Optional Arbitration: A Comparative Study under National Legal Systems

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Professor of Law, Tabriz University

10.52547/jlr.2023.227962.2258

Abstract

Arbitration constitutes the most common and efficient mechanism for the resolution of international commercial disputes. The spread of arbitration in general and the vital role of party autonomy, in particular, have unveiled various aspects of this method of dispute resolution and thus have caused the emergence of different types of arbitration clauses for which the parties' differing negotiating powers and distinct needs of different economic sectors have played a critical role. One of these novel but controversial types of arbitration agreements is concerned with “optional agreements.” Optional arbitration agreements provide an option for one or both parties to adjudicate their disputes either by arbitration or litigation. The nature, validity, and various aspects of such agreements have not been thoroughly examined in the primary and secondary sources. The same is true in Iranian legal literature, especially when it comes to its distinction from other types of arbitration agreements, especially voluntary arbitration. Thus, this Article attempts to discuss the nature, validity, and various types of optional arbitration agreements to unfold their unknown aspects.

Keywords

References

  1. Books

    [1]. Born, G. B. International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2014.

    1. 2. Chen-Wishart, M. Contract Law, 4th, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
    2. Fauvarque-Cosson, B. & Denis Mazeaud (eds), European Contract Law: Materials for a Common Frame of Reference: Terminology, Guiding Principles, Model Rules, Munich: Sellier European Law Publishers, 2008.
    3. Friedland, P. D. Arbitration Clauses for International Contracts, 2nd ed., New York: JurisNet, LLC, 2007.
    4. Girsberger, D. & Nathalie Voser, International Arbitration: Comparative and Swiss Perspectives, 3rd ed., Zürich: Schulthess Juristische Medien AG, 2016.
    5. Katouzian, N. General Theory of Obligations, 5th ed., Tehran: Mizan, 2010.
    6. Khodabakhshi, A. Litigation Law: Requirements of Comparative Arbitration Law, Vol. 6, 1st ed., Tehran: Entesharco, 2018.
    7. Shoarian E. & Ebrahim Torabi, the Law of Obligations: A Comparative Study of Catala project (Reforming the French Law of Obligations) with Irainian Law and International Instruments, Tehran: the SD Institute of Law Research and Study, 2016.
    8. Smits, J. M. Contract Law: A Comparative Introduction, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2014.

     

    Articles

    1. Ashford Fciarb, P. “Is an Asymmetric Disputes Clause Valid and Enforceable?”, The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, Vol. 86, Issue 3, 2020.
    2. Draguiev, D. “Unilateral Jurisdiction Clauses: The Case for Invalidity, Severability or Enforceability”, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2014.
    3. Drahozal, C. R. “Nonmutual Agreements to Arbitrate”, the Journal of Corporation Law, Vol. 27, 2002.
    4. Hormozi, Kh. “The Aggregation and Separation of Claims and Comparing with Disjoining an Action in Irainian and French Law”, Journal of Private Law, Vol. 6, Issue 23, 2018, pp. 191-216. (in Persian)
    5. Jafari Nodoushan, Sh. & Laleh Zarrin, “Comparative Study on the Validity of Unilateral Dispute Settlement Clauses”, Journal of Modern Technologies Law, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 2020, pp. 257-275. (in Persian)
    6. Malyuta, P. “Compatibility of Unilateral Option Clause with the European Convention on Human Rights”, University College London Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, Vol. 8, Issue 1, 2019.
    7. Nesbitt, S. & Henry Quinlan, “The Ststus and Operation of Unilateral or Optional Arbitration Clauses”, Arbitration International, Vol. 22, Issue 1, 2006.
    8. Patil, S. “Unilateral Option Clauses: The Way Forward”, Christ University Law Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2018.
    9. Sarbazian, M. & Soroush Rostamzad Asli, “Validity of Unilateral Jurisdiction Clauses in the International Commercial Arbitration”, International Law Review, Vol. 36, Issue 60, 2019, pp. 357-380. (in Persian)
    10. Shoarian, E. & Sanaz Nikzaman Asl, “Approaches and Criteria Governing the Interpretation of Arbitration Agreement: A Comparative Study in Domestic and International Arbitration“, Journal of Contemporary Legal Studies, Vol. 11, Issue 21, 2020, pp. 155-188. (in Persian)
    11. Tarh-Akong Eyongnd, D. “Enforcement of Asymmetrical Arbitration Clauses in Nigeria: A Peep into Other Jurisdictions”, BiLD Law Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2020.
    12. Van Zelst, B. “Unilateral Option Arbitration Clauses: An Unequivocal Choice for Arbitration under the ECHR?”, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 2018, Vol. 25(1).

