Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-10T22:31:23.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Internationale Handelsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit: Kommentar zu den Verfahrensordnungen. By Menno Aden. Heidelberg: Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft GmbH, 1988. Pp. 299. Index. DM 135.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Otto Sandrock
Otto Sandrock*
Affiliation:
University of Münster
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews and Notes
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 85 , Issue 1 , January 1991 , pp. 243 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Yearbook of Commercial Arbitration (begun in 1976), Journal of International Arbitration (1984), Arbitration International (1985), and American Review of International Arbitration (1990).

2 See the collection of awards published in the periodicals cited in footnote 1; see also Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1974–1985, Recueil des sentences arbitrales de la CCI (S. Jarvin & Y. Derains eds. 1990). This collection appeared, however, after the book under review was published.

3 See, e.g., R. David, Arbitration in International Trade 281–82 (1985); 2 P. Fouchard, L’Arbitrage Commercial interNational 316 (1965); Goldman, Les conftits de lois dans l’arbitrage international de droit privé, 109 Recueil Des Cours 347, 380 (1963 II); P. Lalive, Les Règies de conflit de lois appliquées au fond du litige par l’arbitre international siégeant en Suisse, Revue de L’Arbitrage 155, 159 (1976). For a thorough critique of this doctrine, see Mann, Lex Facit Arbitrum, in International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum for Martin Domke 157 (P. Sanders ed. 1967); Mann, England Rejects “Delocalised” Contracts and Arbitration, 33 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 193 (1984).

4 For English-speaking authorities on this theory, see J. Lew, Applicable Law in Inter National Commercial Arbitration (1978); Lando, The “Lex Mercatoria” in International Commercial Arbitration, 34 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 741 passim (1985). For French-speaking authorities, see R. David, L’Arbitrage Dans le Commerce International 479 (1982); Goldman, La lex mercatoria dans les contrats el l’arbitrage internationaux: réalités et perspectives, 104 Journal du Droit International (Clunet) 339 (1977); Lalive, Problèmes relatifs à l’arbitrage international commercial, 120 Recueil des Cours 569, 650 (1967 I). For German-speaking authorities, see E. Langen, Transnationales Recht (1981); Martiny, in 7 Münchener Kommentar zum bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch 529, 539 (H. Sonnenberger ed. 1983); Schmitthoff, Das neue Recht des Welthandels, 28 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 47 (1964). For a critical survey of the German-speaking advocates of this theory, see Sandrock & Steinschulte, in 1 Handbuch der internationalen Vertragsgestaltung 99 (O. Sandrock ed. 1980).

5 See, among many others, Art. 13(3) of the ICC Arbitration Rules; Art. 33(1) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; Art. VII(l) of the European Convention on Commercial Arbitration of Apr. 21, 1961; Art. 28(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of June 21, 1985. Many writers have supported such discretion of the arbitral tribunal; see, e.g., Lalive, supra note 3, at 155; A. Redfern & M. Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration 87–89 (1986).