International Arbitration Faced with the Challenge of Economic Sanctions

مشکور, مشکان

doi:10.22066/cilamag.2023.707227

International Arbitration Faced with the Challenge of Economic Sanctions

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسنده

مشکان مشکور

وکیل، مدیر سابق مرکز داوری منطقه ای تهران (TRAC)، عضو دیوان داوری مرکز داوری اتاق بازرگانی ایران و عضو هیئت داوری بین المللی TRAC

10.22066/cilamag.2023.707227

چکیده

The multiplication of economic sanctions has caused serious challenges for the users of international arbitration. Access to international arbitration and, more particularly, to institutional arbitration has been seriously affected by their ever-growing spread. Fundamental principles that should govern any sound arbitral process are adversely affected. In certain instances, sanctions have led to a denial of justice. After being tetanized for many years, arbitration institutions are taking steps to remedy this situation. Such steps are, however, still insufficient. Users and practitioners from sanctioned states continue to remain in an unfair position. They should take this situation into account when drafting arbitration agreements.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

داوری های بین المللی

عنوان مقاله [English]

International Arbitration Faced with the Challenge of Economic Sanctions,

نویسنده [English]

Moshkan Mashkour

Lawyer, former director of Tehran Regional Arbitral Centre (TRAC), member of the Court of Arbitration of the Arbitration Centre of the Iran Chamber of Commerce and member of the International Arbitration Board of TRAC.

چکیده [English]

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

Sanctions
Arbitral Institutions
Arbitration Costs
Confidentiality
Transparency
Denial of Justice: Accountability

مراجع

- Books
1. Born, B. Gary. International Commercial Arbitration II. The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer, 2009.
2. Lew DM. Julian, Loukas A. Mistelis and Stefan Kröll. Comparative International Commercial Arbitration. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2003.
3. Moses, Margaret L. The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
4. Poudret, Jean-François, and Sébastien Besson. Comparative Law of International Arbitration. London: Thomson, Sweet & Maxwell, 2007.
5. Raymond-Eniaeva, Elza. Towards a Uniform Approach to Confidentiality of International Arbitration. Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2019.
- Articles
1. Barry E. Carter, “International Economic Sanctions: Improving the Haphazard U.S. Legal Regime.” California Law Review 75, no. 4 (1987).
2. Drezner Daniel W., “How Smart Are Smart Sanctions?” International Studies Review 5, no.1 (2003).
3. Rogers, Catherine A., “Transparency in International Commercial Arbitration,” University of Kansas Law Review 54, (2006).
4. Zamoff Mitch, “Safeguarding Confidential Arbitration Awards in Uncontested Confirmation Actions” American Business Law Journal 59, issue 3 (2022).
- Cases
1. CA Paris, 28 février 1986, Aita c/ Ojjeh, Rev. arb., 1986.
2. Cantonal Patrimonial Chamber of Lausanne, PCCI Ltd Co. v. Indani Global GmbH, July 5, 2016.
3. JSC Uraltransmash v PESA [2021] А60-36897/2020.
4. Swiss Rules Case No. 300255-2013, LTD «Techno 2000» v. HESA, Final Award.
5. Tehran General Court, judgment No. 94097970227201292 dated 15 March 2016.
- Documents
1. Arbitration Rules (2017) of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC).
2. Arbitration Rules (2012) of the Arbitration Institute of the Swiss Chambers of Commerce (SCAI).
3. Arbitration Rules (2014) of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA).
4. Arbitration Rules (2018) of the Tehran Regional Arbitration Centre (TRAC).
5. Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, as well as actions based thereon or resulting therefrom, JOCE, 1996R2271, 20 February 2014, 002.001.
6. Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilizing the situation in Ukraine.
7. Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
8. French Code of Civil Procedure.
9. General License – London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Arbitration Costs INT/2022/1552576, 17 October 2022.
10. Guidance Note from the European Commission, Questions and answers: adoption of the updating of the blocking law (2018/C 277 I/03), JOCE, C 277 I/4, 7 August 2018.
11. ICC, “Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on ICC Compliance”, 29 September 2017, at https://iccwbo.org/publication/note-parties-arbitral-tribunals-icc-compliance/, last accessed on 12 May 2022.
12. International Commercial Arbitration Act of Iran (1997).
13. Joint Note from the ICC, LCIA, SCC: “The potential impact of the EU sanctions against Russia on international arbitration administered by EU-based institutions”, 20 August 2015.
14. LCIA, “The potential impact of the EU sanctions against Russia on international arbitration administered by EU-based institutions”, 20 August 2015, lcia.org/News/the-potential-impact-of-the-eu-sanctions- against-russia -on-inter.aspx.
15. Russian Federal Law No. 171-FZ
16. Statutes of the ICC International Court of Arbitration.
17. Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law (1987).
18. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (2006).
- Websites and Blogs
1. Da Silveira, Azeredo Mercédeh, Stephan Den Hartog. “The EU’s Clarification on Access to Arbitration in its Seventh Package of Sanctions Against Russia: Trivial or Consequential?” Kluwer Arbitration Blog. August 16, 2022. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/ author/ mazeredodasilveira/, Last accessed on 25 November
2. Fisher Toby, “Russian State Entity Seeks LCIA Arbitration” Global arbitration review. August 3, https://globalarbitrationreview.com/ article/ russian-state-entity-seeks-lcia-arbitration/, Last accessed 7 August 2023.