought recognition or enforcement would be contrary to public policy. 46 So, the second question arises if and in which countries an arbitral award based on Lex Mercatoria can be regarded as being contrary to public policy. The two questions were the topics of the most famous Norsolor case which can still be regarded as the most important battle of Lex Mercatoria in European state courts. The case led to a series of decisions in the early 1980s. Because of its importance, the facts of the Norsolor case shall be described briefly. 47 Norsolor, the respondent, was a French company and Pabalk, the claimant, its Turkish agent. The dispute arose over the respondent s cancellation of an agency contract under which the claimant was to market the goods of Norsolor in Turkey. Pabalk claimed lost commissions and charges. The arbitral tribunal, located in Vienna, was faced with the absence of a choice of law clause and there was no permission by the parties to decide on equity. The tribunal opted for the Lex See, for example Musielak/Voit, Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, 3 rd ed. 2002, 1061 Rn. 16. Haas (n. 40 above), Comments on Art. V, marginal no. 52 (pp. 503 f.); Stein, Lex Mercatoria, 1995, pp. 148 et seq. Public policy is synonymous with public order and ordre public. For a short overview of foreign arbitral awards and public policy see Trappe, Revision au fond bei der Vollstreckung eines Schiedsspruchs, Beilage 8 BB 2000, Recht und Praxis der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, 7 (8 f.) and (with respect to Germany) Schütze, Schiedsgericht und Schiedsverfahren, 3 rd ed. 1999, Rn The term public policy itself is difficult to determine, cf. for example Haas (n. 40 above), Comments on Art. V, marginal no. 106 (p. 521); Karrer, Judicial Review of International Arbitral Awards, up to a point Local and Transnational standards, in Geimer (ed.), Wege zur Globalisierung des Rechts Festschrift für Rolf A. Schütze, 1999, 337 et seq. However, this is beyond the scope of this article. In Germany it is very seldom the case that an award is regarded as being contrary to ordre public; cf. for example two decisions of the OLG (Oberlandesgericht) Hamburg, Beilage 4 BB 1999, Recht und Praxis der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, 13 et seq. and 16 f. A description can be found in Kappus, Lex Mercatoria und internationale Handelsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit Einheitliches Sach- und Prozeßrecht für den Handelsstand, WiB (Wirtschaftsrechtliche Beratung) 1994, 189 (189 f.); Rivkin (n. 5 above),

10 International and Comparative Law Review No. 7/2003 Mercatoria, especially the principles of good faith and fair dealing. Finding Norsolor s termination of the contract unjustified, the tribunal awarded damages to Pabalk in the amount of FF 800, Norsolor questioned the validity of the award in Austria and in France within the enforcement proceedings. In the Austrian 49 proceedings the nature of Lex Mercatoria was highly disputed and therefore the Supreme Court of Austria had to decide. It ruled that the award was neither beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration nor did it violate Austrian public policy. 50 The court regarded Lex Mercatoria and its principles as rules of law. 51 However, the court came to this solution by determining the award to be an Austrian one, because the seat of the tribunal was Vienna. But, if a court regards Lex Mercatoria principles as being law in a national award it will be even more willing to do so in a foreign award. However, it has to be noted that Austrian scholarship is still divided on that decision and its implications. 52 In France 53 as well, the highest court in private law, La Cour de Cassation, had to decide. It correspondingly ruled that the Norsolor award was neither beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration nor did it violate French public policy. 54 It followed an approach already stated in its Fougerolle decision 55 where it upheld an ICC award in which arbitrators had applied principles generally applicable in international commerce, though not empowered to decide on equity by the parties. 