Text 1(a). Introduction to agency
lex causae (Lat.) = the proper law (Engl.) — право, свойственное договору
to infer — выводить, подразумевать, прсзюмировать
putative — предполагаемый, мнимый
formation (of a contract) — заключение (договора)
capacity — правоспособность, дееспособность
discharge v. and п. — 1. освобождать от обязательств, 2. освобождение от обязательств, прекращение обязательств из договора
lex loci contractus (Lat.) = the law of the place where the contract is made (Engl.) — закон места заключения договора (сделки)
lex loci solutionis (Lat.) = the law of the place where the contract is performed — закон места исполнения договора (сделки)
prima facie (Lat.) ==at first sight (Engl.) — с первого взгляда, по презумпции, при отсутствии доказательств об ином
due — 1. должный, надлежащий, 2. причитающийся, срочный
executive machinery — судебные исполнительные органы
qualification — 1. квалификация, 2. свойство, качество, 3. оговорка, ограничение
to contend (for) — претендовать (на что-л.), оспаривать, утверждать
contention — спор, предмет спора, утверждение
to promote — 1. поощрять, содействовать развитию, поддерживать, 2. учреждать (акционерное общество)
to affect adversely — отрицательно влиять (на что-л.)
offensive (to) — 1. нарушающий (что-л.), 2. оскорбительный, 3. наступательный
to jettison — 1. отказаться (от чего-л.), 2. выбрасывать груз за борт (для спасения судна и остального груза)
scope — 1. сфера действия (конвенции), 2. объем полномочий
inter alia (Lat.) — среди прочего
natural person — физическое лицо
arbitration agreement — арбитражная оговорка, соглашение об арбитраже
the law of associations — акционерное право
procedure — гражданский процесс, судопроизводство
Contracting State — договаривающееся государство, государство—участник Конвенции
renvoi—разрешение спора по закону суда, обратная отсылка
to prejudice — наносить ущерб
without prejudice (to) — без ущерба (для чего-л.)
body corporate — юридическое лицо
individual employment contract—договор найма, трудовой договор
^ Give Russian equivalents for:
the proper law of the contract, validity, capacity, effect and discharge of the contract, lex loci contractus, lex loci solutionis, prima facie, to be due, the delivery obligation, the supply of goods, the laws and executive machinery, qualification, lex tori, to promote, offensive to, to jettison, the scope of the convention, uniformity, natural person, body corporate, to prejudice, individual employment contract.
Text 12. COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION
(i) Litigation and arbitration
A great many commercial disputes are resolved, not by litigation, but by arbitration. The relative merits of the methods of determining disputes are a perennial topic of discussion and controversy. Lawyers tend to prefer litigation, businessmen arbitration. Choice of the latter predominates in international contracts but is by no means universal. Neither system has any innate superiority over the other. Much depends on the nature of the dispute and the objectives of the parties. These may not be the same at the time of the dispute as they were at the date of the contract. In particular, the attitude of a plaintiff may be very different from that of a defendant.
That arbitration possesses certain advantages for the commercial man is undeniable. The parties can select an arbitrator or arbitrators in whom they have confidence (or can have the appointment made for them by a person or body whose judgement they respect) and who can be expected to be familiar with the kind of business in which the dispute arises. The proceedings are less formal and more flexible than litigation, the parties have greater control over them, the venue can be fixed by agreement with the arbitrator and (a matter of considerable importance) the hearing is private. Arbitration may also be cheaper and speedier than litigation, but this by no means necessarily follows.
The court fees in an action are nominal, whereas in an arbitration the parties are responsible for the arbitrator’s remuneration and expenses (which may be particularly heavy if there are several arbitrators coming from different countries), the hire of accommodation for the hearing and the payment of a shorthand writer or machine operator if they wish to have a full record of the evidence. On the other hand, the arbitrator’s greater familiarity with the practices of the industry or market may shorten the proceedings and thus save expense. Arbitration may be faster if the parties cooperate in bringing the case to a swift hearing, but allows more opportunity for delay to a defendant wishing to prolong the proceedings. The atmosphere of arbitration is generally considered to be less hostile than of litigation, and the arbitral award now has a greater degree of finality than a judgment. As against this, the arbitrator’s interlocutory powers, though recently reinforced by the Arbitration Act 1979, are still not as extensive as those of a judge, a fact of particular importance if one of the parties wants interim relief or summary judgment. Finally, whereas judges are trained to think and act judicially and to treat the admissibility and weight of evidence with circumspection, some arbitrators without legal qualifications may be inclined to decide a case on their view of what is fair and without sufficient regard to the nature of the evidence or the appropriate rules of law. To this the businessman will no doubt reply with conviction, and with some justification, that it is only natural for the lawyers to feel happier in their own habitat!
