{"title":"作为合同的跨国仲裁协议:寻求当事人的共同意图","authors":"I. Bantekas","doi":"10.1093/arbint/aiac007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Although agreements to arbitrate constitute contracts that are distinct from those in which they are contained, the practice of arbitral statutes, international instruments, and arbitral tribunals is to conflate the parties’ common intention to be bound with the particular form required of the arbitral agreement. This sui generis (conflated) contractual nature is unique to arbitral agreements and serves the transnational character of international arbitration. The required form, which is conflated with the parties’ common intention, is meant to serve a procedural, rather than a substantive/contractual purpose, namely the triggering of the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. All this is in sharp contrast with the rigid assessment of offer, acceptance and common intention to be bound that permeates contracts under national laws, all three of which are distinct actions. It further serves as evidence that transnational law does not neatly distinguish between substantive and procedural law, with contracts being an inextricable part of this transnational legal process.","PeriodicalId":37425,"journal":{"name":"Arbitration International","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transnational arbitration agreements as contracts: in search of the parties’ common intention\",\"authors\":\"I. Bantekas\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/arbint/aiac007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Although agreements to arbitrate constitute contracts that are distinct from those in which they are contained, the practice of arbitral statutes, international instruments, and arbitral tribunals is to conflate the parties’ common intention to be bound with the particular form required of the arbitral agreement. This sui generis (conflated) contractual nature is unique to arbitral agreements and serves the transnational character of international arbitration. The required form, which is conflated with the parties’ common intention, is meant to serve a procedural, rather than a substantive/contractual purpose, namely the triggering of the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. All this is in sharp contrast with the rigid assessment of offer, acceptance and common intention to be bound that permeates contracts under national laws, all three of which are distinct actions. It further serves as evidence that transnational law does not neatly distinguish between substantive and procedural law, with contracts being an inextricable part of this transnational legal process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37425,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arbitration International\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arbitration International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiac007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arbitration International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiac007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Transnational arbitration agreements as contracts: in search of the parties’ common intention
Although agreements to arbitrate constitute contracts that are distinct from those in which they are contained, the practice of arbitral statutes, international instruments, and arbitral tribunals is to conflate the parties’ common intention to be bound with the particular form required of the arbitral agreement. This sui generis (conflated) contractual nature is unique to arbitral agreements and serves the transnational character of international arbitration. The required form, which is conflated with the parties’ common intention, is meant to serve a procedural, rather than a substantive/contractual purpose, namely the triggering of the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. All this is in sharp contrast with the rigid assessment of offer, acceptance and common intention to be bound that permeates contracts under national laws, all three of which are distinct actions. It further serves as evidence that transnational law does not neatly distinguish between substantive and procedural law, with contracts being an inextricable part of this transnational legal process.
期刊介绍:
Launched in 1985, Arbitration International provides quarterly coverage for national and international developments in the world of arbitration. The journal aims to maintain balance between academic debate and practical contributions to the field, providing both topical material on current developments and analytic scholarship of permanent interest. Arbitrators, counsel, judges, scholars and government officials will find the journal enhances their understanding of a broad range of topics in commercial and investment arbitration. Features include (i) articles covering all major arbitration rules and national jurisdictions written by respected international practitioners and scholars, (ii) cutting edge (case) notes covering recent developments and ongoing debates in the field, (iii) book reviews of the latest publications in the world of arbitration, (iv) Letters to the Editor and (v) agora grouping articles related to a common theme. Arbitration International maintains a balance between controversial subjects for debate and topics geared toward practical use by arbitrators, lawyers, academics, judges, corporate advisors and government officials.