56 In general (concerning national and foreign arbitral awards) French law acknowledges Lex Mercatoria as law. In more recent decisions the Cour de Cassation has expressly confirmed the legal nature of Lex Mercatoria deciding that an arbitrator who applies usages of international commercial law is applying rules ICC case no. 3131: Pabalk Ticaret Limited Sirketi (Turkey) v. Norsolor S. A. (France) award of 26 th October 1979, reprinted in (1984) IX YB Com. Arb. (Yearbook Commercial Arbitration) 109. For an overview of the Austrian arbitration law see Liebscher/Schmid, Country Reports Austria, marginal nos. 1 et seq. (pp. 541 et seq.), in Weigand (n. 1 above). Österr. OGH, RIW 1983, 868 (869) with an affirmative commentary by Seidl-Hohenveldern, RIW 1983, 870 (871). For a critical commentary see v. Hoffmann, Lex Mercatoria vor internationalen Schiedsgerichten, IPRax (Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts) 1984, 106 et seq. Österr. OGH, RIW 1983, 868 (869). Cf. Liebscher/Schmid (n. 49 above), marginal nos. 198 f. (p. 572). For an overview of the French arbitration law see Gaillard/Edelstein, Country Reports France, marginal nos. 1 et seq. (pp. 643 et seq.), in Weigand (n. 1 above). Pabalk v. Norsolor, Rev. Arb. (Revue de l arbitrage) 1985, 431. Fougerolle (France) v. Banque du Proche Orient (Lebanon), Rev. Arb. 1982, 183. Cf. Craig/Park/Paulsson (n. 3 above), (pp. 336 f.) and Rivkin (n. 5),

11 Mezinárodní a srovnávací právní revue číslo 7/2003 of law. 57 It can be stated that France is one of the jurisdictions most friendly to anational law and thus Lex Mercatoria. 58 However, not all European Countries followed the Norsolor approach quickly. In England it took until 1987 for Lex Mercatoria to be acknowledged as law and not being contrary to public policy, though there had been the case Eagle Star v. Yuval in which might be regarded as the harbinger of that development. 60 The acknowledgement was the result of a series of decisions on the recognition and enforcement of the foreign award in the Rakoil arbitration. 61 The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the choice of an anational system of law contravened public policy, 62 relying on the decision Eagle Star v. Yuval. 63 That approach was upheld in the Channel Tunnel case. 64 However, it has to be noted that the new English arbitration law, the Arbitration Act which follows the UNCITRAL Model Law 66 in this respect 67, seems to be more restrictive, since in its s. 46 it rather refers to conflict of law rules. 68 Therefore, it has to be stated that there is no Compania Valenciana de Cementos Portland v. Primary Coal, Rev. Arb. 1992, 457 and Sonidep v. Sigmoil, Rev. Arb. 1995, 88. See as well the description and references in v. Breitenstein (n. 6 above), 127 et seq. See v. Breitenstein (n. 6 above), 114 f. and De Ly (n. 8 above), 185. Court of Appeal, [1978] 1 Lloyd s Rep. (Lloyd s Reports) 357; cf. Dalhuisen (n. 10 above), p. 118 (Fn. 149); Rivkin (n. 5 above), 76. Cf. Rivkin (n. 5 above), 76. For a detailed description see Kappus, Einzug der lex mercatoria in das englische House of Lords, IPRax 1990, 133 et seq.; Rivkin (n. 5 above), 73 et seq. and D Arcy/Murray/Cleave (n. 24 above), (pp. 478 f.). Deutsche Schachtbau und Tiefbohrgesellschaft mbh v. R As al Khaima National Oil Co [1987] 3 WLR (Weekly Law Reports) 1023 (1035). The following decision of the House of Lords allowing the appeals in no way impacted on the decision of enforceability, for details see Rivkin (n. 5 above), 76. Cf. Rivkin (n. 5 above), 76. Channel Tunnel Group v. Balfour Beatty Ltd [1993] AC (Appeal Cases) 334 (368). See the reasoning by Furmston, The UNIDROIT Principles and International Commercial Arbitration, in ICC/Dossier of the Institute of International Business Law and Practice, UNIDROIT Principles for International Commercial Contracts: A New Lex Mercatoria? (n. 16 above), 199 (202). For an overview of the English arbitration law see Maxwell, Country Reports England, marginal nos. 1 et seq. (pp. 593 et seq.), in Weigand (n. 1 above) and Craig/Park/Paulsson (n. 3 above), 30 (pp. 531 et seq.). Art. 28. For a description see Craig/Park/Paulsson (n. 3 above), 29 (pp. 519 et seq.). However, there are important differences between the UNCITRAL Model Law and the new English law, see Ajibola, Differences between the United Kingdom Arbitration Act 1996 and the Uncitral Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, in Liber Amicorum Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (n. 20 above), 1 et seq.; Shackelton, Challenging arbitration awards: Part II Procedural irregularity, (2002) 152 NLJ (New Law Journal) Dalhuisen (n. 10 above), pp. 60 (Fn. 77),

