CIVIL LIABILITY OF ARBITRATORS

Agata Cevc
{"title":"CIVIL LIABILITY OF ARBITRATORS","authors":"Agata Cevc","doi":"10.25234/ECLIC/9009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper aims to determine situations when arbitrators are personally liable for damages caused and when they enjoy immunity because of their judicial role. There is no uniform approach regarding civil liability of arbitrators. The question is closely connected with the dual nature of arbitration that has a judicial mission despite a contractual origin. Arbitrator’s power derives from a private contract and they receive payment from the parties in exchange for professional services. However, they act as private judges - they resolve disputes which require a binding decision of an impartial third party. Due to the double role of arbitrators, this paper will separately discuss civil liability for breaches of arbitrator’s contractual obligations and breaches of duties regarding their judicial role. Common law countries provide immunity to arbitrators based on equating their function to that of judges. On the other hand, civil law countries emphasize the contractual relationship between the arbitrators and parties and determine liability according to ordinary law of contract. Despite different starting points most jurisdictions accord a certain degree of immunity to arbitrators in the exercise of their judicial role to ensure the finality of arbitral awards and protect the independence and impartiality of arbitrators. Arbitrators are therefore not liable for the procedural or material accuracy of their decisions because in such cases the parties can bring an action against an award. However, almost all legal systems exclude immunity in cases where the arbitrator intentionally violated his judicial duties. The differences between civil and common law countries are greater regarding liability for breaches of the arbitrator’s contractual duties. Contractual limitations and exclusions of liability are also mentioned. The article concludes that absolute exclusions of liability are unenforceable in most jurisdictions. The article will determine which law should apply to the issue of civil liability of international arbitral tribunals. In the absence of legislation and jurisprudence in Slovenia the paper suggests that qualified immunity should apply. Arbitrators should enjoy immunity for judicial acts, except in exceptional cases of fraud and deliberate violations of their judicial duties. For breaches of their contractual duties, arbitrators should be liable according to general rules of contract law.","PeriodicalId":246552,"journal":{"name":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25234/ECLIC/9009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The paper aims to determine situations when arbitrators are personally liable for damages caused and when they enjoy immunity because of their judicial role. There is no uniform approach regarding civil liability of arbitrators. The question is closely connected with the dual nature of arbitration that has a judicial mission despite a contractual origin. Arbitrator’s power derives from a private contract and they receive payment from the parties in exchange for professional services. However, they act as private judges - they resolve disputes which require a binding decision of an impartial third party. Due to the double role of arbitrators, this paper will separately discuss civil liability for breaches of arbitrator’s contractual obligations and breaches of duties regarding their judicial role. Common law countries provide immunity to arbitrators based on equating their function to that of judges. On the other hand, civil law countries emphasize the contractual relationship between the arbitrators and parties and determine liability according to ordinary law of contract. Despite different starting points most jurisdictions accord a certain degree of immunity to arbitrators in the exercise of their judicial role to ensure the finality of arbitral awards and protect the independence and impartiality of arbitrators. Arbitrators are therefore not liable for the procedural or material accuracy of their decisions because in such cases the parties can bring an action against an award. However, almost all legal systems exclude immunity in cases where the arbitrator intentionally violated his judicial duties. The differences between civil and common law countries are greater regarding liability for breaches of the arbitrator’s contractual duties. Contractual limitations and exclusions of liability are also mentioned. The article concludes that absolute exclusions of liability are unenforceable in most jurisdictions. The article will determine which law should apply to the issue of civil liability of international arbitral tribunals. In the absence of legislation and jurisprudence in Slovenia the paper suggests that qualified immunity should apply. Arbitrators should enjoy immunity for judicial acts, except in exceptional cases of fraud and deliberate violations of their judicial duties. For breaches of their contractual duties, arbitrators should be liable according to general rules of contract law.
仲裁员的民事责任
本文旨在确定仲裁员对所造成的损害承担个人责任的情况以及仲裁员因其司法角色而享有豁免的情况。关于仲裁员的民事责任,目前尚无统一的处理办法。这个问题与仲裁的双重性质密切相关,尽管仲裁是合同起源,但它具有司法使命。仲裁员的权力来自私人合同,他们从当事人那里获得报酬,以换取专业服务。然而,他们作为私人法官- -他们解决需要由公正的第三方作出有约束力的决定的争端。由于仲裁员的双重角色,本文将从其司法角色出发,分别讨论仲裁员违反合同义务的民事责任和违反职责的民事责任。普通法国家在将仲裁员的职能等同于法官的职能的基础上给予仲裁员豁免。另一方面,大陆法系国家强调仲裁员与当事人之间的契约关系,根据普通法的合同法确定责任。尽管起点不同,但大多数司法管辖区在仲裁员行使司法职能时都给予一定程度的豁免,以确保仲裁裁决的终局性,保护仲裁员的独立性和公正性。因此,仲裁员对其裁决的程序或实质性准确性不承担责任,因为在这种情况下,当事人可以对裁决提起诉讼。然而,几乎所有的法律制度都排除了仲裁员故意违反其司法职责的豁免。大陆法系国家和英美法系国家在违反仲裁员合同义务的责任方面的差异更大。合同限制和责任排除也被提及。文章的结论是,绝对责任排除在大多数司法管辖区是不可执行的。该条将确定国际仲裁法庭民事责任问题应适用哪条法律。鉴于斯洛文尼亚缺乏立法和判例,该文件建议适用有条件豁免。仲裁员应享有司法行为豁免,但欺诈和故意违反其司法职责的例外情况除外。对于违反合同义务的行为,仲裁员应当根据合同法的一般规则承担责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信