(ii) Types of commercial arbitration
Apart from the division between domestic and international arbitration, arbitral proceedings fall broadly into one of two categories; ad hoc arbitrations, in which the parties themselves prescribe the mode of appointment of the arbitrator, who upon being appointed controls the proceedings himself, within the limits laid down by law; and institutional, or administered, arbitration, in which the arbitrator is appointed, the proceedings conducted and the award issued in accordance with the rules of a trade association or a national, regional or international organization. Institutional arbitration has the advantage of possessing a clear framework of procedure outside that prescribed by law and, in many cases, of institutional facilities for the conduct of the arbitration as well as an internal appeal system. These advantages necessarily involve some loss of flexibility but contribute greatly to consistency in the conduct of arbitrations within the system of business activity concerned. Among the London arbitral organizations are the London Court of International Arbitration, the London Maritime Arbitrator’s Association and the leading commodity associations, such as the Grain and Feed Trade Association and the Federation of Oils, Seeds and Fats Associations.
There is a profusion of foreign international organizations concerned with international commercial arbitration. Some of these are general and global in character such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNC1TRAL). Others are specialist, such as ICSID, or regional, such as the Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission.
body—орган, организация, коллектив
venue — место (проведения арбитража)
the hearing is private — слушание дела проводится в закрытом порядке
court fees — судебные издержки
the hire of accommodation — наем помещения
shorthand writer — стенографист(ка)
machine operator — оператор стенографической машинки
record of the evidence — запись свидетельских показаний
interlocutory powers — полномочия на вынесение предварительных решений
interim relief — предварительное возмещение
summary judgment — решение, принимаемое в порядке упрощенного (ускоренного) производства
to act judicially — действовать беспристрастно (осмотрительно)
admissibility of evidence — допустимость доказательств
ad hoc arbitration — специально создаваемый состав арбитража
the mode of appointment — порядок назначения
institutional arbitration — арбитраж какой-либо организации, постоянно действующий
trade association — торговое объединение, организация
award — арбитражное решение
outside that prescribed by law — не установленный законом
institutional facilities — средства обслуживания, представляемые организацией
appeal system — порядок подачи апелляций
chamber of commerce — торговая палата
ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) — Международный центр по разрешению инвестиционных споров
Add. text. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF ENGLISH ARBITRATION LAW
Arbitration is subject to national law.
A question which has occasioned much debate in overseas literature is the source and content of the arbitrator’s power. Various theories have been propounded: that the source of the arbitrator’s authority and the enforceability of his awards, though immediately deriving from the agreement of the parties, are ultimately determined by national law; that the arbitration agreement constitutes an autonomous source of authority wholly independent of any national legal system; that the arbitration agreement brings into play an autonomous arbitral order from the institutional character of arbitration and based on principles common to civilized States. Extravagant claims have been advanced for the autonomy of arbitration.
Perhaps the largest proportion of international commercial arbitrations are conducted outside both national and legal boundaries. They are totally detached from every national system of law and are independent of the State in which they are held. The proceedings are consequently governed by and in accordance with international or at least non-national arbitration rules.
Such an autonomous regime is no doubt possible as a theoretical abstraction but has no place in the world of human affairs. The object of arbitration is to secure an enforceable award. Enforcement involves access to the machinery of the State in which the enforcement proceedings are to be taken, or in some other State, and this in turn presupposes that the award is recognized by the law of the State in question. Since all States impose at least some curbs on the power of arbitrators, and in all States arbitral proceedings and awards are in some measure subject to judicial review, it is not possible to divorce arbitration proceedings from the law of the place where they are conducted or are to be enforced. Indeed, arbitration law cannot be regarded as a closed system, for insofar as it is alleged to answer all queries of whatever character capable of arising in arbitration proceedings it is uncodified and incapable of ascertainment, and insofar as it does not answer such questions resort must be had to another source of authority. The law of the forum may, of course, permit reference to the law of another State () to govern their rights, but that other law will be allowed to operate only in the conditions and to the extent permitted by the lex fori.