12 International and Comparative Law Review No. 7/2003 clear answer in English law 69 if within the application of s. 46 which does not deal with foreign arbitral awards Lex Mercatoria will be regarded as law. 70 Moreover, in general the interpretation of the Arbitration Act 1996 still has to be clarified. 71 In some respect English courts adhere to criteria that are out of step with international developments when applying the 1996 Act. 72 Because of that it is doubtful to some extent how forthcoming cases on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards based on Lex Mercatoria would be decided. 73 In Germany courts long remained reluctant to acknowledge foreign arbitral awards based on Lex Mercatoria. 74 Here, it was only around 1998 that courts altered their attitude to foreign awards based on Lex Mercatoria. In a decision of 1999 the court of first instance Hamburg did so. 75 In that case there was neither a choice of law clause nor a permission to decide on equity. The arbitrators chose Lex Mercatoria as the law to be appropriate. Because of procedural law, the court did not have to decide if the award was beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, but it stated that the award did not violate German public policy. 76 Perhaps, this might have been influenced by the enactment of new civil procedure rules on arbitral awards 77 about that time. The new rules are an adaptation and a large-scale adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law 78 which is now moving toward world-wide adoption. 79 The new rules are, at least, more open to qualify Lex The Arbitration Act 1996 applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland (see D Arcy/Murray/Cleave (n. 24 above), (p. 480)). As usual, only the term English Law is used. Cf. Maxwell (n. 65 above), marginal nos. 189 f. (pp. 628 f.) with further references. See Shackelton, Challenging arbitration awards: Part I Jurisdiction, (2002) 152 NLJ 1746 f. with further references; Shackelton (n. 67 above), 1816 f. with further references. Shackelton (n. 71 above), Craig/Park/Paulsson (n. 3 above), (p. 337) who state that the matter remains controversial in England. See for example OLG Frankfurt/Main, RIW 1984, 400 (401) with an affirmative commentary by Dielmann, RIW 1984, 401 f. and the description by Drobnig (n. 17 above), 223 et. seq. LG Hamburg, Beilage 4 BB 1999, Recht und Praxis der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, 19 et seq. LG Hamburg (n. 75 above), 20. For an overview see Berger, Das neue Schiedsverfahrensrecht in der Praxis Analyse und aktuelle Entwicklungen, RIW 2001, 7 et seq. and Kreindler/Mahlich, Das deutsche Schiedsverfahrensrecht aus ausländischer Sicht, NJW 1998, 563 et seq. Though the new German law is more deeply rooted in the Model Law than the new English law on arbitration (cf. n. 67 above), the practical impact of these differences seems to be very minor (see Kerr, The English Arbitration Act 1996 and the Model Law, in Liber Amicorum Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (n. 20 above), 377 et seq., 388). See Ajibola (n. 67 above), 1. 81

13 Mezinárodní a srovnávací právní revue číslo 7/2003 Mercatoria as law within national arbitration proceedings. 80 However, amongst academics it is still the prevailing opinion that if Lex Mercatoria is chosen by arbitrators in foreign arbitration proceedings without permission to decide on equity the arbitral award is to be treated as a violation of German public policy when dealing with the question of recognition and enforceability in German courts. 81 The underlying assumption of that opinion is, roughly said, that rules cannot become law by (mere) recognition of the world-wide business community and state authorities. As mentioned above, 82 this has to be rejected. Of course, there are many more legal systems than mentioned above. A complete description is not possible within this context. However, some very brief remarks on other important jurisdictions are appropriate. In Italy, there is at least a tendency to consider Lex mercatoria as law. 83 In the Netherlands Lex Mercatoria principles are regarded as rules of law. 84 In Spain Lex mercatoria is seen as living law 85 and thus as law. However, in Sweden the generally held opinion is that Lex Mercatoria does not constitute law. 86 In Switzerland the application of Lex Mercatoria is considered as the application of rules of law. 87 In the US state courts have always