     

    Electronic Resources

    1. Bevan, Alex, Optional Arbitration Agreements: The English Position, Published at 30/11/2011, available at: https://www.cdr-news.com/categories/arbitration-and-adr/optional-arbitration-agreements-the-english-position : June 5, 2022
    2. Cheung, Kevin, Unilateral Option Clauses to Arbitration: The Debate Continues, February 25, 2020, available at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/02/25/unilateral-option-clauses-to-arbitration-the-debate-continues/ : June 5, 2022
    3. Gridasov, Alexander & Maria Dolotova, Unilateral Option Clauses: Russian Supreme Court Puts an End to the Long-Lasting Discussion,Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, May 7, 2019, available at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/05/07/unilateral-option-clauses-russian-supreme-court-puts-an-end-to-the-long-lasting-discussion/ : June 5, 2022
    4. Nassar, Youssef, Are Unilateral Option Clauses Valid?, October 13, 2018, available at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/10/13/are-unilateral-option-clauses-valid/ : June 5, 2022
    5. 5. Respondek, Andreas & Frederike Marina Löwentha, The Troubled Waters of Asymmetric Arbitration Clauses, January 2020, available at: https://www.rflegal.com/upload/document/the-troubled-waters-of-asymmetric-arbitration-clauses---the-sin.pdf : June 5, 2022
    6. 6. Scherer, Maxi & Sophia Lange, The French Rothschild Case: A Threat for Unilateral Dispute Resolution Clauses?, July 18, 2013, available at:

         http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2013/07/18/the-french-rothschild-case-a-threat-for-unilateral-dispute-resolution-clauses/ : June 5, 2022

    1. Willems, Jane Y. The Arbitrator’s Jurisdiction at Risk: The Case of Hybrid and Asymmetrical Arbitration Agreements, 1 May 2019, available at:

        https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3362746 : June 5, 2022

     

    Cases

    1. Apple Sales International v. eBizcuss, Cass. 1ere Civ., 7 October 2015, 14-16.898.
    2. Allis-Chalmers Corp v. Lueck, 471 US 202, 204 n 1, 1985.
    3. Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 6 P.3d 669, 692 (Cal. 2000).
    4. 4. Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 2d 593, 605-11 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (California law).
    5. Cass Civ 1, June 12 2013, [2013] I Bull Civ, 121.
    6. Conax Florida Corp v. Astrium Ltd 499 F Supp 2d 1287 (2007).
    7. Corte di Cassazione judgement No. 2906, October 22, 1970.
    8. 8. Cour de cassation, 25 March 2015, Decision No. 415 (13-27. 264).
    9. Deaton Truck Line, Inc. v. Local Union 612, 314 F 2d 418, 422 (5th Cir 1962).
    10. Decision of Presidium of Supreme Arbitrazh Court in: CJSC Russian Telephone Co. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Telecommunications Russia LLC., case No. 1831/12, A40- 49223/11-112-401, June 19, 2012.
    11. Debenture Trust Corp plc v. Elektrim Finance BV and others [2005] 1 All ER (Comm) 476 [493].
    12. Dyna-Jet Pte Ltd v. Wilson Taylor Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 32.
    13. Global Client Solutions, LLC v. Ossello, 382 Mont. 345, 367 P.3d 361, 2016 MT 50 (Mont. 2016).
    14. 14. Grinka in liquidazione v. Intesa San Paolo, Corte di Cassazione judgement in case No. 5705, April 11, 2012.
    15. Judgment of Anzen Limited and others (Appellants) v. Hermes One Limited (Respondent) (British Virgin Islands), From the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (British Virgin Islands), 18 January 2016.
    16. 16. Mme X v. Banque Privée Edmond de Rothschild Europe (Societe) [2013] I.L.Pr. 12 (26 September 2012).
    17. NB Three Shipping Ltd v. Harebell Shipping Ltd [2004] EWHC (Comm.) (English High Ct.).
    18. 18. NB Three Shipping Ltd. v. Harebell Shipping Ltd., [2005] 1 Lloyds Rep. 509.
    19. Noohi v. Toll Bros. Inc., 708 F.3d 599 (4th Cir. 2013).
    20. Pittalis v. Sherefettin [1986] 1 QB 868 [Hereinafter Pittalis].

    2[1]. PMT Partners Pty Ltd v. Australian Nat’l Parks & Wildlife Serv., [1995] 184 CLR 302, ¶18 (Australian High Ct.).

    1. Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 46-KG16-29, Nov. 29, 2016.
    2. Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 310- EC14-5919, Case No. A62-1635/2014, May 27, 2015.
    3. Societe Coignet v. COMIT, Bull. 1990 I No. 273, p. 193, Cass. Div.
    4. Societe Sicaly v. Societe Grasso Stacon NV, 1974 I No. 143 p. 122 Cass. Civ.
    5. Thermodyn v. M-Real Alizay, French Supreme Court, Cass Civ. 1ère, 12 June 2013.
    6. Ticknor v. Choice Hotels International Inc., 265 F.3d 931, 939-40 (9th Cir. 2001) (Montana law).
    7. Union of India v. Bharat Engineering Corporation ILR 1977 Delhi 57.
    8. United States ex rel. Birckhead Elec., Inc. v. James W. Ancel, Inc., WDQ-13-2498 (D. Md. Jun. 5, 2014).
    9. 30. United States ex rel. Birckhead Elec., Inc. v. James W. Ancel, Inc., (2014) WL 2574529 (D. Md. June 5, 2014).
    10. Westfal-Larsen & Co A/S v. Ikerigi Compania Naviers SA (The Messiniaki Bergen) [1983] 1 All ER 382.
    11. Ziegler v. Knuck, 419 So 2d 818, 819 (Fla App 1982).

     

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 06 August 2022
  • Revise Date: 27 January 2024
  • Accept Date: 19 February 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics