Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

International Law and International Organizations
Reference:

Zenkovich, D.I. Asymmetrical arbitration agreements in Russia and abroad

Abstract: The article is devoted to the foreign experience of using asymmetric arbitration clauses, providing only one of the parties to an arbitration agreement the right to choose between arbitration and the state court. The goal of the study is to analyze the modern tendencies in the practice of application of such clauses. This issue is topical due to the Decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of 2011 in the dispute between the ZAO “Russian Telephone Company” and the OOO “Sony-Ericsson Mobile Communications Rus”, where asymmetric arbitration clauses were struck down in Russia. The article is based upon the wide range of foreign arbitration practice, as well as topical foreign doctrinal sources. Special attention is paid to the legislative regulation and legal practice in the states, such as the USA, Bulgaria, Poland, etc., where in some situations or by direct legislative provision asymmetrical arbitration clauses may be recognized as invalid clauses. The article includes analysis of the typical bases for the courts in a number of states to recognize asymmetric arbitration clauses invalid. Based upon the study the author makes a conclusion that currently there is no unified approach towards this type of arbitration clauses in various jurisdictions.


Keywords:

international commercial arbitration, asymmetric arbitration clause, alternative arbitration clause, optional jurisdiction clause, optional arbitration clause, reciprocity principle, bad faith doctrine, invalidity of an arbitration clause, potestative deal, arbitration agreement.


This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article


References
1. Asoskov A.V., Kucher A.N., Yadykin A.I. Deistvitel'ny li asimmetrichnye soglasheniya o poryadke razresheniya sporov po rossiiskomu pravu soglasno Postanovleniyu Prezidiuma VAS RF po delu Soni Eriksson (http://www.debevoise.com).
2. Barbe Zh., Rosher P. Optsionnye ogovorki o sposobakh razresheniya sporov: analiz s tochki zreniya frantsuzskogo i angliiskogo prava // Vestnik mezhdunarodnogo kommercheskogo arbitrazha. 2011. ¹ 1.
3. Belomestnova N., Trusova E. VAS priznal «assimetrichnye» al'ternativnye arbitrazhnye ogovorki nedeistvitel'nymi (http://www.gblplaw.ru/news/legal/72563/).
4. Guseva V., Moshennikov Ya. VAS RF ne podderzhal al'ternativnye (assimetrichnye) arbitrazhnye soglasheniya (http://www.dlapiper.com/ru/global/publications/detail.aspx?pub=7567).
5. Egorov A.V. Assimetrichnye ogovorki o razreshenii sporov sudebnaya praktika zamenyaet na simmetrichnye // Vestnik mezhdunarodnogo kommercheskogo arbitrazha. 2012. ¹ 2.
6. Ishchuk I., Samoilov M. Optsionnaya ogovorka v praktike VAS RF // Legal Insight. 2012. ¹ 9(15).
7. Kakoletskii A., Novachek P. Novyi pol'skii Zakon ob arbitrazhe // Mezhdunarodnyi kommercheskii arbitrazh. 2007. ¹ 4.
8. Kalinin M., Khvalei V. VAS RF priznal nedeistvitel'noi disparitetnuyu arbitrazhnuyu ogovorku (http://www.bakermckenzie.com/ru-RU/ALRussiaSupremeArbitrazhCourtRulesJun12).
9. Panov A. Odnostoronnie (optsional'nye) prorogatsionnye soglasheniya nedeistvitel'ny ne tol'ko v Rossii (http://zakon.ru/blogs/odnostoronnie_opcionalnye_prorogacionnye_soglasheniya_nedejstvitelny_ne_tolko_v_rossii/4207).
10. Pleshanova O. «Bystree i za men'shie den'gi»//Mog proigrat' Berezovskii Abramovichu v rossiiskom sude (http://zakon.ru/blogs/bystree_i_za_menshie_dengi__mog_proigrat_berezovskij_abramovichu_v_rossijskom_sude/4975).
11. Praktika Mezhdunarodnogo kommercheskogo arbitrazhnogo suda pri TPP RF za 2001-2002 gg. / Sost. Rozenberg M.G. M.: Statut, 2004.
12. Khodykin R.M. Gibridnye ogovorki o rassmotrenii spora // Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii. 2012. ¹ 11.
13. Ancel M.-E., Marion L., Wynaendts L. Reflections on one-sided jurisdiction clauses in international litigation (about Rothschild decision, French Cour de cassation, 26 September 2012) (http://ssrn.com/abstract=2258419).
14. Berard M., Dingley J. Unilateral option clauses in arbitration: a survey as to their effectiveness (http://www.cliffordchance.com/publicationviews/publications/2013/02/unilateral_optionclausesinarbitration.html).
15. Berard M., Dingley J. Unilateral option clauses in arbitration: an international overview (http://uk.practicallaw.com/7-535-3743).
16. Bevan A. Optional arbitration agreements: the English position (http://www.cdr-news.com/categories/expert-views/optional-arbitration-agreements-the-english-position).
17. Błaszczak Ł., Ludwik M. Sądownictwo polubowne (Arbitraź). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck, 2007.a
18. Born G. B. International Commercial Arbitration. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2009.
19. Browne O., Clifford P. Avoiding pitfalls in drafting and using unilateral option clauses (http://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/IA-News-in-Brief-Unilateral-Option-Clauses).
20. Cuniberti G. Bulgarian Court Strikes Down One Way Jurisdiction Clause (http://conflictoflaws.net/2012/bulgarian-court-strikes-down-one-way-jurisdiction-clause/).
21. Dewar J. International Project Finance: Law and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
22. Drahozal C.R. Nonmutual Agreements to Arbitrate // Journal of Corporation Law. University of Iowa College of Law. 2002.
23. Duranske B.T. Virtual law. American Bar Association, 2008.
24. Ereciński T., Ciszewski J., Weitz K. Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz. Część czwarta – Przepisy z zakresu międzynarodowego postępowania cywilnego. Część piąta-Sąd polubowny (arbitrażowy). Warszawa: LexisNexis, 2009.
25. Ereciński T., Weitz K. Sąd arbitrażowy. Warszawa: LexisNexis, 2008.
26. Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman On International Commercial Arbitration / Edited by Gaillard E. and Savage J.: The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999.
27. Horton D. Unconscionability wars // Northwestern University Law Review. 2012. Vol. 106 Issue 1.
28. Jentz G.A., Miller R.L. Business Law Today: Comprehensive Edition.
29. Morek R. Mediacja i arbitraż. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck, 2006.
30. Perrella C. Italy: Italian Supreme Court Considers Unilateral Jurisdiction Clauses (http://www.mondaq.com/x/231358/arbitration+dispute+resolution/italian+supreme).
31. Pryles M.C. Dispute Resolution in Asia. Kluwer Law International, 2006.
32. Rossman V.R., Moskin M. Commercial Contracts: Strategies for Drafting and Negotiating. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2013.
33. M. Tomaszewski. Skuteczność ochrony prawnej przed sądami polubownymi. Doświadczenia polskie // PS. 2006, ¹ 1.