The Expansive Tendency of Unilateral Economic Sanction: Impacts on International Commercial Arbitration and the Blueprint for Solution
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/6ygbga20Keywords:
Unilateral Economic Sanction; Impact of Economic Sanction; International Commercial Arbitration; Compromising Theory; Four-step Approach.Abstract
The expansive tendency of unilateral economic sanction in the 21st century has fundamentally influenced the contractual relationship among private persons, and further continuously given rise to numerous commercial disputes referred to the arbitral tribunal to seek settlement, which poses multiple impacts on international commercial arbitration, including the choices of arbitral institution and the arbitral seat, the arbitrability of dispute, the settlement of substantive issue, and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral award, leaving a perplexing predicament for the arbitral tribunal that find itself trapped in the vague nature of economic sanction and the tough decision as to whether to apply the economic sanction. In consideration of such thorny task confronted by the arbitral tribunal concerning economic sanction, a blueprint for solution must be drawn incorporating a comprehensive review system on economic sanction entrenched on the compromising theory and enshrining a four-step approach, which is highly practicable through three progressive stages, from global initiative to widespread and consistent arbitral practice, and eventually to reach an international binding convention with the majority of States worldwide having become its State party.
Downloads
References
[1] T. Clifton Morgan, Constantinos Syropoulos, Yoto V. Yotov, et al. Economic Sanctions: Evolution, Consequences, and Challenges. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 37 (2023), No. 1, p. 6.
[2] Information on: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2022/01/economic-sanctions-evolved-tool-modern-war.
[3] Yoshi Kobayashi, et al. The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Foreign Policy Analysis. Economic Sanction as Foreign Policy. Oxford University Press, 2017, p. 4.
[4] Information on: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0410/countries-sanctioned-by-the-u.s.---and-why.aspx.
[5] Information on: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0410/countries-sanctioned-by-the-u.s.---and-why.aspx.
[6] Michel Rosenfeld, et al. Rethinking the Boundaries between Public Law and Private Law for the Twenty First Century: An Introduction. International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 11 (2013) Issue 1, p. 126-127.
[7] Thesis: (Johan Holst: The Legality of Unilateral Economic Sanctions (Master of Laws, Lund University, Sweden 2023). p. 1-4 .
[8] Information on: https://www.lcia.org/News/the-potential-impact-of-the-eu-sanctions-against-russia-on-inter.aspx.
[9] Information on: https://www.lcia.org/News/the-potential-impact-of-the-eu-sanctions-against-russia-on-inter.aspx.
[10] Information on: https://arbitration.ru/en/arbitration-association/working-groups/analysis-of-sanction-s-impact-on-russian-arbitration/.
[11] Information on: https://jusmundi.com/en/document/publication/en-arbitrability.
[12] Ilias Bantekas, et al. The Foundations of Arbitrability in International Commercial Arbitration . Australian Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 35 (2008) No. 27, p. 193-195.
[13] Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards; Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.
[14] Information on: https://aria.law.columbia.edu/imposition-of-economic-sanctions-an-embargo-on-international-commercial-arbitration/.
[15] Information on: https://aria.law.columbia.edu/imposition-of-economic-sanctions-an-embargo-on-international-commercial-arbitration/.
[16] Eric De Brabandere, David Holloway, et al. Sanctions and International Arbitration. Research Handbook on UN Sanctions and International Law. p. 308.
[17] Eric De Brabandere, David Holloway, et al. Sanctions and International Arbitration. Research Handbook on UN Sanctions and International Law. p. 308.
[18] Information on: https://www.idi-iil.org/app/uploads/2017/06/1975_wies_04_en.pdf.
[19] Working Group on “General Principles”, et al. Guidelines: Overriding Mandatory Provisions. European Group for Private International Law Oslo Meeting. Oslo, 11 September 2022, p. 1.
[20] Mercedeh Azeredo Da Silveira, et al. Hardship and Force Majeure in International Commercial Contracts. Institute Dossier XVII, 2018, p. 161-163.
[21] Christoph Brunner, et al. Force Majeure and Hardship Under General Contract Principles: Exemption for Non-performance in International Arbitration. Kluwer Law International, 2009, p. 272-273.
[22] Christoph Brunner, et al. Force Majeure and Hardship Under General Contract Principles: Exemption for Non-performance in International Arbitration. Kluwer Law International, 2009, p. 272-273.
[23] Pierre Mayer, Audley Sheppard, et al. Final ILA Report on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards. Vol. 19 (2003) Issue 2, p. 250.
[24] Andrea Bonomi, et al. The Concept of Public Policy under the 1958 New York Convention: An Autonomous Interpretation in Autonomous Versus Domestic Concepts under the New York Convention. Kluwer Law International, 2020, p. 322.
[25] International Law Association, et al. Interim Report in Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards. International Law Association London Conference, 25 July 2000, 15
[26] Joséphine Hage Chahine, et al. UN and EU Sanctions Versus US Sanctions: Two Different Yardsticks Commentary on the Decision of the Paris Court of Appeal (International Commercial Chamber) (5th Pole, Chamber 16) of 3 June 2020, No. 21/2020. Journal of International Arbitration. Vol. 38 (2008) Issue 1, p. 71-82.
[27] ZHANG Jian, et al. Characterization and Application of Unilateral Economic Sanctions in International Commercial Arbitration. Chinese Journal of Maritime Law. Vol. 34 (2023) No. 3, p. 73.
[28] ZHANG Xiao Jian, et al. On the Application of Jus Cogens in International Commercial Arbitration. Modern Law Science. Vol. 28 (2006) No. 1, p. 131.
[29] Information on: https://www.uniset.ca/microstates/me_1897_c-124-95.pdf.
[30] Information on: https://www.italaw.com/cases/9408.
[31] Information on: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Mamancochet-v-Aegis-Case-Summary.pdf.
[32] Christoph Brunner, et al. Force Majeure and Hardship Under General Contract Principles: Exemption for Non-performance in International Arbitration. Kluwer Law International, 2009, p. 277.
[33] Information on: https://www.hilldickinson.com/insights/articles/case-reflecting-impact-sanctions-context-security-costs.
[34] Information on: https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/asiadisputes/2024-04/hong-kong-court-grants-order-for-payment-into-court-amidst-risk-of-secondary-sanctions.
[35] Article 9(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations.
[36] Article 9(3) of the Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations.
[37] Information on:https://www.era- comm.eu/Visegrad/kiosk/pdf/speakers_contributions/ 116DT35_Grajdura_mandatory.pdf.
[38] Viljar Veebel, Raul Markus, et al. Lessons from the EU-Russia Sanctions 2014-205. Baltic Journal Of Law & Politics. Vol. 8 (2015) No. 1, p. 167-168.
[39] Information on: https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/11/12/public-policy-national-international-and-transnational/.
[40] Thesis: (Tatu Paavilainen: Trade Sanctions and Public Policy in International Arbitration (Master of Laws, University of Helsinki, Finland 2015). p. 57).
[41] Thesis: (Tatu Paavilainen: Trade Sanctions and Public Policy in International Arbitration (Master of Laws, University of Helsinki, Finland 2015). p. 57).
[42] Thesis: (Tatu Paavilainen: Trade Sanctions and Public Policy in International Arbitration (Master of Laws, University of Helsinki, Finland 2015). p. 57).
[43] Thesis: (Tatu Paavilainen: Trade Sanctions and Public Policy in International Arbitration (Master of Laws, University of Helsinki, Finland 2015). p. 58).
[44] Lalive, Pierre, et al. Transnational (or Truly International) Public Policy and International Arbitration. Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in
Arbitration. Vol. 3 (1987), p. 322–323.
[45] Aurore Marchand, et al. L'Embargo en Droit du Commerce International. Larcier Brussels, 2012, p. 188.
[46] Barraclough, Andrew, Waincymer Jeff, et al. Mandatory Rules of Law in International Commercial Arbitration. Asian International Law Journal. Vol. 5 (2005) No. 1, p. 219.
[47] Azeredo da Silveira, Mercédeh:, et al. Trade Sanctions and International Sales: An Inquiry into International Arbitration and Commercial Litigation. Kluwer Law International, 2014, p. 162.
[48] Stephanie Law, Jo Shaw, Jonathan Havercroft, Susan Kangand, Antje Wiener. Private law, Private International Law and Public Interest Litigation. Global Institutionalism. Vol. 13 (2024) Issue1, p. 5.
[49] Information on: https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/ en/12-57491-guide-to-uncitral-e.pdf.
[50] Information on: https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/ en/12-57491-guide-to-uncitral-e.pdf.
[51] Information on: https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/ en/12-57491-guide-to-uncitral-e.pdf.
[52] Information on: https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/ en/12-57491-guide-to-uncitral-e.pdf.
[53] Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler. Soft Law in International Arbitration: Codification and Normativity. Journal of International Dispute Settlement. Vol. 1 (2010) Issue 2, p. 2.
[54] Article 15(3) of the 2021 Arbitration Rules-International Chamber of Commerce.
[55] Article 14(2) of the London Court of Arbitration Rules of Arbitration.
[56] Article 17(1) of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Arbitration Rules; Article 16(1) of the American Arbitration Association Rules of Arbitration; Article 17(1) of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Rules of Arbitration.
[57] Popescu, Daniela Nicoleta, et al. The Principle Pacta Sunt Servanda: Doctrine and Practice. Lex ET Scientia International Journal. Vol. 16 (2009), p. 128-131.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
