GA Proposal: Commercial Arbitration Recognition

[HumanSanity]

Commercial Arbitration Recognition

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Cretox State

The World Assembly,

Realizing that the member nations of this Assembly are significantly outnumbered by their external counterparts,

Believing it the responsibility of this august body to further the prosperity of the nations under its aegis and confer substantial benefits upon its membership,

Recognizing the importance of strengthening international commerce in achieving the above,

Highlighting the effectiveness of alternate dispute resolution, particularly through arbitration, in furthering international commerce by ensuring that any disputes arising from international commercial agreements can be efficiently resolved in in a forum that confers neutrality, finality of judgement, confidentiality, and procedural flexibility, all of which hinge upon the enforceability of resultant judgments, and

Wishing to provide a framework for the international recognition and enforcement of judgement arising from arbitration of international commercial disputes, thereby promoting free trade and commerce, hereby:

1. Defines:

a. "arbitration" as the deciding of a legal dispute in a forum outside of a member nation's judiciary or international court of law;

b. an "arbitral award" as a judgement on the merits of an arbitration by an arbitration tribunal, including judgments made by arbitrators appointed for a particular case as well as judgments made by a permanent arbitral body; and

c. an "arbitration agreement" as any agreement providing for arbitration of a dispute;

2. Declares:

a. all member nations must recognize arbitration agreements within their legal jurisdiction; and

b. all member nations must recognize arbitral awards as binding, and enforce them to the extent required by the arbitral award;

3. Clarifies that member nations may not impose unnecessarily onerous conditions on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards within their legal jurisdiction;

4. Further clarifies that member nations may refuse to recognize or enforce an arbitral award if any of the following conditions are met:

a. the arbitral award or the arbitration agreement preceding it are invalid under said award or agreement's governing law;

b. the party against whom the award is invoked was given insufficient notice of the arbitration proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case;

c. the arbitral award concerns matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement;

d. the procedure of the arbitration was not in accordance with the arbitration agreement or its governing law;

e. the arbitral award has not yet become binding on the involved parties; or

f. the subject matter of the arbitral award cannot be resolved through arbitration;

5. Asserts that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to limit the ability of individuals, nations, and organizations to enter into an arbitration agreement;

6. Clarifies that this resolution shall only apply to arbitration agreements, arbitration, and arbitral awards arising from international commercial agreements between two firms, a firm and a government, or two governments, or similar agreements of an international character between two firms, a firm and a government, or two governments; and

7. Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution applies to arbitration, arbitration agreements, or arbitral awards issued by or under the jurisdiction of a non-member nation.

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Deleted]

I have liked much of what this author has presented, but this one goes way too far. On one hand, it's incredibly vague and there are dozens of unanswered questions, and almost endless loopholes by which arbitration decisions can be ignored. On the other hand, it is firmly binding on nations while being potentially dis-empowering, crossing well into the realm of NatSov and WA overreach. End of the day, I don't see this accomplishing much at all but to muddy and stall the process to the point of dysfunction and causing a lot of resentment.

There is mention of a tribunal, but no indication anywhere about from whence the tribunal will come. Who sits on this tribunal? Who chooses who sits? Is there one tribunal for the whole WA or a number of them? Given the potential scope of matters that might require a decision from this/these tribunal(s) will there be tribunals specific to certain types of disputes requiring arbitration? How large is the scope of this potential project?

I doubt any nation is going to feel completely comfortable yielding all authority on trade agreements to an arbitrary third party, nor do I think they should. Given the grocery list of exceptions from the decisions or penalties imposed by this mystery tribunal, it's almost set up to fall victim to whatever stalling tactics can be applied. This needs to be broken into several far more comprehensive pieces of legislation, and if this incomplete resolution passes, I see it being quickly repealed.

THX, through proxy, will vote against.

[HumanSanity]

I have voted For per the poll.

[whatermelons]

Sept 15, 2020 22:18:57 GMT -5 @thx1138 said:

I have liked much of what this author has presented

I don't