<i>Kompetenz-Kompetenz</i>: An Arbitral Tribunal Authority to Decide Its Jurisdiction
- 1 Faculty of Law, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai, China
Abstract
The authority of an arbitral tribunal to establish its own jurisdiction is discussed in this article. Under the Kompetenz-Kompetenz (competence-competence) principle, a tribunal’s decision about its jurisdiction must be made within its own purview, at least in the initial stage. The principle permits a tribunal to define its authority’s scope and determine its jurisdiction. As it encourages party autonomy, this is one of the fundamental principles of arbitration. The significance of this tribunal power is that it corrects any excesses or inadequacies in jurisdiction by providing a prompt remedy to a party objecting, saving both money and time. The drawback of this power is that if an opposing party is not pleased with the processes, he may still be able to go back to court under the English Arbitration Act and the Model Law. Time, though, is of the essence. The article is supported by a body of secondary, current, and case law literature. It recognizes that parties to an arbitration agreement have the autonomy to decide whether to subject the arbitration procedures to arbitration rules. As a result, the UNCITRAL Rules of Arbitration and the ICC Rules of Arbitration are used as model rules in this article. The ability of an arbitral tribunal to decide on its jurisdiction is distinctive in that it tests that panel’s authority. It is undoubtedly a unique power because it contributes to determining the scope of a tribunal’s authority and thus acts as its own judge when called upon. This authority is crucial because it allows the arbitration processes to proceed according to plan.
- Athletic Union of Constantinople v. National Basketball Association (2002) 1 Lloyd’s Report 305.
- Azov Shipping Co. v. Baltic Shipping Co. [1999] 1 All ER 476.
- Bagner, H., & Rosengren, M. (2006). Arbitration World: Jurisdictional Comparisons (2nd ed.). Stockholm Arbitration Institute.
- Binder, P. (2010). International Commercial Arbitration and Conciliation in UNCITRAL Model Law Jurisdictions (7th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
- Chukwumerije, O. (1994). Choice of Law in International Commercial Arbitration. Praeger.
- Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones, S.A. de C.V., et al. v. STET International, S.p.A. and STET International Netherlands, N.V. CLOUT; (1999) 45 O.R (3d) 183.
- Dalimpex Ltd v. Janicki; Agros Trading Spolka Z.O.O. v. Dalimpex Ltd [2003] 64 Ontario Reports (3d) 737.
- Ferris & Anor v. Plaister & Anor and Stap & Anor v. Plaister & Anor [1994] BCL 417; CLOUT.
- Findlay v. United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 221.
- Glencore v. Agros (CA) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 410.
- Himpurna California Energy Ltd. and The Republic of Indonesia, [Interim Award of 26 September 1999 and Final Award of 16 October 1999—Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Volume XXV—2000, Albert Jan van den Berg with the Assistance of International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Kluwer Law International 2000, Printed in the Netherlands, at Page 109].
- IBA Ethics for International Arbitrators of 1987.
- IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, Approved on 22 May 2004 by the Council of the International Bar Association.
- ICC Case No. 1776.
- Margulead Ltd v. Exide Technologies (2005) 1 Lloyd’s Law Report 324.
- Metal Distributors (UK) Ltd v. ZCCM Investment Holdings Plc [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 37.
- Park, W. W. (2012). Arbitration of International Business Disputes: Studies in Law and Practice (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Porter v. Magill (2001) UKHL 67.
- Primetrade AG v. Ythan Ltd (The Ythan) [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 157.
- Redfern, A., Hunter, M., Blackaby, N., & Partasides, C. (2015). Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (4th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.