Advanced

Diagonal tvistlösningsklausul - En utredning av dess funktion vid prövning av skiljenämnds behörighet

Ringström, Rasmus LU (2016) LAGF03 20161
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Diagonala tvistlösningsklausuler i internationella investeringsavtal reglerar uppkomna tvister mellan avtalsslutande stater och investerare från annan avtalsslutande stat. Klausulerna innebär att privata investerare ges möjlighet att, om vissa förutsättningar föreligger, påkalla internationellt skiljeförfarande gentemot den avtalsslutande stat de investerat i. Det är ur nämnda klausuler som skiljenämnder i sådana situationer härleder sin behörighet. Syftet med förevarande framställning är att utreda hur en prövning av skiljenämnds behörighet, när behörigheten härleds ur en diagonal tvistlösningsklausul, går till och vad som utmärker en sådan prövning.

Prövning av skiljenämnds behörighet kan göras av såväl skiljenämnd som domstol. Det... (More)
Diagonala tvistlösningsklausuler i internationella investeringsavtal reglerar uppkomna tvister mellan avtalsslutande stater och investerare från annan avtalsslutande stat. Klausulerna innebär att privata investerare ges möjlighet att, om vissa förutsättningar föreligger, påkalla internationellt skiljeförfarande gentemot den avtalsslutande stat de investerat i. Det är ur nämnda klausuler som skiljenämnder i sådana situationer härleder sin behörighet. Syftet med förevarande framställning är att utreda hur en prövning av skiljenämnds behörighet, när behörigheten härleds ur en diagonal tvistlösningsklausul, går till och vad som utmärker en sådan prövning.

Prövning av skiljenämnds behörighet kan göras av såväl skiljenämnd som domstol. Det ankommer på domstol att slutligen fastställa skiljenämndens behörighet. Det mellan parterna upprättade skiljeavtalet, vilket ingås i enlighet med allmänna avtalsprinciper, grundar skiljenämndens behörighet. För att avgöra vilka frågor skiljenämnden är behörig att pröva behöver skiljeavtalets omfattning fastställas. Ett skiljeavtals omfattning fastställs genom tolkning. Vad gäller diagonala tvistlösningsklausuler ska dessa tolkas med hjälp av artiklarna 31–33 i Wienkonventionen om traktaträtten. Vid förekomsten av dubbelrelevanta rättsfakta ska i vissa fall påståendedoktrinen tillämpas, vilket fastslagits av HD i NJA 2008 s. 406.

Utredningen visar att det förefaller vara oklart hur påståendedoktrinen ska tillämpas just när skiljenämndens behörighet härleds ur en diagonal tvistlösningsklausul. Otydligheten grundar sig i huruvida en diagonal tvistlösningsklausul ska anses utgöra ett giltigt skiljeavtal, vilket blir direkt avgörande för hur behörighetsprövningen ska utformas. Den nuvarande oklarheten kan sammanfattningsvis inte anses vara varken rättssäker eller förutsebar och det torde vara angeläget att rättsläget klargörs. (Less)
Abstract
Investment treaties typically contain so called investor–state arbitration clauses. These clauses regulate disputes that may arise between the Contracting States and investors from another Contracting State. Investor–state arbitration clauses imply that investors have the opportunity to request international arbitration against the Contracting State invested in, given that certain conditions are met. The arbitration committee derives its jurisdiction from these clauses. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate how an arbitration committee’s jurisdiction is ruled when the jurisdiction is derived from an investor–state arbitration clause.

The arbitration committee’s jurisdiction may be ruled by the arbitration committee itself, or by... (More)
Investment treaties typically contain so called investor–state arbitration clauses. These clauses regulate disputes that may arise between the Contracting States and investors from another Contracting State. Investor–state arbitration clauses imply that investors have the opportunity to request international arbitration against the Contracting State invested in, given that certain conditions are met. The arbitration committee derives its jurisdiction from these clauses. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate how an arbitration committee’s jurisdiction is ruled when the jurisdiction is derived from an investor–state arbitration clause.

The arbitration committee’s jurisdiction may be ruled by the arbitration committee itself, or by a court. Nevertheless, it is the court that ultimately determines the committee’s jurisdiction. The arbitration committee's jurisdiction is established by the arbitration agreement between the parties. This agreement is concluded in accordance with general contractual principles. To determine what issues the arbitration committee may rule on, the meaning and scope of the arbitration agreement is to be defined. The meaning and the scope of the arbitration agreement is in turn determined through interpretation. For the interpretation of an investor–state arbitration clause, the Articles 31-32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties are to be used. Upon the occurrence of double pertinent facts, the doctrine of assertion may under certain circumstances be applicable, as established by the Swedish Supreme Court in NJA 2008 p. 406.

This thesis shows that it appears to be unclear how the doctrine of assertion should be applied when the arbitration committee's jurisdiction is derived from an investor–state arbitration clause. The ambiguity is based on whether an investor–state arbitration clause constitutes a valid arbitration agreement or not, which is decisive for how an arbitration committee’s jurisdiction is to be ruled. This current uncertainty can not be considered legally secure, nor predictable. Clarification is therefore needed. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Ringström, Rasmus LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20161
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Internationellt investeringsavtal, Diagonal tvistlösningsklausul, Skiljenämnds behörighet, Folkrätt, Processrätt, Lag om skiljeförfarande, Påståendedoktrinen, 1969 års Wienkonvention om tolkning av traktat, NJA 2008 s. 406
language
Swedish
id
8874578
date added to LUP
2016-07-04 12:13:45
date last changed
2016-07-04 12:13:45
@misc{8874578,
  abstract     = {Investment treaties typically contain so called investor–state arbitration clauses. These clauses regulate disputes that may arise between the Contracting States and investors from another Contracting State. Investor–state arbitration clauses imply that investors have the opportunity to request international arbitration against the Contracting State invested in, given that certain conditions are met. The arbitration committee derives its jurisdiction from these clauses. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate how an arbitration committee’s jurisdiction is ruled when the jurisdiction is derived from an investor–state arbitration clause.

The arbitration committee’s jurisdiction may be ruled by the arbitration committee itself, or by a court. Nevertheless, it is the court that ultimately determines the committee’s jurisdiction. The arbitration committee's jurisdiction is established by the arbitration agreement between the parties. This agreement is concluded in accordance with general contractual principles. To determine what issues the arbitration committee may rule on, the meaning and scope of the arbitration agreement is to be defined. The meaning and the scope of the arbitration agreement is in turn determined through interpretation. For the interpretation of an investor–state arbitration clause, the Articles 31-32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties are to be used. Upon the occurrence of double pertinent facts, the doctrine of assertion may under certain circumstances be applicable, as established by the Swedish Supreme Court in NJA 2008 p. 406.

This thesis shows that it appears to be unclear how the doctrine of assertion should be applied when the arbitration committee's jurisdiction is derived from an investor–state arbitration clause. The ambiguity is based on whether an investor–state arbitration clause constitutes a valid arbitration agreement or not, which is decisive for how an arbitration committee’s jurisdiction is to be ruled. This current uncertainty can not be considered legally secure, nor predictable. Clarification is therefore needed.},
  author       = {Ringström, Rasmus},
  keyword      = {Internationellt investeringsavtal,Diagonal tvistlösningsklausul,Skiljenämnds behörighet,Folkrätt,Processrätt,Lag om skiljeförfarande,Påståendedoktrinen,1969 års Wienkonvention om tolkning av traktat,NJA 2008 s. 406},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Diagonal tvistlösningsklausul - En utredning av dess funktion vid prövning av skiljenämnds behörighet},
  year         = {2016},
}