PROBLEMS OF PRIVATE ARBITRAGE UNIFICATION

By George Epitashvili

Arbitrage, as the objective and operative mechanism of delivering a judgement has the age-old history of approbation through the international practice.

Since the ancient times, international commonwealth has been testing to create the flexible structure that could lessen the hazard of Trans-national commerce, equalise the conditions for presenters of each juridical entity and remove all doubts about illiteracy of each country. Should be mentioned that the above achievement became available with an establishment of international private arbitrage. Yet, the private arbitrage turned into indivisible part of Trans-national commerce and one of the most important elements of international economic relations. The most of entrepreneurs think, that the private arbitrage is more effective in delivering the judgement, including, trials with foreign companies, then state court. The thing is not about the costs those are different for each arbitrary institution, but the juridical privileges an international private arbitrage provides for participating sides. Special attention should be paid to the principles as follows: minimal quantity of imperative norms, limitation of state interventions, maximal autonomy for each side etc. All this, taken together, indicates to the entrepreneurs’ strong belief to private arbitrage institution.
Despite a number of additional moments, characterising private arbitrage, we’d like to underline one more that may probably improve soon.
As we’ve already mentioned, one of the priorities of arbitrage is its independence from the national legislation, but in spite of that, this problem will be on top even if using existing model of international private arbitrage with lots of differences and privileges.
Legislation of each country, except countries those have primly introduced the UNCITRAL modelling law (Russia, Canada, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Egypt etc.), stipulates specific, so called “corrections” at the sight of coinciding an arbitrary procedure to local legislation. However, it will negatively effect unification and harmonisation of arbitrary regulations without fail.
As to international field, should be mentioned that even in the 19th century, society had drawn up some documents of international meaning those could be considered as the first attempt of unifying and harmonising international arbitrage regulations. Despite that, the unique document of international meaning hasn’t been placed yet. The only we’re having for today is a dispersion and, consequently, contradiction thereof.
Thus regulations are widely recognised and used. For example, international arbitrage regulations are stipulated by UN International Commerce Commission within (UNCITRAL) law on International Commercial Arbitrage, by UN Economic Commission – within European Convention on International Arbitrage, within 1965 Washington International Convention on Investment Trials Between Countries etc.
One of the most successful and important steps upwards the unification and harmonisation of commercial arbitrage is the Law on International Commercial Arbitrage approved by UN International Justice Commission in the 21st June, 1985.
The first, acceptation of the above law aims at is the objective solution of trials within international economic relations. Introduction of regulations from the UNCITRAL modelling law into national legislation without any changes accelerates unification process and brings it closer to the general idea of creating international arbitrary institutions. We’ll be having an organ, free of governmental influence that provides full procession warrants for each side, effective operation of trial, objectiveness and justice those are too important because of existing reality in our country.