been willing to enforce foreign Cf. Pfeiffer (n. 17 above), 3678 with further references; for a different opinion: Sandrock, Die objektive Anknüpfung von Verträgen nach 1051 Abs. 2 ZPO, RIW 2000, 321 et seq.; for an overview of the divergent views of commentators on the new German law, see Wagner, Country Reports Germany, marginal nos. 360 et seq. (pp. 793 f.), in Weigand (n. 1 above) with further references. Correspondingly, the question if parties can choose Lex Mercatoria in state court proceedings is still open in Germany, see Martiny, Die Bestimmung des anwendbaren Sachrechts durch das Schiedsgericht, in Geimer (ed.), Wege zur Globalisierung des Rechts Festschrift für Rolf A. Schütze, 1999, 529 (537). See Schwab/Walter, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, 6 th ed. 2000, ch. 41 Rn. 21 (pp. 428 et seq.) with further references; a different opinion: Böckstiegel, The Legal Rules Applicable in International Commercial Arbitration Involving States or State Controlled Enterprises, in ICC International Arbitration 60 Years on, 1984, 117 (157). Cf. IV. See Rubino-Sammartano, Country Reports Italy, marginal nos. 270 f. (pp. 869 f.), in Weigand (n. 1 above) with further references. Cf. Lazic/Meijer, Country Reports Netherlands, marginal nos. 246 et seq. (pp. 933 f.), in Weigand (n. 1 above) with further references. For the item rules of law see under IV. See v.tabouillot, Country Reports Spain, marginal no. 186 (p. 985), in Weigand (n. 1 above) with further references. Cf. Hober/Strempel, Country Reports Sweden, marginal no. 178 (pp f.), in Weigand (n. 1 above) with further references. See Karrer/Straub, Country Reports Switzerland, marginal no. 171 (p. 1071), in Weigand (n. 1 above) with further references. Correspondingly, the question if parties can choose Lex Mercatoria in state court proceedings seems to be answered in the affirmative, cf. Zürcher Obergericht, Blätter für Zürcherische Rechtsprechung 85 (1986), 44 (46) - though only stated in an obiter dictum. 82

14 International and Comparative Law Review No. 7/2003 arbitral awards even if the governing law was a non-national standard like Lex Mercatoria, 88 but there have been only very few cases. 89 The jurisdictions referred to up to now are parts of what can generally be seen as the (old) Western economy. However, globalisation is increasing, and economies are becoming more and more similar. There seems to be at least a tendency that other jurisdictions, as in states of the former Soviet Union 90 or in Latin America, 91 will, at last, also follow a concept of arbitration which is not necessarily rooted in national law, but is anational, or, to put it more positively, really international. VI. Conclusion and Outlook Today it can be stated that a foreign award based on principles of Lex Mercatoria will be regarded as an award based on law not being contrary to public policy in a large number of legal systems and therefore it will be recognised and enforced. However, really world-wide recognition is still a development to be awaited in the future. Moreover, arbitrators empowered by the parties to choose the applicable law who think of applying Lex Mercatoria should not choose Lex Mercatoria in general as a concrete legal order because of the vagueness of this term, but should refer to specific principles and elements only. 92 A great problem of Lex Mercatoria has always been that on the one hand it is necessary to have rules laid down, but on the other that Lex Mercatoria has to remain flexible enough to follow the changes and new developments of international business transactions. 93 This has also always been a problem with the Unidroit principles, since they can only be altered in a very complicated See Rivkin (n. 5 above), 83 et seq. with further references, and as an example, Ministry of Defense of the Islamic Republic v. Gould, Inc, 887 F 2d (Federal Reporter Second Series) 1357 (9 th Circuit 1989). De Ly (n. 8 above), 185. Cf. Komarov, Some Reflections on Recent Developments in the Practice of International Commercial Arbitration in Russia, in Liber Amicorum Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (n. 20 above), 391 (398 et seq.) and Brower (n. 20 above), 120 who reports on a 1997 case before the International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of The Russian Federation in which the parties agreed that the UNIDROIT principles should govern any issues not clearly addressed in a contract which contained no choice of law provision. See Naon, ICC Arbitration and Courts of Law: Practical Experiences in Latin America, in Liber Amicorum Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (n. 20 above), 231 et seq. Cf. Craig/Park/Paulsson (n. 3 above), (p. 337), who advise that arbitrators should avoid the risk of dealing with the abstract question of Lex Mercatoria as a legal system. They are very cautious to apply Lex Mercatoria. However, they point out that they are aware of no case in which an ICC award has been set aside on the grounds that the arbitrators made a mistaken choice of applicable law, ibid. Berger (n. 39 above),

