اصل حاکمیت اراده و محدودیت‌های آن در تحصیل دلیل در داوری‌های تجاری و سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

چکیده

تحصیل دلیل، یکی از مسائل محوری در هر داوری بین‌المللی به شمار می‌آید که ناظر بر ارائه اسناد، استماع اظهارات و همچنین انجام بازرسی‌ها است. با توجه به اینکه صدور هرگونه رأیی از جانب دیوان داوری مستلزم درگیرشدن اصحاب دعوا و دیوان داوری با فرآیند تحصیل دلیل است، آگاهی­یافتن ایشان از قواعد ناظر بر آن بسیار مهم است. با مطالعه اسناد بین‌المللی، قوانین ملی راجع به داوری، رویه سازمان‌های داوری بین‌المللی و همچنین رویه دیوان‌های داوری مشخص می‌شود که قواعد ناظر بر تحصیل دلیل به‌واسطه بنیان توافقی داوری، تابع اصل حاکمیت اراده است. اراده طرفین در این خصوص ممکن است به‌طور صریح یا ضمنی باشد یا اینکه اساساً در قالب تفویض اختیارِ تعیین قواعد به داور متجلی شده باشد. با وجود این، چارچوب‌هایی مانند لزوم رعایت اصول اساسی دادرسی منظم، لزوم رعایت اصل بهینه­بودن دادرسی، لزوم رعایت اصل حسن‌نیت و لزوم رعایت اصل محرمانگی برای توافق طرفین وجود دارد که دیوان داوری و طرفین، مأخوذ به آن‌ها هستند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Principle of Party Autonomy and Its Exceptions in the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial and Investment Arbitration

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad-Ali Bahmaei 1
  • Reza Bastani Namaghi 2
1 Assistant Professor of Law at Shahid Beheshti University, Faculty of Law, Tehran
2 2 Ph.D. Student of Private Law at Shahid Beheshti University, Faculty of Law, Tehran
چکیده [English]

The taking of evidence is one of the central issues in every international arbitration procedure which includes producing documents, hearing parties and also doing inspections. It is important for the parties and arbitral tribunal to be aware of the rules that govern the taking of evidence, because issuing any award by the arbitration tribunal requires the involvement with the taking of evidence process. By studying international instruments, national laws on arbitration, the procedures of international arbitration institutions and also the awards of arbitral tribunals, it becomes clear that because of the consensual nature of arbitration, the rules on the taking of evidence have been based on the principle of party autonomy. The will of the parties in this regard may be explicit or implicit or even may be in the form of the delegation of the authority to the arbitrator to determine the rules. However, the arbitral tribunal and the parties should comply with the due process requirements, the efficient proceedings principle, the duty of good faith and the principle of confidentiality.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence
  • Party Autonomy
  • Evidence Management in Arbitration
  • Good Faith
  • Confidentiality

مراجع

  • الف. فارسی

    ـ کتاب

    • جعفری ندوشن، شهاب؛ حقوق حل اختلافات سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی، میزان، 1397.
    • جولیان، دی ام دبلیو و لوکاس، ای میستلیس و استفان، ام کرول؛ داوری تجاری بین‌المللی تطبیقی، ترجمه: محمد حبیبی مجنده، دانشگاه مفید، 1391.

     

    ـ مقاله

    • شمس، عبدالله؛ «اصل تناظر»، فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی، شماره 35 و 36، 1381.
    • محبی، محسن و شهاب جعفری ندوشن؛ «نظام‌های تفتیشی و اتهامی در داوری تجاری بین‌المللی»، مجله حقوقی بین­المللی، شماره 52، بهار و تابستان 1394.

    ـ سند

    • کانون بین‌المللی وکلا؛ قواعد IBA (کانون بین‌المللی وکلا) برای فراهم­آوردن دلیل در داوری بین‌المللی، 2010، بازیابی­شده در 20/12/1396 از http://bit.ly/IBA_fa

    ب. انگلیسی

    - Books

    • Ashford, P., The IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration: A Guide, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2013.
    • Blackaby, N. & Partasides, C. & Redfern, A. & Hunter, M. (6th ed.), Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, Oxford University Press, UK, 2015.
    • Born, B. G. (2nd ed.), International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, Netherlands, 2014, vol. I.
    • Born, B. G. (2nd ed.), International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, Netherlands, 2015, vol. II.
    • Caron, D. D., & Caplan, L. M., The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013.
    • Noussia, K., Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis of the Position under English, US, German and French Law, Springer, Berlin, 2010.
    • O’malley, N. D., Rules of Evidence in International Arbitration: An Annotated Guide, Informa Law from Routledge, 5th ed.,  US, 2013.
    • Panizzon, M., Good Faith in the Jurisprudence of the WTO: The Protection of Legitimate Expectations, Good Faith Interpretation and Fair Dispute Settlement, Hart, Oxford, 2007.

