Intervention in Inter-State Arbitration, including the Case of UNCLOS Annex VII Arbitration

E. Ivanova
{"title":"Intervention in Inter-State Arbitration, including the Case of UNCLOS Annex VII Arbitration","authors":"E. Ivanova","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses the issue of intervention in inter-State arbitration, including arbitration under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Annex vii and tackles the question whether intervention in arbitral proceedings is only possible where the parties in dispute have expressly consented to it. It is maintained in this paper that international arbitration is not static and has undergone long evolution which has implications for the notions of party autonomy and confidentiality of proceedings. Nowadays inter-State arbitration is increasingly influenced by the practice of the ICJ and other international courts and tribunals engaged in State-to-State dispute resolution especially in the field of international procedural law. The article demonstrates that intervention in inter-State arbitrations is not as unthinkable as it was some decades ago. It does so by reference to the history of intervention in international arbitration and the practice of States in the field of intervention in international judicial and arbitral proceedings. While examining the function and purposes of the procedure of intervention in inter-State litigation and the forms of intervention known to it, the article assesses what the nature of the competence to permit intervention is. In this regard, it also examines the operation of the principle of consensual jurisdiction with a view to establishing whether intervention is subject to the consent of the parties in dispute. Finally, by way of comparison with other known forms of participation of non-litigants in the proceedings, it stresses the special function of the intervention procedure so as to justify the permissibility of intervention in inter-State arbitration.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"604 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article addresses the issue of intervention in inter-State arbitration, including arbitration under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Annex vii and tackles the question whether intervention in arbitral proceedings is only possible where the parties in dispute have expressly consented to it. It is maintained in this paper that international arbitration is not static and has undergone long evolution which has implications for the notions of party autonomy and confidentiality of proceedings. Nowadays inter-State arbitration is increasingly influenced by the practice of the ICJ and other international courts and tribunals engaged in State-to-State dispute resolution especially in the field of international procedural law. The article demonstrates that intervention in inter-State arbitrations is not as unthinkable as it was some decades ago. It does so by reference to the history of intervention in international arbitration and the practice of States in the field of intervention in international judicial and arbitral proceedings. While examining the function and purposes of the procedure of intervention in inter-State litigation and the forms of intervention known to it, the article assesses what the nature of the competence to permit intervention is. In this regard, it also examines the operation of the principle of consensual jurisdiction with a view to establishing whether intervention is subject to the consent of the parties in dispute. Finally, by way of comparison with other known forms of participation of non-litigants in the proceedings, it stresses the special function of the intervention procedure so as to justify the permissibility of intervention in inter-State arbitration.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
干预国家间仲裁,包括《联合国海洋法公约》附件七仲裁案
本文探讨干预国家间仲裁,包括根据《联合国海洋法公约》附件七进行的仲裁,并探讨是否只有在争端各方明确同意的情况下才可能干预仲裁程序。本文认为,国际仲裁不是一成不变的,它经历了漫长的演变,这对当事人自治和程序保密的概念产生了影响。如今,国际法院和从事国与国争端解决的其他国际法院和法庭的做法,特别是在国际程序法领域,日益影响到国家间仲裁。这篇文章表明,对国家间仲裁的干预并不像几十年前那样不可想象。它通过提及干预国际仲裁的历史和各国在干预国际司法和仲裁程序领域的实践来做到这一点。在审查国家间诉讼中干预程序的功能和目的及其已知的干预形式的同时,本文评估了允许干预的权限的性质。在这方面,它还审查协商一致管辖权原则的运作情况,以期确定干预是否须经争端各方同意。最后,通过与其他已知的非诉讼人参与诉讼的形式进行比较,它强调了干预程序的特殊功能,从而证明在国家间仲裁中允许干预是合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Application of Teachings by the International Court of Justice, 2016–2022 Revisiting the Standard of Proof for Charges of Exceptional Gravity before the International Court of Justice The Legitimacy of the International Court of Justice from the Vantage Point of UN Members The International Court of Justice and Territorial Disputes: an Updated Systematization The ILC’s First Reading Draft Articles on ‘Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction’ (2022)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1