将可分割性原则置于被告席上——基于仲裁与管辖协议法律选择的分析

Koji Takahashi
{"title":"将可分割性原则置于被告席上——基于仲裁与管辖协议法律选择的分析","authors":"Koji Takahashi","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198868958.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay proposes a principled approach to determining the governing law of arbitration agreements and jurisdiction agreements. Acknowledging the usefulness of the principle of severability in the sphere of substantive law, the author opposes the extension of the principle to the sphere of choice of law analysis to treat such agreements as a distinct contract severed from the matrix contract. The author, however, accepts that such agreements are, like any other terms in the same matrix contract, subject to the choice of law technique for splitting up terms within a single contract known as dépeçage, while suggesting that the possibility of involuntary dépeçage should be circumscribed. It is noted that splitting up terms within a contract by means of dépeçage is not the same as treating a term as a distinct contract in terms of choice of law methodology. This essay also examines English cases and seeks to reconcile the proposed approach with the text of existing instruments.","PeriodicalId":333808,"journal":{"name":"A Conflict Of Laws Companion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Putting the Principle of Severability in the Dock: An Analysis in the Context of Choice of Law for Arbitration and Jurisdiction Agreements\",\"authors\":\"Koji Takahashi\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198868958.003.0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay proposes a principled approach to determining the governing law of arbitration agreements and jurisdiction agreements. Acknowledging the usefulness of the principle of severability in the sphere of substantive law, the author opposes the extension of the principle to the sphere of choice of law analysis to treat such agreements as a distinct contract severed from the matrix contract. The author, however, accepts that such agreements are, like any other terms in the same matrix contract, subject to the choice of law technique for splitting up terms within a single contract known as dépeçage, while suggesting that the possibility of involuntary dépeçage should be circumscribed. It is noted that splitting up terms within a contract by means of dépeçage is not the same as treating a term as a distinct contract in terms of choice of law methodology. This essay also examines English cases and seeks to reconcile the proposed approach with the text of existing instruments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":333808,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"A Conflict Of Laws Companion\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"A Conflict Of Laws Companion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198868958.003.0006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"A Conflict Of Laws Companion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198868958.003.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文提出了一种确定仲裁协议和管辖权协议准据法的原则方法。承认可分割性原则在实体法领域的有用性,作者反对将该原则扩展到法律选择分析领域,将此类协议视为从母体合同中分离出来的独立合同。然而,提交人承认,这种协议同同一矩形合同中的任何其他条款一样,要受法律技术选择的限制,以便在一份被称为“dsamp -”的单一合同中分割条款,同时建议应限制非自愿dsamp -的可能性。应当指出,在选择法律方法方面,以daca分割合同内的条款与将一个条款视为单独的合同是不一样的。本文还考察了英语案例,并试图将拟议的方法与现有文书的文本相协调。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Putting the Principle of Severability in the Dock: An Analysis in the Context of Choice of Law for Arbitration and Jurisdiction Agreements
This essay proposes a principled approach to determining the governing law of arbitration agreements and jurisdiction agreements. Acknowledging the usefulness of the principle of severability in the sphere of substantive law, the author opposes the extension of the principle to the sphere of choice of law analysis to treat such agreements as a distinct contract severed from the matrix contract. The author, however, accepts that such agreements are, like any other terms in the same matrix contract, subject to the choice of law technique for splitting up terms within a single contract known as dépeçage, while suggesting that the possibility of involuntary dépeçage should be circumscribed. It is noted that splitting up terms within a contract by means of dépeçage is not the same as treating a term as a distinct contract in terms of choice of law methodology. This essay also examines English cases and seeks to reconcile the proposed approach with the text of existing instruments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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