15 Mezinárodní a srovnávací právní revue číslo 7/2003 procedure. 94 The world-wide web might help to solve this problem. The Center for Transnational Law (CENTRAL) 95 is listing rules and principles of international business transactions in a so called Transnational Law Database (TLDB) which can be viewed via the internet. 96 In contrast to the Unidroit principles there is a strong reference to rules developed in arbitral awards 97 and marking a further distinction to the Unidroit principles the lists are open to continuing amendments not only by CENTRAL, but also by the persons applying principles of Lex Mercatoria, that is to say especially by arbitrators in international arbitration. 98 Key words arbitral awards decide on equity rules of law practical impact recognition enforcement most favourable void public policy question governing law rozhodčí nálezy rozhodovat na základě ekvity právní pravidla praktický dopad uznávání vymahatelnost nejvýhodnější neplatný veřejný zájem zpochybnit řídící právo Cf. Berger (n. 39 above), 259 and Craig/Park/Paulsson (n. 3 above), (p. 633) who view the principles only as a partial snapshot of Lex Mercatoria See Berger (n. 39 above), 261. Berger is head of the CENTRAL team and the board of trustees of CENTRAL consists of well renowned practitioners and academics, ibid. The address is See Berger (n. 39 above), 258. Cf. Berger (n. 39 above), 259 et seq. in detail. 84

16 International and Comparative Law Review No. 7/2003 IV. Cizí rozhodčí nálezy založené na Lex Mercatoria I. Úvod Důležité mezinárodní obchodní smlouvy často obsahují arbitrážní dohody pro řešení smluvních sporů. Výhody arbitráže jsou následující: kratší řízení ve srovnání se státními soudy, a arbitři mají obvykle detailnější znalosti o obchodní problematice než státní soudci. 1 Při arbitráži je nutné rozhodnout jednu z nejdůležitějších otázek, a sice které hmotné právo 2 bude při řešení sporu použito. 3 Tuto otázku si strany musí rozmyslet již před uzavřením specifické smlouvy či arbitrážní dohody. Spoléhání se na konflikt právních pravidel často vede k nepředvídatelným výsledkům. 4 Nastoluje se tedy otázka výběru práva. Pokud je státní právo explicitně zvoleno, k žádným problémům nedochází. U mezinárodních smluv se však stává, že strany nepovažují státní právo za vyhovující. Například u smluv mezi soukromou firmou a vládní organizací se žádné státní právo nejeví jako ideální. Vládní strana bude odmítat podřízení se právu jiného státu, zatímco soukromá strana bude skeptická ohledně řádného zacházení pod jurisdikcí jiného státu, 5 která totiž může obsahovat zvláštní ustanovení poskytující jistá právní privilegia vládním organizacím. Dále, některé národní zákony nejsou uzpůsobeny pro mezinárodní smlouvy. Strany si tedy raději volí globálně uznávaná pravidla obchodu, a nebo ponechávají výběr na arbitrech, kteří se pak na tato pravidla odvolávají. Tato obchodní pravidla jsou často označována jako Lex Mercatoria, tedy právo obchodníků. Někdy se hovoří také o Novém Lex Mercatoria (kvůli odlišení od středověkého Lex Mercatoria 6 ). Tento Viz Weigand, Introduction, pozn. 12 a násl. (str. 8 a násl.), in: Weigand (ed.), Practitioner s Handbook on International Arbitration, Právo hmotné je právo, které se zabývá právy, povinnostmi a dalšími záležitostmi, jež nejsou čistě procesní. Článek se zabývá pouze touto otázkou. Problémy týkající se Lex Mercatoria mohou též vyvstat spolu s otázkami validity arbitrážní dohody jako takové (viz Weigand (pozn. 1 výše), pozn. 38 a násl. (str. 19)) a v kontextu procesního práva (srov. Zöller/Geimer, Zivilprozeßordnung, 23. vyd. 2002, 1061 Rn. (pozn. 11), obojí srov. Craig/Park/Paulsson, International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration, 3. vyd (ICC Publication No. 594), (str. 626). Craig/Park/Paulsson (pozn. 3 výše), 8.04 (str. 109). Viz Rivkin, Enforceability of Arbitral Awards Based on Lex Mercatoria, (1993) 9 Arbitration International 67. Srov. Baron, Do the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts form a new lex mercatoria?, 1 a násl. = (1999) 15 Arbitration International 115 a násl. a v. Breitenstein, Rechtsordnung und Lex Mercatoria Zur vergeblichen Suche nach einem anationalen Recht für die internationale Arbitrage, in Berger et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Otto Sandrock zum 70. Geburtstag, 2000, 111 (115). 85