So the ultimate source of an arbitrator’s power is to be found by reference to the law of the place where the arbitration is held and/or that of the place where the award is to be enforced, and degree of autonomy possessed by the parties will depend on what is accorded to them by such law. It is true that English law is more rigid than most other legal systems, for it insists that, notwithstanding the terms of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrator must decide the dispute in accordance with the law (whether that of the forum or of some other State) and not ex aequo
et bono. English law has thus set its face firmly against the institution of amicable composition, in which the amiable compositeur is left free to decide the dispute according to his view of what is equitable and without obligation to apply the rules of a particular legal system.
^ The issue must be within the arbitrator’s competence
The arbitrability of an issue is not often a problem in English commercial arbitration. The arbitrator must limit his inquiries and decision to the matters referred to him by the parties, whether in the arbitration agreement or by conduct amounting to submission to his jurisdiction, over the issues in question. But difficulties sometimes arise where a party seeks to attack the jurisdiction of the arbitrator on the ground that the contract containing the arbitration clause is void, either because there never was a consensus between the parties or because of some external ground of invalidity, or that some condition precedent to the exercise of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction had not been fulfilled. Are these issues which the arbitrator himself can and should decide?
It is usually said that an arbitrator has no power to determine his own jurisdiction, but expressed in this form the proposition is somewhat ambiguous. Every tribunal, high or low, whose jurisdiction is challenged has to decide whether the contention of no jurisdiction is justified; the mere challenge cannot by itself deprive the tribunal of power to proceed, for otherwise it would be open to any party to frustrate the tribunal’s lawful activities. An arbitrator before whom a point of jurisdiction is taken has to decide whether it is well founded. If he decides it is, he will decline to deal with the matter and leave the parties to take the dispute to the court. If he considers he has jurisdiction, he will proceed with the arbitration, recognizing that the court has the last word and may rule that his award is invalid for want of jurisdiction.
What the rule really means is that insofar as the arbitrator’s jurisdiction derives from an arbitration clause in the contract and the subject of the dispute, the clause is to be treated as an inseparable part of the contract, with the result the arbitrator cannot give a binding ruling on the validity of the contract, for if it is indeed of no effect he has no power to entertain the preliminary question of validity unless the parties agree that he should do so. However, in other countries the view has steadily gained ground that the arbitration clause should be regarded as separable from the rest of the contract and that except where the arbitration clause is itself in question as a separate part of the agreement its validity should remain unaffected by the nullity or unenforceability of the rest of the agreement, thus leaving the arbitrator himself, rather than the court, the task of deciding on the validity of the contract as a whole. This solution is more consonant with the intention to the parties at the time of conclusion of the arbitration agreement, for the presumption is that they wish the arbitrator to deal with all the issues arising from the contract, including its validity, rather than to have the question of validity split off for prior determination by the court.
to be subject to — регулироваться
enforceability — обеспеченность исковой защитой; исполнимость
arbitral order — порядок проведения арбитража
institutional character — принадлежность к организации или учреждению
enforcement proceedings — требование (иск с требованием) исполнить арбитражное решение
judicial review — судебное рассмотрение, контроль, надзор, пересмотр
ex aequo it bono — Lat., по справедливости
amicable composition — компромиссное соглашение; мировая сделка
submission — согласие на передачу дела в арбитраж; арбитражное соглашение (оговорка); передача дела в арбитраж
arbitration clause — арбитражная оговорка
to attack the jurisdiction of the arbitrator — оспаривать компетенцию арбитра
consensus — общее согласие; единогласие, консенсус
contention of no jurisdiction — оспаривание полномочий арбитра
challenge — возражение, отвод
to frustrate — нарушать, расстраивать
validity – действительность, юридическая сила