Application of Overriding Mandatory Rules of Third Countries to Contractual Obligation

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Imam Sadiq University

2 Assistant Professor, Law Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University of Tehran

Abstract

Overriding Mandatory Rules (OMR), which claim to be applied regardless of the application of conflict of laws rules, are a widely used yet relatively new concept in the legal literature that has not been thoroughly examined from the perspective of private international law. Given the transformation of international commercial arbitration into the primary forum for resolving contractual disputes, it is necessary to clarify the approach of arbitration bodies to the issue of OMR. Therefore, from a theoretical perspective, it is necessary to complete the research literature in this field. From a practical perspective, due to Iran's exposure to multiple examples of OMR in international commercial disputes (such as rules on sanctions, consumer protection, competition law, and currency control), understanding the limits of the applicability of third-country OMR can help to protect national interests of Iran in these disputes.

In this study, using a descriptive-analytical research method, library and internet sources related to the subject were reviewed with an emphasis on arbitral awards.

The findings of the study indicate that third-country OMR are generally applied with stricter standards than those of the governing law, based on conflict of laws analyses and arbitrator's duty to render a binding award. However, the non-application of third-country OMR in arbitration precedent has occured due to several reasons: the lack of adherence by arbitrators to conflict of laws rules, the lack of a close connection between the OMR and the dispute, the non-superiority of the goals provided by the OMR over those of the law of.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Books

    1. Azeredo da Silveira, M. Trade Sanctions and International Sales- An Inquiry into International Arbitration and Commercial Litigation, Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer, 2014.
    2. Bentolila, D. Arbitrators as lawmakers. Netherlands: Kluwer Law International BV, 2017.
    3. Bermann, G. A. and Mistelis, L. A. Mandatory rules in international arbitration, New York: Juris, 2011.
    4. Blessing, M. Impact of the Extraterritorial Application of Mandatory Rules of Law on International Contracts, 9 Swiss Com. L. Series 1, 1999.
    5. Derains, Y. and Jarvin, S. Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1974-1985, Netherlands: ICC Publ. 1994.
    6. Kaufmann-Kohler, G. and Rigozzi, A. Arbitrage International – Droit et pratique à la lumière de la LDIP, Second Edition, Bern: Weblaw, 2010.
    7. Lando, O. The Law Applicable to the Merits of the Despute, in: Šarč ević (ed.), Essays on International Commercial Arbitration, Boston etc: Graham and Trotman: Martinus Nijhoff, 1989.
    8. Lew, J. D. Applicable law in international commercial arbitration, A study in commercial arbitration awards, Netherlands: Oceana Publications Dobbs Ferry, 1978.
    9. Radicati Di Brozolo, L. “When, Why and How must Arbitrators Apply Overriding Mandatory Provisions?,” In: The Impact of EU Law on international commercial arbitration, Juris Publishing, 2016.

    Articles

    1. Azari Matan, Afshin, “Percentage as Crime in Iranian Criminal Law”, the Judiciary Law Journal, Volume 71, Issue 61, 2007. (in Persian)
    2. Bermann, A. “Mandatory Rules of Law in International Arbitration,” American Review of International Arbitration, 18, 2007.
    3. Brunner, C. “Force majeure and hardship under general contract principles: exemption for non-performance in international arbitration”, Kluwer Law International BV, 18, 2009.
    4. El-Kosheri, A. S. and Tarek F. R. “The Law Governing a New Generation of Petroleum Agreements: Changes in the Arbitration Process,” ICSID Review 2, 1986.
    5. Golshani, Esmat, Sayyed Mahdi Hosseini Modarres, “Inclusion of the Sanctions as the Overriding Mandatory Rules in Referring to the Governing law”, Journal of Public Law Research, Volume 22, Issue 69, 2021. (in Persian)
    6. Jafarzadeh, Mir-Ghasem, Esmat Golshani and Sayyed Mahdi Hosseini Modarses, “The Role of ‘Application worthiness requirement’ for applying sanctions enacted by a third country”, Comparative Law Researches Quarterly, Volume 25, Issue 2, 2021. (in Persian)
    7. Mantilla-Serrano, F. “Towards a Transnational Procedural Public Policy, Towards a Uniform International Arbitration Law?”, Arbitration international4, 2004.
    8. Mayer, P. “Mandatory rules of law in international arbitration,” Arbitration International 2.4, 1986.
    9. Radicati Di Brozolo, L. “Mandatory Rules and International Arbitration,” Rev. Int’l Arb 23.1, 2012.
    10. Shahbazi-Nia, Morteza, Mohammad Iesaei Tafareshi and Hossein Elmi, “The concept of public order in private international law and its place in international commercial arbitration”, Private Law Studies Quarterly, Volume 43, Issue 1, 2013. (in Persian)
    11. Shehata, I. “Application of Overriding Mandatory Rules in International Commercial Arbitration: An Empirical Analysis”, World Arbitration & Mediation Review, 2017.
    12. Tabatabaei-Nejad, Sayyed Mohammad, “International commercial Arbitration and the challenge of mandatory rules of law: the case of arbitration in antitrust claims”, Journal of Comparative Law Review, Volume 6, Issue 1, 2015. (in Persian)
    13. Voser, N. “Mandatory Rules of Law as a Limitation on the Law Applicable to International Commercial Arbitration”, American Review of International Arbitration, 7, 1996.
    14. Werner, J. “Application of Competition Laws by Arbitrators-The Step Too Far”, Int'l Arb. 12, 1995.