17 Mezinárodní a srovnávací právní revue číslo 7/2003 článek se zabývá pouze současným (globálním) Lex Mercatoria. 7 Otázkou nicméně zůstává, co to ve skutečnosti je. 8 II. Možné významy Lex Mercatoria Za součást Lex Mercatoria jsou někdy považovány statutární i nestatutární předpisy, to jest mezinárodní právo veřejné, určité uniformní zákony, všeobecné právní principy, pravidla mezinárodních organizací, zvyklosti a úzy mezinárodního obchodu, smlouvy standardní formou, 9 a arbitrážní case law. 10 Někdy je používáno také pojetí užší, které statutární zákony za zdroje Lex Mercatoria nepovažuje. 11 Podle tohoto názoru tedy mezinárodní konvence a uniformní zákony nemohou být kvalifikovány jako Lex Mercatoria. Jiní autoři uvádějí tři koncepce Lex Mercatoria: 12 Může to být autonomní právní řád, 13 soubor základních pravidel Z důvodu celosvětového přístupu se tento článek nezabývá fenoménem několika druhů Lex Mercatoria, či jinými slovy Leges Mercatoriae. Znamená to, že mohou existovat pravidla a principy uznávané pouze v určitých částech obchodního světa, například v Evropě (obdobně existuje komise pro zejména akademické srovnávání a výzkum Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) (viz Lando/Beale (eds.), Principles of European Contract Law, 2000)). Existence Leges Mercatoriae však nutně neznamená, že jejich principy a pravidla se liší od celosvětového Lex Mercatoria. Mohou být pouze detailněji rozpracovány (pro Leges Mercatoriae srov. Mistelis, Is Harmonisation a Necessary Evil? The Future of Harmonisation and New Sources of International Trade Law, in: Fletcher/Mistelis/Cremona (eds.), Foundations and Perspectives of International Trade, 2001, a násl. (str. 24 a násl.)). Druhá otázka však rovněž přesahuje rámec tohoto článku. Všeobecný přehled o tom, co by mohlo být považováno za Lex Mercatoria viz podrobná studie autora De Ly, Emerging New Perspectives Regarding Lex Mercatoria in: an Era of Increasing Globalization, in: Berger et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Otto Sandrock zum 70. Geburtstag, 2000, 179 (181 a násl.) a Craig/Park/Paulsson (pozn. 3 výše), 35 (str. 623 a násl.). Některé koncepce jsou dokonce vzájemně neslučitelné, viz Mustill, The New Lex Mercatoria, in: Bos/Brownlie (eds.), Liber Amicorum for Lord Wilberforce, 1987, 149 a násl. (který je sám skeptický ohledně Lex Mercatoria). Například FOSFA (Federation of Oil Seeds and Fats Association) a GAFTA (The Grain and Feed Trade Association). Další příklady viz Bridge, The International Sale of Goods Law and Practice, 1999, Appendix 1 (FOSFA Contract No. 53), str. 449 a Appendix 2 (GAFTA Contract No. 100), str Berger, International Economic Arbitration, 1993, str. 526; Goldstajn, The New Law Merchant, [1961] JBL (Journal of Business Law) 12 a násl.; Kappus, Conflict Avoidance durch lex mercatoria und UN-Kaufrecht 1980, RIW (Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft) 1990, 788 (790); Lando, The Lex mercatoria and International Commercial Arbitration, (1985) 34 ICLQ (International and Comparative Law Quarterly) 747 (748 a násl.); Rivkin (pozn. 5 výše), 67; Dalhuisen, Dalhuisen on International Commercial, Financial and Trade Law, 2000, str. 99. Jakkoliv se výše zmínění autoři ve svých názorech liší, sdílejí svůj přístup ke statutárním a nestatutárních zdrojům. Hierarchii těchto zdrojů v rámci Lex Mercatoria sestavil Dalhuisen, str. 73, 98 a násl., v pořadí od obecných principů. Goldman, The Applicable Law: General Principles of Law the lex mercatoria, in: Lew (ed.), Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration, 1987, 113 (114); Goode, Usage and its Reception in Transnational Commercial Law, (1997) 46 ICLQ 1 (2). Craig/Park/Paulsson (pozn. 3 výše), 35 (str. 623 a násl.). Craig/Park/Paulsson (pozn. 3 výše), (str. 626 a násl.). 86

