International Arbitration As A Spontaneous Legal Order
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52195/pm.v17i2.100Abstract
Methodological Individualism (or better, praxeology) is essential to understand social phenomena. Praxeology should be applied not only to the study of the social process but also to the study of the different aspects of this process, such as Economics, Law, and Institutions. Hence, social sciences, including the Law (and International Arbitration within it) should therefore be studied from Methodological Individualism.
There have been very few attempts to draw up a legal theory of arbitration. The lack of a comprehensive theory capable of explaining Arbitration’s foundation may have undesired results, both with regard to its (mal-) functioning and its future survival. We argue in this paper that praxeology, as the science that studies the logic of human action, and the theory of the spontaneous evolution of institutions, is the only methodology that can explain International Arbitration integrally.
International arbitration is a means by which international disputes can be definitely resolved, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, by impartial, non-public decision-makers, appointed by or for the parties, applying neutral judicial procedures that provide the parties an opportunity to be heard. Today it is the main mechanism for solving international disputes involving States, individuals, and/or corporations. International arbitration is also a social-juridical institution of spontaneous evolution.
Key Words: Austrian School of Economics, Methodological Individualism, International Arbitration, Spontaneous Market Order, Social Evolution of Institutions
JEL Classification: K4, K19, K33
Resumen: El Individualismo Metodológico (o, si se prefiere, la praxeología) es imprescindible para entender los fenómenos sociales. La praxeología se debe aplicar no sólo al estudio del proceso social sino también al estudio de los distintos aspectos de este proceso, como son la Economía, el Derecho y las Instituciones. Por tanto, las ciencias sociales, incluyendo el Derecho (y dentro del mismo el Arbitraje Internacional) deben ser estudiadas desde el Individualismo Metodológico.
Hasta ahora ha habido muy pocos intentos de construir una teoría jurídica del arbitraje. La falta de una teoría exhaustiva capaz de explicar el fundamento del Arbitraje puede tener resultados poco deseables, tanto respecto a su (mal) funcionamiento como respecto a su supervivencia futura. En este artículo argumentamos que la praxeología, como la ciencia que estudia la lógica de la acción humana, así como la teoría de la evolución espontánea de las instituciones, es la única metodología que puede explicar el Arbitraje internacional de forma integral.
El arbitraje internacional es una vía por la que las controversias internacionales se pueden resolver de forma definitiva, conforme al acuerdo de las partes, por terceros imparciales y privados, designados por o para las partes, y aplicando procedimientos jurídicos neutrales que brindan a las mismas el derecho de audiencia. Actualmente, es el principal mecanismo utilizado para resolver controversias internacionales que involucran a Estados, individuos, y/o corporaciones. El Arbitraje Internacional es además una institución jurídico-social de evolución espontánea.
Palabras clave: Escuela Austriaca de Economía, Individualismo Metodológico, Arbitraje Internacional, Orden Espontáneo de Mercado, Teoría Evolutiva de las Instituciones.
Clasificación JEL: K4, K19, K33
References
Blackaby, N. and Partasides, C., (2015): Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, 6th edition, Oxford University Press.
Benson, B.L., (1989): “The Spontaneous Evolution of Commercial Law”, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 55, pp. 644-661.
Born, G., (2014): International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd edition, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Broches, A., (1984): “Recourse against the award; Enforcement of the award”, ICCA Congress Series: UNCITRAL’s
Report for a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (P. Sanders, ed.), Congress Series nº 2, pp. 201-228.
Cremades, B., (2001): “Arbitration in Investment Treaties: public offer of arbitration in investment-protection treaties”, Law of International Business and Dispute Settlement in the 21st Century, Liber Amicorum, Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Briner, R., (ed.), Alemania: Heymanns, pp. 149-164.
Cuniberti, G., (2009): “Beyond Contract. The Case for Default Arbitration in International Commercial Disputes”, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 417-488.
de Benito, M., and Huerta de Soto, S., (2015): “El Arbitraje Internacional como Orden Jurídico Espontáneo”, Spain Arbitration Review, nº. 22, pp. 113-127.
de Vries, (1982): “International Commercial Arbitration: A Contractual Substitute for National Courts”, Vol. 57 Tulane Law Review pp. 42-79.
Dezalay, Y.; Garth, B.G., (1996) Dealing in Virtue. International Commercial Arbitration and the Construction of a Transnational Legal Order, The University of Chicago Press.
di Pietro, D., (2008), “What Constitutes an Arbitral Award Under the New York Convention?”, Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements and International Arbitral Awards: The New York Convention in Practice, Gaillard E., Di Pietro, D., (eds.), pp. 139-155.
Gaillard, E. and Savage, J., (1999): Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International.
Gaillard, E., (2015): “Sociology of International Arbitration”, Arbitration International, Oxford Academic, Vol. 31, Issue 1, pp. 1-17.
——(2008): Legal Theory of Arbitration, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, (2010).
Hayek, F.A., (Rules and Order, 1973; The Mirage of Social Justice, 1976, The Political Order of a Free People, 1979): Derecho, legislación y libertad, Unión Editorial, 2006.
——(1948): “Individualism: True and False”, Individualism and Economic Order, The University of Chicago Press
Huemer, M., (2019): El problema de la autoridad política, Instituto Juan de Mariana, Value School, Ediciones Deusto.
Huerta de Soto, J., (2010): Socialismo, cálculo económico y función empresarial, Unión Editorial
——(2012): La Escuela Austriaca, mercado y creatividad empresarial, Editorial Síntesis.
Paulsson, J., (2011): “Arbitration in three dimensions”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 60, Issue 1, pp. 291-323.
——(2013): The Idea of Arbitration, Oxford University Press.
Poudret, J. & Besson, S., (2007): Comparative Law of International Arbitration, 2nd ed.,Sweet & Maxwell.Reisman, W., Craig, L., Park, W., & Paulsson, J., (1997): International Commercial Arbitration. Cases, Materials, and Notes on the Resolution of International Business Disputes, Foundation Press.
Rojas, R.M., (2015): “Fundamentos praxeológicos del Derecho”, Revista de estudios de Justicia, Derecho y Economía (RJDE), No. 2 Enero-Junio, pp. [].
Tannehill, M.; Tannehill, L., (2011): “Arbitration of Disputes”, Mises Institute; July 1.
Van Den Berg, A., (1994): The New York Convention 1958: Towards a Uniform Judicial Interpretation, Kluwer Law International.
Zywicki, T.J.; Stringham, E.P., (2017): “Austrian Law and Economics and Efficiency in the Common Law”, Research Hanbook on Austrian Law and Economics, edited by Zywicki, T.J.; and Boettke, P.J.; Edward Elgar Publishing.
