May the Majority Vote of an International Arbitral Tribunal be Impeached?: The 1996 Freshfields Lecture

1997 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-154
Author(s):  
S. M. Schwebel
Keyword(s):  
Majority Vote ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal

General Principles of Law as Applied by the Conciliation Commissions Established Under the Peace Treaty with Italy of 1947

1959 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 853-872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern
Keyword(s):  
Majority Vote ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Modest Contribution ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Droit International

The present study is intended to be a modest contribution to Schlesinger’s research project concerning the “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.” At the same time it tends to comply with the voeu recommended by Jenks to the Institut de Droit International concerning the desirability of better information on the decisions of international arbitral tribunals. It is the aim of the present study to trace all explicit or implied references to these “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations” which may be found in the hitherto published decisions of the Conciliation Commissions established under Article 83 of the Peace Treaty with Italy of February 10, 1947. These Commissions consist of one member appointed by each of the states concerned. If these two members fail to agree, they draft a “statement of disagreement,” whereupon a third member,5 citizen of a third state, is added to the Commission, which shall then decide the case concerned by a majority vote.

Improvement of the classification quality in detection of Hashimoto’s disease with a combined classifier approach

2017 ◽  
Vol 231 (8) ◽  
pp. 774-782 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zbigniew Omiotek
Keyword(s):  
Computer System ◽  
Majority Vote ◽  
Classification Error ◽  
Automatic Identification ◽  
Detection Accuracy ◽  
Ultrasound Images ◽  
Linear Discriminant ◽  
Nearest Neighbours ◽  
Combined Classifier ◽  
Classification Quality

The purpose of the study was to construct an efficient classifier that, along with a given reduced set of discriminant features, could be used as a part of the computer system in automatic identification and classification of ultrasound images of the thyroid gland, which is aimed to detect cases affected by Hashimoto’s thyroiditis. A total of 10 supervised learning techniques and a majority vote for the combined classifier were used. Two models were proposed as a result of the classifier’s construction. The first one is based on the K-nearest neighbours method (for K = 7). It uses three discriminant features and affords sensitivity equal to 88.1%, specificity of 66.7% and classification error at a level of 21.8%. The second model is a combined classifier, which was constructed using three-component classifiers. They are based on the K-nearest neighbours method (for K = 7), linear discriminant analysis and a boosting algorithm. The combined classifier is based on 48 discriminant features. It allows to achieve the classification sensitivity equal to 88.1%, specificity of 69.4% and classification error at a level of 20.5%. The combined classifier allows to improve the classification quality compared to the single model. The models, built as a part of the automatic computer system, may support the physician, especially in first-contact hospitals, in diagnosis of cases that are difficult to recognise based on ultrasound images. The high sensitivity of constructed classification models indicates high detection accuracy of the sick cases, and this is beneficial to the patients from a medical point of view.

Requirements for Amicus Curiae Participation in International Investment ArbitrationA Deconstruction of the Procedural Wall Erected in Joint ICSID Cases ARB/10/25 and ARB/10/15

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Schliemann
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Recent Attempt ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Legal Standard ◽  
Investment Law

Abstract The legal standard on amicus curiae participation in international investment arbitration has been forged by the judicial development of legal rules and, in parallel, the modification of normative sources, such as the ICSID Arbitration Rules. Current and future decisions by arbitral tribunals on the participation of amicus curiae in a given dispute must abide by this consolidated standard. In June 2012, the arbitral tribunal in Joint ICSID Cases No. ARB/10/15 and No. ARB/10/25 released a procedural order, rejecting an amicus petition. This Order contains various deviations from the applicable legal standard and severely restricts the options for amicus participation. The recent attempt to strengthen the legitimacy of international investment arbitration by allowing for greater amicus participation and the acknowledgement of the interdependence of investment law and other areas of international law is thereby put in peril.