18 International and Comparative Law Review No. 7/2003 postačujících k rozřešení sporu, a nebo prostý úzus mezinárodního obchodu. 14 Nicméně, Principy mezinárodních obchodních smluv 15 Unidroit 16 jsou víceméně všeobecně považovány za jádro moderního Lex Mercatoria. 17 Podle Unidroit jeho principy stanovují právo, které je společné civilizovaným státům. Z praktického hlediska není nutné určovat, co termín Lex Mercatoria skutečně obsahuje. Strany se neodvolávají na termín Lex Mercatoria jako takový, ale na principy, které lze za součást Lex Mercatoria pokládat. 18 I takovýto odkaz je však velmi zřídkavý. 19 Když arbitři zvažují volbu Lex Mercatoria, pak také uvažují o aplikaci jeho principů. Jejich úkolem není podat abstraktní definici Lex Mercatoria. Tento článek se tedy zaměřuje na také principy a prvky, které lze považovat za součásti Lex Mercatoria v každém případě. III. Způsob výběru prvků Lex Mercatoria Pokud se strany rozhodnou pro principy Unidroit, mohou si zvolit jedno z jeho modelových ustanovení: Standardní ustanovení zní: Craig/Park/Paulsson (pozn. 3 výše), 7.04, (str. 102, 633 a násl.). Unidroit značí Institut International pour l Unification du Droit Privé, čili Mezinárodní institut pro unifikaci soukromého práva. Jedná se o nezávislou mezivládní organizaci se sídlem v Římě, jejímž úkolem je zkoumat možnosti harmonizace a koordinace soukromého práva jednotlivých států a skupin států (blíže viz Popis viz Frick, Die UNIDROIT-Prinzipien für internationale Handelsverträge, RIW 2001, 416 a násl. Znění principů in: ICC/Dossier of the Institute of International Business Law and Practice, UNIDROIT Principles for International Commercial Contracts: A New Lex Mercatoria?, 1995 (ICC publication no. 490/1), 17 a násl. Srov. Baron (pozn. 6 výše), 6 a násl.; Berger, Einheitliche Rechtsstrukturen durch außergesetzliche Rechtsvereinheitlichung, JZ (Juristen-Zeitung) 1999, 369 (373 a násl.) s dalšími odkazy; Komarov, Remarks on the Applications of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts in International Commercial Arbitration, in: ICC/Dossier of the Institute of International Business Law and Practice, UNIDROIT Principles for International Commercial Contracts: A New Lex Mercatoria? (pozn. 16 výše), 155 (162). Principy samotné však odkazují na Lex Mercatoria v odst. 3 preambule v tom smyslu, že mají být chápány jako pomocné nástroje při interpretaci Lex Mercatoria (názor Pfeiffera, Die Entwicklung des Internationalen Vertrags-, Schuld und Sachenrechts , NJW (Neue Juristische Wochenschrift) 1999, 3674 (3678), přestože odkazuje na odst. 2, jistě má na mysli odst. 3). Text zní: [principy] mohou být použity, pokud se strany dohodly na tom, že se jejich smlouva bude řídit obecnými principy práva, lex mercatoria nebo podobnými. (ICC/Dossier of the Institute of International Business Law and Practice (pozn. 16 výše), 17). Tento text lze chápat i tak, že principy představují detailní popis či specifikaci Lex Mercatoria (tento názor zastává například Drobnig, The Use of the UNIDROIT Principles by National and Supranational Courts, in: ICC/Dossier of the Institute of International Business Law and Practice (pozn. 16 výše), 223 (226)). Principy lze tedy de facto považovat za jádro moderního Lex Mercatoria. Craig/Park/Paulsson (pozn. 3 výše), (str. 633) na ně však nahlížejí spíše jako na konkurenta a ne jako na spasitele Lex Mercatoria. Viz Dalhuisen (pozn. 10 výše), str. 118; Komarov (pozn. 17 výše), 158; Rivkin (pozn. 5 výše), 68. Craig/Park/Paulsson (pozn. 3 výše), (str. 338). 87

19 Mezinárodní a srovnávací právní revue číslo 7/2003 Tato smlouva se řídí UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (1994) [s výjimkou článků.]. Alternativní modelové ustanovení mohou použít strany, které si přejí k doplnění principů Unidroit použít právo specifické jurisdikce: Tato smlouva se řídí UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (1994) [s výjimkou článků.], v nutném případě doplněnými zákony [jurisdikce X]. Tyto modelové klauzule jsou zformulovány tak, aby je strany mohly podle okolností pohodlně přizpůsobit jakékoliv transakci. 20 Pokud strany pouze odkazují na mezinárodně uznávané principy aplikované jako právo hmotné, pak mohou zvolit kupříkladu následující: První příklad: Spory vzešlé z této smlouvy budou řešeny arbitráží, a její rozhodnutí musí být konsistentní s právními principy známými civilizovaným národům. 