     - Articles

    • Amaral, G. R., “Burden of Proof and Adverse Inferences in International Arbitration: Proposal for an Inference Chart”, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 35, Issue 1, 2018.
    • Bastin, L., “Amici Curiae in Investor-State Arbitration: Eight Recent Trends”, Arbitration International, Vol. 30, Issue 1, 2014.
    • Bockstiegel, K.-H., “Commercial and Investment Arbitration: How Different Are They Today?: The Lalive Lecture 2012”, Arbitration International, Vol. 28, Issue 4, 2012.
    • Cheung, S., “Critical Factors Affecting the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes in Construction”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 3, 1999.
    • Fortese, F. & Lotta, H., “Procedural Fairness and Efficiency in International Arbitration”, Groningen Journal of International Law, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2015.
    • Henriques, D. G., “The Prague Rules : Competitor, Alternative or Addition to the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration?”, ASA Bulletin, Vol. 36, Issue 2, 2018.
    • Henriques, D. G., “The Role of Good Faith in Arbitration: Are Arbitrators and Arbitral Institutions Bound to Act in Good Faith?”, ASA Bulletin, Vol. 33, Issue 3, 2015.
    • Kühner, D., “The Revised IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration”, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 27, Issue 6, 2010.
    • Luttrell, S. & Harris, P, “Reinventing the Redfern”, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 33, Issue 4, 2016.
    • Morrison, J. & Flanagan, M., “Recent Developments in International Arbitration in Australia 2015/2016”, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 33, Issue 6, 2016.
    • Moza, A. & Paul, V. K., “Review of the Effectiveness of Arbitration”, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, Vol. 9, Issue 1, 2017.
    • Omeroglu, E., “Taking Evidence in International Arbitration”, Coventry Law Journal, Vol. 20, Issue 2, 2015.
    • Ong, C. YC., “Confidentiality of Arbitral Awards and the Advantages for Arbitral Institutions to Maintain a Repository of Awards”, Asian International Arbitration Journal, Vol. 1, Issue 2, 2005.
    • Pettibone, P, J., “The Prague Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration: Are They an Alternative to the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration?”, Asian Dispute Review, Jan. 2019.
    • Segesser, G. V., “The IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration”, ASA Bulletin, Vol. 28, Issue 4, 2010.
    • Trittmann, R. & Kasolowsky, B., “Taking Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings between Common Law and Civil Law Traditions –The Development of a European Hybrid Standard for Arbitration Proceedings”, UNSW Law Journal, Vol. 31, Issue 1, 2008.
    • Woolhouse, S., “Taking of Evidence - Disclosure in International Investment Treaty Arbitration”. Investment Treaty Forum – Seventh Public Conference. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2006.

     

    - Instruments

    • Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (10 June, 1958).
    • European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (21 April, 1961).
    • IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (29 May, 2010).
    • Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration. (entered into force on 16 June, 1976).
    • Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration (Prague Rules).
    • United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, UNCITRAL Secretariat guide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958), United Nations, New York, 2016.

     - Case Law

    • Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3) Award Signed on 7, 10, 15 August, 2007.
    • Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. United States of America. Award Signed on 4,7 and 14 May, 2009.
    • Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. v. United States of America. Award in the Matter Dispatched to the parties on 12 January, 2011.
    • Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited, Alkor Petroo Limited, and Western Drilling Constructors Private Limited v. Republic of Yemen and the Yemen Ministry of Oil and Minerals. (ICC Case No.19299) Final Award Rendered on 10 July, 2015.
    • Merrill and Ring Forestry L.P. v. Canada. (ICSID Case No. UNCT/07/1) Decision of the Tribunal on Production of Documents. Rendered on 18 July, 2008.
    • Mesa Power Group, LLC v. Government of Canada. (PCA Case No. 2012-17). Procedural Order No. 13.
    • Methanex Corporation v. United States of America. Final Award on Jurisdiction and Merits Rendered on 3 August, 2005.
    • Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11) Award Rendered on 5 October, 2005.
    • Quiborax S.A., Non Metallic Minerals S.A. v Plurinational State of Bolivia (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2) Award Signed on 3,7 and 15 September, 2015.
    • Ronald S. Lauder v. The Czech Republic. Final Award Rendered on 3 September 2001.
    • ST-AD GmbH v. Republic of Bulgaria (PCA Case No. 2011-06) Award on Jurisdiction Rendered on 18 July, 2013.
    • TCW Group, Inc, Dominican Energy Holdings, L.P. Procedural Order No.2. Rendered on August 15, 2008.
    • Total S.A. v. Argentine Republic. (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1) Decision on Liability Rendered on 8 December, 2010.
    • Uiterwyk Corp et al. v The IslamicRepublic of Iran et al. (No. 375–381–1) Partial Award Rendered on 6 July, 1988.
    • United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Government of Canada. (ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1) Tribunal Decision Relating to Canada’s Claim of Cabinet Privilege Rendered on 8 October, 2004.
    • Vito G. Gallo v. The Government of Canada. (PCA Case No. 55798) Procedural Order No. 2 [Amended] Made on 10 February, 2009.

     - Acts and Regulations

    • Agreement between Hungary and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam on Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil Matters (10 September, 2018).
    • Arbitration Act [of UK] (17 June, 1996).
    • Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) (Effective on 1 January, 2017).
    • Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre. (HKIAC). (Effective on 1 November, 2018).
    • International Dispute Resolution Procedures (ICDR) (Effective on 1 June, 2014).
    • LCIA Arbitration Rules. (Effective on 1 October, 2014).
    • Rules of Arbitration of International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) (Effective on 1 March, 2017).
    • Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Arbitration Commission (Effective on 1 July, 1988).
    • Swiss Rules of International Arbitration (Effective on 1 June, 2012).
    • The Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (the Arbitration Rules) of ICSID (Effective on 10 April, 2006).
    • UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (6 December, 2010).

     - Websites

    • Rouhette, G., & Rouhette-Berton, A., [English Translation of French] Civil Code, 2014, Retrieved July 26, 2017, from http://bit.ly/20170726-1.
    • United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rule (as revised in 2010), United Nations, New York, 2011. Retrieved from UNCITRAL: http://bit.ly/UNCITRAL2010.

     

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 20 اسفند 1397
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 04 اسفند 1398
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 04 اسفند 1398

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار