Analyzing the Arbitrability of Subject-Matter of Disputes in Arbitration
Keywords:
Arbitral Tribunal, Public Policy, UNCITRAL Model LawAbstract
In both domestic and international arbitration, the arbitrability of the subject matter is a primary consideration before the courts and arbitral tribunals. When a party submits a dispute for arbitration, their opponent may resist the arbitration proceedings on the grounds that the dispute is non-arbitrable according to the law of the State and should only be decided by the competent court. In such situations, the arbitrator or court must decide whether a particular claim or dispute is capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law. The issue of arbitrability differs between countries and may also change over time. In most countries, disputes or claims relating to commercial or contractual matters are arbitrable, whereas criminal, family, bankruptcy, and insolvency matters are not. In many countries, legislation and judicial decisions have narrowed the scope of non-arbitrability in order to encourage arbitration between parties.
Downloads
References
Bansal, S. (2018). The dampening effect of foreign mandatory laws. Asian International
Arbitration Journal, 14(2), 165-179.
Barausova, V. (2017). The law governing arbitrability: Problems and proposals. International
Commercial Arbitration Review, 12(4), 136-139.
Blackaby, N., Partasides, C., Redfern, A., & Hunter, M. (2015). Redfern & Hunter on
international arbitration. Kluwer Law International, Oxford University Press.
Boog, C., & Moss, B. (2013). Arbitrability foreign mandatory law and the lazy myth of the
arbitral tribunal's obligation to render an enforceable award. ASA Bulletin, 31(3), 649-658.
Born, G.B. (2009). International commercial arbitration (First
Edition). Kluwer Law International.
Born, G.B. (2014). International commercial arbitration (Second
Edition). Kluwer Law International.
Born, G.B. (2016). International arbitration: Law and practice (Second
Edition). Kluwer Law International.
Brazier, L.W. (2015). The arbitrability of investor-state taxation disputes in international
commercial arbitration. Journal of International Arbitration, 32(1), 1-9.
Cases. (1953). Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427.
Cases. (1968). American safety equipment corp., v. J P Maguire & Co., 391 F 2d 821.
Cases. (1974). Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U. S. 506.
Cases. (1981). Natraj studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Navrang studios, AIR SC 537.
Cases. (1985). Mitsubishi motors corp., v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc., 473 U.S. 614.
Cases. (1986). AT&T technologies, Inc. v. Communications workers, 475 U.S. 643.
Cases. (1987). Desputeaux v. Éditions Chouette Inc., 1 S.C.R. 178, 2003 SCC 17.
Cases. (1987). Shearson v. McMahon, 482 US 220.
Cases. (1989). M.S.A v. company, M, Cour d’Appel (court of appeal) of Brussels 1985, XIV
yearbook of commercial arbitration.
Cases. (1990). Consultant v. Egyptian local authority, final award, ICC Case No. 6162, XVII
yearbook of commercial arbitration.
Cases. (1992). Fincantieri-Cantieri Navali Italiani SpA ET OTO Melara Spa v. ATF,
Switzerland federal tribunal, June 23, BGE 118 II 353.
Cases. (1993). Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Others 2 SCC 507.
Cases. (1995). First options of Chicago, Inc., v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938.
Cases. (1996). Fair air engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi, 6 SCC 385.
Cases. (1996). Fincantieri-Cantieri Navali Italiani SpA v. Ministry of defense, armament and
supply directorate of Iraq, republic of Iraq, Italy, Corte di Appello of Genoa, 1994, XXI
yearbook of commercial arbitration.
Cases. (1996). Paine Webber, Inc. v. Elahi, 87 F. 3d 589 (1st Cir).
Cases. (1999). Eco Swiss China time Ltd., v. Benetton international NV, Case C-126/97, XXIV
yearbook of commercial arbitration.
Cases. (1999). Haryana telecom Ltd. v. Sterlite industries India Ltd., 5 SCC 688.
Cases. (2001). Circuit city stores, Inc., v. Adams, 532, U.S. 105, 107.
Cases. (2002). Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 537 U.S. 79.
Cases. (2004). Motorola credit corp., v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39 (2d Cir).
Cases. (2005). Discover bank v. Superior court, 36 Cal. 4th 148.
Cases. (2011). AT&T mobility LLC. v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333.
Cases. (2011). Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI home finance limited 5 SCC 532.
Cases. (2012). CompuCredit v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct.665.
Cases. (2012). High court of Delhi in union of India v. Competition commission of India, AIR
2012 Del 66.
Cases. (2012). Serbian case, decision of the Swiss Federal supreme court, 4A_654/2011.
Cases. (2013). Bulgarian case, decision of the Swiss Federal supreme court, 4A_388/2012.
Cases. (2013). Kingfisher airlines limited v. Prithvi Malhotra instructor, (7) Bom. CR 738
(India).
Cases. (2016). Shri Vimal Kishor Shah and Ors., v. Mr. Jayesh Dinesh Shah and Ors., supreme
court of India, civil appeal no 8614.
Choudhary, T. (2015). Arbitrability of competition law disputes in India: Where we are now
and where do we go from here. Indian Journal of Arbitration Law, 10(4), 69-75.
Jalili, M. (1996). Kompetenz-Kompetenz: Recent U.S. and U.K. Developments. Journal of
International Arbitration, 13(1), 169-177.
Judd, J. (2009). AED oil limited v. Puffin FPSO limited; No. 2. Retrieved from
https://jade.io/j/?a=outline&id=120539
Lew, J.D., Mistelis, L.A., Kröll, S.M., & Kröll, S. (2003). Comparative international
commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International BV.
Mason, S.H. (2013). Recent development: ADR to trusts: Alternative dispute resolution: 2nd
Circuit holds Res judicata not a question of procedural arbitrability. Louisiana Bar Journal,
60(1), 323-333.
Moses, M.L. (2017). The principles and practice of international commercial arbitration.
Cambridge University Press.
Newman, L.W., & Davidson, C.M. (1997). Arbitrability of timeliness defences who
decides? Journal of International Arbitration, 14(1) 137-143.
Redfern, A., & Hunter, M. (2004). Law and practice of international commercial arbitration
(Fourth Edition). Sweet & Maxwell (London).
UNCITRAL. (2012). United Nations commission on international trade law: Digest of case
law on the model law on international commercial arbitration.
Vardy, T. (2003). International commercial arbitration: A transnational perspective (Second
Edition). American Case Book Series.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License Terms
Ownership and Licensing:
Authors of research papers submitted to any journal published by The Law Brigade Publishers retain the copyright of their work while granting the journal specific rights. Authors maintain ownership of the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication. Simultaneously, authors agree to license their research papers under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) License.
License Permissions:
Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License, others are permitted to share and adapt the work, even for commercial purposes, provided that appropriate attribution is given to the authors, and acknowledgment is made of the initial publication by The Law Brigade Publishers. This license encourages the broad dissemination and reuse of research papers while ensuring that the original work is properly credited.
Additional Distribution Arrangements:
Authors are free to enter into separate, non-exclusive contractual arrangements for distributing the published version of the work (e.g., posting it to institutional repositories or publishing it in books), provided that the original publication by The Law Brigade Publishers is acknowledged.
Online Posting:
Authors are encouraged to share their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on personal websites) both prior to submission and after publication. This practice can facilitate productive exchanges and increase the visibility and citation of the work.
Responsibility and Liability:
Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submitted research papers do not infringe on the copyright, privacy, or other rights of third parties. The Law Brigade Publishers disclaims any liability for any copyright infringement or violation of third-party rights within the submitted research papers.