The Australia and New Zealand v Japan Southern Bluefin Tuna (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) Award of the First Law of the Sea Convention Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal

2001 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Kwiatkowska
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Bluefin Tuna ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Compulsory Arbitration ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Future ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
Southern Bluefin Tuna

AbstractThe Southern Bluefin Tuna (Jurisdiction and Admissihilily) Award of 4 August 2000 marked the first instance of the application of compulsory arbitration under Part XV, Section 2 of the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention and of the exercise by the Annex VII Tribunal of la compétence de la compétence pursuant to Article 288(4) over the merits of the instant dispute. The 72-paragraph Award is a decision of pronounced procedural complexity and significant multifaceted impacts of which appreciation requires an in-depth acquaintance with procedural issues of peaceful settlement of disputes in general and the-law-of-the-sea-related disputes in particular. Therefore, the article surveys first the establishment of and the course of proceedings before the five-member Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal, presided over by the immediate former ICJ President, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, and also comprising Judges Keith, Yamada. Feliciano and Tresselt. Subsequently, the wide range of specific paramount questions and answers of the Tribunal are scrutinised against the background of arguments advanced by the applicants (Australia and New Zealand) and the respondent (Japan) during both written and oral pleadings, including in reliance on the extensive ICJ jurisprudence and treaty practice concerned. On this basis, the article turns to an appraisal of the impacts of the Arbitral Tribunal's paramount holdings and its resultant dismissal of jurisdiction with the scrupulous regard for the fundamental principle of consensuality. Amongst such direct impacts as between the parties to the instant case, the inducements provided by the Award to reach a successful settlement in the future are of particular importance. The Award's indirect impacts concern exposition of the paramount doctrine of parallelism between the umbrella UN Convention and many compatible (fisheries, environmental and other) treaties, as well as of multifaceted, both substantial and procedural effects of that parallelism. All those contributions will importantly guide other courts and tribunals seised in the future under the Convention's Part XV, Section 2.

On Arbitral Jurisdiction. How to Deal with the Complementarity between Arbitral Tribunals and the Courts?

Global Jurist ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesare Cavallini
Keyword(s):  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
The Core ◽  
Arbitration Process ◽  
Complementary Role ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Model Law ◽  
Core Issues ◽  
Considerable Body ◽  
Optimum Balance

Abstract Why might one argue that the arbitral tribunal should have the “competence” to rule, as of right, upon its own jurisdiction? Is this natural power consistent with the legitimacy of arbitration? Can it unquestionably achieve the greatest level of efficiency for the parties? Although a considerable body of literature has attempted to answer these questions, this article aims to address (and partially reframe) the core issues relating to arbitral jurisdiction by comparing different legal systems and operative solutions in order to search for new and valuable insights on the topic . There is no doubt, in fact, that the orthodox position traditionally starts from the assumption that access to the courts within parallel proceedings, which (also) questions the allocation of jurisdiction, is problematic also due to the risk of delaying tactics by one party. According to this line of reasoning, when the authority of the arbitrators is challenged, the balance between the legitimacy and the efficiency of the arbitration process could be conditioned by prejudices relating to the (necessary) interference of the courts with the power of the arbitral tribunal to determine its own potestas judicandi (or its lack thereof) on the merits. In an attempt to move on from the classical framing of this issue and towards a comparative evaluation of the rationales and values underlying domestic legislation on arbitral jurisdiction, considered also with reference to the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law, this article will seek to provide a solution that is rooted in the complementary role of the courts and of arbitral tribunals. The complementarity between arbitral tribunals and the courts will be shown to be key in securing the legitimacy of arbitration and the actual pre-eminence of this source of alternative private justice and, accordingly, also as a way of striking the optimum balance with the efficiency of the arbitration process.

Court’s intervention on arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 322-332
Author(s):  
Eunok Park
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Model Law ◽  
One Year

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze provisions which are related to court’s intervention over an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction under the revised Korean Arbitration Act (2016) and the UNCITRAL Model Law. Design/methodology/approach The author studies a theory about court’s intervention over an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction by studying some scholarly writings and compares the revised provisions in the KAA (2016) with those in the KAA (2010) and the UNCITRAL Model Law (2006). Findings There is no clear and internationally unified answer to which theory between the prima facie test and the full review test is appropriate for court’s intervention to arbitration. The analysis of the provision shows that the revised ones in the KAA (2016) will make arbitration to be conducted faster and more efficiently by giving practical answers to issues raised. Research limitations/implications It has been just over one year since the KAA (2016) became effective, so it limits evaluation on whether these revised provisions related to court’s intervention over jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal is successful or not. Originality/value This study is comparatively new one after the KAA (2016) became effective. So, it is expected to provide a guidance for further studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document