Advanced

Res judicata vid internationellt skiljeförfarande

Lagerås, Nina LU (2019) JURM02 20192
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
The overall purpose of this essay is to discuss how unpredictability in the application of res judicata in international arbitration can be eliminated. In most legal traditions res judicata constitutes a fundamental judicial norm with the meaning that a matter adjudged can not be tried again. A dispute identical to a previous dispute will hence be rejected with reference to res judicata. Differences in the application of res judicata arise when there are similarities between a current and a previous dispute, without them being identical. There are large differences between common law tradition and civil law tradition in the application and scope of res judicata in national courts. The application is in general wider in the common law... (More)
The overall purpose of this essay is to discuss how unpredictability in the application of res judicata in international arbitration can be eliminated. In most legal traditions res judicata constitutes a fundamental judicial norm with the meaning that a matter adjudged can not be tried again. A dispute identical to a previous dispute will hence be rejected with reference to res judicata. Differences in the application of res judicata arise when there are similarities between a current and a previous dispute, without them being identical. There are large differences between common law tradition and civil law tradition in the application and scope of res judicata in national courts. The application is in general wider in the common law tradition than in civil law tradition. As an example, in common law tradition res judicata also includes, besides the conclusion, the reasoning of a judgement.

The consequence of the variation in res judicata’s content between different legal traditions is that there is no uniform approach with regards to how one should handle res judicata in international arbitration. Because of this, arbitral tribunals need to individually decide how to apply res judicata. Therefore, different arbitral tribunals tend to apply res judicata differently. The essay concludes that res judicata constitutes international customary law in international arbitration. The precise content of res judicata, however, does not follow from customary law, arbitration rules, conventions or other soft law.

Arbitral tribunals influenced by civil law tradition will often consider res judicata to be a procedural rule and apply the view on res judicata in accordance with lex arbitri (the law of the seat of the arbitration). Arbitral tribunals influenced by common law tradition will on the other hand often consider res judicata to be a substantive rule and apply the view on res judicata in accordance with lex causae (the law of the contract). Other arbitral tribunals disregard the choice of law principles and instead freely interpret the content of res judicata. The lack of international norms clarifying the specific content of res judicata obstructs the parties’ possibility to predict whether res judicata will prohibit the dispute at hand. Confusions include who is considered to be a party, whether issue estoppel is applicable and at which moment in time res judicata can be applied. Unpredictability in res judicata’s content risks to cause harm to arbitration at large because the arbitral tribunal’s assessment appears to be arbitrary.

The essay discusses different ways of harmonization of res judicata’s content in international arbitration and suggests a solution where the content does not need to be harmonized but rather the classification of res judicata as either a procedural or substantial rule. Such a solution increases the parties’ ability to predict the outcome of the res judicata assessment. At the same time this solution provides the parties with the opportunity to, by choosing lex arbitri and lex causae in their arbitration clause, decide which view on res judicata they prefer. Complete harmonization of res judicata’s content in international arbitration does not appear to be necessary in order to reduce the unpredictability. There is however no fully appropriate way to incorporate res judicata as either a procedural or a substantial rule in international arbitration. A first step towards harmonization of res judicata’s classification can however be to incorporate a harmonized classification of res judicata in arbitration rules such as the ICC Rules of Arbitration, LCIA Arbitration Rules, SCC Arbitration Rules and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Uppsatsens övergripande syfte är att diskutera hur oförutsebarhet kan motverkas vid tillämpning av res judicata i internationella skiljeförfaranden. Res judicata är i de flesta stater en grundläggande rättslig norm med innebörden att en sak som slutligt avgjorts inte får prövas igen. En tvist som är identisk med föregående tvist kommer med hänvisning till res judicata därför att avvisas. Skillnader i tillämpning uppkommer när saken i den aktuella tvisten är lik men inte identisk med en tidigare tvist. Innebörden av res judicata som rättsnorm varierar nämligen stort mellan olika rättstraditioner såsom civil law-tradition och common law-tradition. Generellt kan sägas att tillämpningen av res judicata är vidare i common law-tradition än i... (More)
Uppsatsens övergripande syfte är att diskutera hur oförutsebarhet kan motverkas vid tillämpning av res judicata i internationella skiljeförfaranden. Res judicata är i de flesta stater en grundläggande rättslig norm med innebörden att en sak som slutligt avgjorts inte får prövas igen. En tvist som är identisk med föregående tvist kommer med hänvisning till res judicata därför att avvisas. Skillnader i tillämpning uppkommer när saken i den aktuella tvisten är lik men inte identisk med en tidigare tvist. Innebörden av res judicata som rättsnorm varierar nämligen stort mellan olika rättstraditioner såsom civil law-tradition och common law-tradition. Generellt kan sägas att tillämpningen av res judicata är vidare i common law-tradition än i civil law-tradition. Exempelvis omfattar res judicata i common law-tradition, utöver domslutet, även domskälen.

En konsekvens av dessa variationer mellan civil law-tradition och common law-tradition är att det saknas ett enhetligt tillvägagångssätt för hanteringen av res judicata vid internationella skiljeförfaranden. Skiljenämnder behöver därför individuellt ta ställning till hur de ska tillämpa res judicata. Följden blir att skiljenämnders tillämpning varierar. Uppsatsen finner att res judicata som norm utgör internationell sedvanerätt. Dess materiella innehåll följer däremot inte av varken internationell sedvanerätt, förfaranderegler, konventioner eller annan soft law.

