The 1933 Directives on Arbitration of the German Reich: Echoes of the Past?

G. Born
{"title":"The 1933 Directives on Arbitration of the German Reich: Echoes of the Past?","authors":"G. Born","doi":"10.54648/joia2021022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1933, the National Socialist government of the German Reich issued a collection of directives regarding the use of arbitration to resolve disputes, focused specifically on disputes between the Reich and private parties. The 1933 Directives made a number of general criticisms of the arbitral process as a means of adjudication, and relied upon these criticisms to significantly restrict the use of arbitration to resolve disputes with German state entities. The Reich Directives provide a neglected, but instructive, historical perspective on arbitration law and practice in Germany, both in the 1930s and before. At the same time, parts of the 1933 Directives also have unmistakable parallels to current debates about investor-state and commercial arbitration. Among other things, the Directives contain recommendations regarding the drafting of arbitration agreements and the conduct of arbitral proceedings which, while in some areas out-dated, could in other respects be mistaken for current discussions regarding best practices in international commercial and investment arbitration. More importantly, the Directives’ criticisms of the arbitral process, and the National Socialists’ rationales for those criticisms, have striking analogues to aspects of contemporary debates about investment arbitration and proposals to abandon or restrict investment arbitration. Those parallels raise important, if uncomfortable, questions about these contemporary critiques and proposals for reform.\ninvestor-state, arbitration, ISDS, criticism, Achmea, directives, Germany, National Socialism, history","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Arbitration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2021022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In 1933, the National Socialist government of the German Reich issued a collection of directives regarding the use of arbitration to resolve disputes, focused specifically on disputes between the Reich and private parties. The 1933 Directives made a number of general criticisms of the arbitral process as a means of adjudication, and relied upon these criticisms to significantly restrict the use of arbitration to resolve disputes with German state entities. The Reich Directives provide a neglected, but instructive, historical perspective on arbitration law and practice in Germany, both in the 1930s and before. At the same time, parts of the 1933 Directives also have unmistakable parallels to current debates about investor-state and commercial arbitration. Among other things, the Directives contain recommendations regarding the drafting of arbitration agreements and the conduct of arbitral proceedings which, while in some areas out-dated, could in other respects be mistaken for current discussions regarding best practices in international commercial and investment arbitration. More importantly, the Directives’ criticisms of the arbitral process, and the National Socialists’ rationales for those criticisms, have striking analogues to aspects of contemporary debates about investment arbitration and proposals to abandon or restrict investment arbitration. Those parallels raise important, if uncomfortable, questions about these contemporary critiques and proposals for reform. investor-state, arbitration, ISDS, criticism, Achmea, directives, Germany, National Socialism, history
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
1933年关于德意志帝国仲裁的指令:过去的回声?
1933年,德意志帝国的国家社会主义政府发布了一系列关于使用仲裁来解决纠纷的指令,特别关注帝国和私人当事方之间的纠纷。1933年的《指令》对仲裁程序作为一种裁决手段提出了若干一般性批评,并根据这些批评大大限制了使用仲裁来解决与德国国家实体之间的争端。帝国指令提供了一个被忽视的,但有益的,关于德国仲裁法律和实践的历史视角,无论是在20世纪30年代还是之前。与此同时,1933年指令的部分内容也与当前有关投资者-国家和商业仲裁的辩论有明确的相似之处。除其他事项外,《指令》载有关于起草仲裁协议和进行仲裁程序的建议,这些建议虽然在某些领域已经过时,但在其他方面可能被误认为是目前关于国际商事和投资仲裁最佳做法的讨论。更重要的是,《指令》对仲裁程序的批评,以及国家社会主义者对这些批评的理由,与当代关于投资仲裁的辩论以及放弃或限制投资仲裁的建议有着惊人的相似之处。这些相似之处对这些当代的批评和改革建议提出了重要的问题,尽管令人不安。投资者-国家,仲裁,ISDS,批评,Achmea,指令,德国,国家社会主义,历史
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
50.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Since its 1984 launch, the Journal of International Arbitration has established itself as a thought provoking, ground breaking journal aimed at the specific requirements of those involved in international arbitration. Each issue contains in depth investigations of the most important current issues in international arbitration, focusing on business, investment, and economic disputes between private corporations, State controlled entities, and States. The new Notes and Current Developments sections contain concise and critical commentary on new developments. The journal’s worldwide coverage and bimonthly circulation give it even more immediacy as a forum for original thinking, penetrating analysis and lively discussion of international arbitration issues from around the globe.
期刊最新文献
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Providing for Arbitration in Mainland China Administered by Overseas Arbitration Institutions ZF Auto. v. Luxshare: Supreme Court’s Withdrawal of Judicial Assistance for Discovery from Private Arbitration Political Risk and Its Key Role in Mining Disputes Around the World A New Era of Maritime Arbitration: Ex Machina Determinations Arbitrating Investment Disputes in Time of Geopolitical Unrest: Focus on Investment Protection in Russia
×
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