21 Příkladem takového principu je pacta sunt servanda t.j. smlouvy se mají dodržovat. Dalším principem je plnění smlouvy jakož i jednání o jejích případných dodatcích z důvodu změněných okolností budou uskutečňovány v dobré víře. 22 Druhý příklad: Právo řídící podstatné záležitosti mezi stranami bude určeno Soudem s přihlédnutím k charakteristice stran, transnacionálnímu charakteru jejich vztahů a principům práva a praxe převládajícím v moderním světě. 23 Druhá klauzule obsahuje dva aspekty. Přestože strany označily za aplikovatelné právo to, co lze považovat za součást Lex Mercatoria, klauzule technicky ponechává samotný výběr hmotného práva na vůli arbitrů. IV. Kvalita Lex Mercatoria Jak už bylo naznačeno, v některých případech smlouvy a arbitrážní dohody výběr práva neobsahují. V takovýchto případech strany souhlasí s uplatněním Viz (i text klauzulí) Brower, The Privatization of Rules of Decision in International Commercial Arbitration, in Briner/Fortier/Berger/Bredow, Law of International Business and Dispute Settlement in the 21st Century. Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft und Streiterledigung im 21. Jahrhundert. Liber Amicorum Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, 2001, 111 (119). Petroleum Development (Qatar) Ltd. v. Ruler of Qatar; srov. Rivkin (pozn. 5 výše), 68. Viz Rivkin (pozn. 5 výše), 68. Vláda státu Kuvajt v. American Independent Oil Company (AMINOIL; viz Rivkin (pozn. 5 výše),

20 International and Comparative Law Review No. 7/2003 pravidel ICC 24, která jsou používána nejčastěji. 25 Jejich čl. 17 (1) 26 stanoví, že v případě absence volby práva bude arbitrážní soud používat právo, které sám uzná za nejvhodnější. Pokud v takovémto případě soud aplikuje prvky Lex Mercatoria, pak vyvstane otázka, zda jsou tyto prvky právními pravidly nebo zda rozhodnutí na nich založené je rozhodnutím založeným na ekvitě. Toto rozlišení je velmi důležité už z toho důvodu, že podle čl. 17 (3) pravidel ICC má rozhodnutí založené na ekvitě účinnost pouze tehdy, pokud strany explicitně udělí soudu pravomoc rozhodovat na základě ekvity, 27 což je však velmi vzácný případ. 28 V případě absence klauzule o výběru práva a neexistence dohody mezi stranami o tom, že soud má rozhodovat na základě ekvity, by tedy bylo rozhodnutí založené na prvcích Lex Mercatoria neplatné, pokud by tyto prvky nebyly uznány za právní pravidla. Z tohoto důvodu nelze ponechat tuto otázku nerozhodnutou, jelikož v některých případech je Lex Mercatoria považováno za (pouhý) úzus v mezinárodním obchodu. 29 Je nutné poznamenat, že čl. 17 pravidel ICC hovoří o právních pravidlech a nikoliv pouze o právu. Odkazuje tím na rozlišení, podle kterého je právo vytvořeno státem, zatímco právní pravidla se mohou vytvářet i jinými způsoby. 30 Shora uvedená klíčová otázka kvality Lex Mercatoria (právo nebo ekvita) nicméně zůstává. Jelikož se tento článek zabývá praktickou stránkou věci, teoretickému základu budeme věnovat pouze několik poznámek. Hlavní argument proti klasifikaci Lex Mercatoria jako práva je to, že Lex Mercatoria neodvozuje svou závaznost od International Chamber of Commerce. Přehled arbitrážních pravidel ICC srov. Bühler/Jarvin, The Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce, Introduction to the 1998 ICC Rules of Arbitration, marginal nos. 1 a násl. (str. 103 a násl.), in Weigand (pozn. 1 výše). Procesní pravidla viz např. D Arcy/Murray/Cleave, Schmitthoff s Export Trade The Law and Practice of International Trade, 10th ed. 2000, (str. 493 a násl.). Jeden z nejnovějších přehledů o problémech pravidel ICC v praxi viz Kreindler, Aktuelle (Streit-)Fragen bei der Anwendung der ICC-Schiedsgerichtsordnung 1998 Praxisüberblick, RIW 2002, 249 a násl. Wheeler, International Arbitration Rules a comparative guide, 2000, 1. Autorka ve své knize uvádí a srovnává další často používaná pravidla arbitráže s pravidly ICC. Text odkazuje na novou verzi, která vstoupila v platnost 1. ledna Příslušná pravidla lze nalézt v takových statutárních státních arbitrážních zákonech, které odkazují na modelové právo UNCITRAL. Srov. např odst. 3 německého Občanského soudního řádu (ZPO). Viz Bühler/Jarvin (pozn. 24 výše), Introduction to the 1998 ICC Rules of Arbitration, pozn. 33 (str. 108). Srov. Craig/Park/Paulsson (pozn. 3 výše), (str. 638) na jedné straně a (str. 640 a násl.) na straně druhé. Viz Bühler/Jarvin (pozn. 24 výše), Comments on Art ICC Rules of Arbitration, pozn. 6 (str. 220); Komarov (pozn. 17 výše), 158; Roth, The UNCITRAL Model Law - Comments on Art. 28, pozn. 5 (str. 1253), in: Weigand (pozn. 1 výše). 89