Skiljenämnder influerade av synen i civil law-tradition klassificerar ofta res judicata som en processuell regel. Klassificeringen innebär att dessa skiljenämnder tenderar att tillämpa res judicata enligt skiljeförfarandets lex arbitri (säteslandets lag). Skiljenämnder influerade av synen i common law-tradition tenderar däremot att klassificera res judicata som en materiell regel. En sådan klassificering innebär att dessa skiljenämnder tenderar att tillämpa res judicata enligt lex causae (kontraktslandets lag). Andra skiljenämnder frångår lagvalsreglerna och tolkar istället res judicatas materiella innehåll fritt. Avsaknaden av internationella normer som förtydligar res judicatas innebörd försvårar parternas möjlighet att förutse om res judicata förhindrar den nya tvisten. Bland annat föreligger oklarhet kring vilka som anses vara identiska parter, om issue estoppel ska tillämpas (med innebörden att fastställd fakta kan inte prövas igen i en ny process) och vid vilken tidpunkt res judicata inträder. Oförutsebarheten riskerar att på lång sikt skada skiljeförfarandet som institut eftersom det framstår som att skiljenämndens bedömning är godtycklig.

Uppsatsen diskuterar möjligheter till harmonisering av res judicata och föreslår en lösning där res judicata inte innehållsmässigt behöver harmoniseras, men att harmonisering sker av klassificeringen av res judicata som antingen en processuell eller materiell regel. En sådan lösning ökar parternas möjlighet att förutse skiljenämndens bedömning av res judicata. Lösningen möjliggör även för parterna att välja vilken syn på res judicata som ska tillämpas genom att i sin skiljeklausul välja lex arbitri och lex causae. Harmonisering av res judicatas materiella innehåll är inte nödvändigt eftersom det avgörande är att det materiella innehållet är förutsebart. Det saknas dock ett lämpligt tillvägagångssätt för hur harmonisering av klassificeringen av res judicata som en processuell eller materiell regel bör ske. Ett första steg mot en harmoniserad klassificering är dock inkorporering av klassificeringen i förfaranderegler såsom ICC Rules of Arbitration, LCIA Arbitration Rules, SCC:s skiljedomsregler och UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Lagerås, Nina LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM02 20192
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
res judicata, skiljeförfarande, civilrätt, processrätt
language
Swedish
id
9000347
date added to LUP
2020-02-01 13:42:54
date last changed
2020-02-01 13:42:54
@misc{9000347,
  abstract     = {The overall purpose of this essay is to discuss how unpredictability in the application of res judicata in international arbitration can be eliminated. In most legal traditions res judicata constitutes a fundamental judicial norm with the meaning that a matter adjudged can not be tried again. A dispute identical to a previous dispute will hence be rejected with reference to res judicata. Differences in the application of res judicata arise when there are similarities between a current and a previous dispute, without them being identical. There are large differences between common law tradition and civil law tradition in the application and scope of res judicata in national courts. The application is in general wider in the common law tradition than in civil law tradition. As an example, in common law tradition res judicata also includes, besides the conclusion, the reasoning of a judgement. 

The consequence of the variation in res judicata’s content between different legal traditions is that there is no uniform approach with regards to how one should handle res judicata in international arbitration. Because of this, arbitral tribunals need to individually decide how to apply res judicata. Therefore, different arbitral tribunals tend to apply res judicata differently. The essay concludes that res judicata constitutes international customary law in international arbitration. The precise content of res judicata, however, does not follow from customary law, arbitration rules, conventions or other soft law.

Arbitral tribunals influenced by civil law tradition will often consider res judicata to be a procedural rule and apply the view on res judicata in accordance with lex arbitri (the law of the seat of the arbitration). Arbitral tribunals influenced by common law tradition will on the other hand often consider res judicata to be a substantive rule and apply the view on res judicata in accordance with lex causae (the law of the contract). Other arbitral tribunals disregard the choice of law principles and instead freely interpret the content of res judicata. The lack of international norms clarifying the specific content of res judicata obstructs the parties’ possibility to predict whether res judicata will prohibit the dispute at hand. Confusions include who is considered to be a party, whether issue estoppel is applicable and at which moment in time res judicata can be applied. Unpredictability in res judicata’s content risks to cause harm to arbitration at large because the arbitral tribunal’s assessment appears to be arbitrary. 

The essay discusses different ways of harmonization of res judicata’s content in international arbitration and suggests a solution where the content does not need to be harmonized but rather the classification of res judicata as either a procedural or substantial rule. Such a solution increases the parties’ ability to predict the outcome of the res judicata assessment. At the same time this solution provides the parties with the opportunity to, by choosing lex arbitri and lex causae in their arbitration clause, decide which view on res judicata they prefer. Complete harmonization of res judicata’s content in international arbitration does not appear to be necessary in order to reduce the unpredictability. There is however no fully appropriate way to incorporate res judicata as either a procedural or a substantial rule in international arbitration. A first step towards harmonization of res judicata’s classification can however be to incorporate a harmonized classification of res judicata in arbitration rules such as the ICC Rules of Arbitration, LCIA Arbitration Rules, SCC Arbitration Rules and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.},
  author       = {Lagerås, Nina},
  keyword      = {res judicata,skiljeförfarande,civilrätt,processrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Res judicata vid internationellt skiljeförfarande},
  year         = {2019},
}