    Thesis

    1. Seraglini, Christophe. “Lois de police et justice arbitrale internationale”, PhD Thesis, Paris, 1, 2000.

    Acts and Regulations

    1. ICC Arbitration Rules, 2017.
    2. London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA).
    3. Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).
    4. Swiss Private International Law Act (SPILA), 1987.
    5. The Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome Convention),1980.
    6. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act (1970).
    7. S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)- 1977.
    8. The Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organization Act (RICO)- 1970.

    Cases

    1. Ad hoc Award of 1989, 9 (3) ASA BULL. 239, 244 (1991).
    2. AEK Athens & SK Slavia Prague v. (UEFA), Case No. 1998/0/200 (Ct. Arb. For Sport, Aug. 20, 1999), Digest of CAS Awards II 1998-2000 38 (2002).
    3. Case No. 12472 of 2004, 24 ICC BULL. Special Supplement 46 (2013).
    4. Case No. 13696 of 2207, 39 Y.B. Comm. Arb. 77 (ICC Int'1Ct. Arb.).
    5. Case No. 1399 of 1967 (ICC Int’l Ct. Arb(.
    6. Case No. 14266, 24 ICC BULL. Special Supplement 83 (2013).
    7. Case No. 158 of 2011, 38 Y.B. Comm. Arb. 253 (Arb. Inst. Stockholm Chamber of Com.).
    8. Case No. 15972 of 2011, 1 ICC BULL. 92, 130 (2016).
    9. Case No. 15977 of 2010, 1 ICC Bull. 92 (2016).
    10. Case No. 16655 of 2011, 4 (2) Intl. J. Arab Arb. 125 (ICC Int'1Ct. Arb.).
    11. Case No. 5622 of 1988, 19 Y.B. Comm. Arb. 105 (Icc Int'1Ct. Arb.).
    12. Case No. 6320 of 1992, 20 Y.B. Comm. Arb. 62-109 (ICC Int’l Ct. Arb., 1995).
    13. Case No. 6503 of 1990, ICC BULL. Special Supplement 39-41 (1994).
    14. Case No. 6858, 1 ICC Bull. Special Supplement 40-41 (1994).
    15. Case No. 8528 of 1996, 25 Y.B. Comm. Arb. 432 (Icc Int'1Ct. Arb.).
    16. Case No. 8626 of 1996, 14 (2) ICC Bull. 55.
    17. Case No. 9240 of 1998, 14 (2) ICC Bull. 59.
    18. Case No. 9333, 19 (4) ASA BULL.
    19. Celtic Plc v. (UEFA), Case No. 1998/0/201 (Ct. Arb. For Sport, Jan. 7, 2000), Digest of CAS Awards II 1998-2000 106 (2002).
    20. Dutch Co. v. Austrian Co. 7 Y.B. Comm. Arb. 141 (ICC Int'1 Ct. Arb. 1981).
    21. Dutch Co. v. Austrian Co. 8 Y.B. Comm. Arb. 160 (ICC Int'1 Ct. Arb. 1982).
    22. K Ltd. v. M S.A., ICC Case of 1989, 11(2) ASA BULL. 216 (1993).
    23. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U.S. 614 (1985).
    24. The Securities and Exchange Commission against Statoil ASA, 2006/13/10, (cease-and-desist proceedings) available at: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2006/34-54599.pdf, last visited 7/24/2024.
    25. The Securities and Exchange Commission against Total, S.A., (cease-and-desist proceedings), 05/29/2013, available at: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2013/34-69654.pdf, last visited 7/24/2024, last visited 7/24/2024.
    26. S.A. V. Total S.A., 05/29/2013, available at: https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/9392013529103746998524.pdf, last visited 7/24/2024.

     

Legal Research Quarterly
Volume 27, Issue 3 - Serial Number 107
November 2024
Pages 179-200

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 21 January 2024
  • Revise Date: 26 July 2024
  • Accept Date: 31 July 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics