Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:49:23.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mandatory and Public Policy Rules in International Commercial Arbitration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

A.N. Zhilsov
Get access

Extract

The evolution of international commercial arbitration as an alternative mechanism for the resolution of international commercial disputes has been accompanied by the gradual liberalization of national arbitration laws and the acknowledgement of the special role this institution has had to play in international trade. At present, most of the developed national arbitration laws accord substantial freedoms to parties and arbitrators in framing the arbitral procedure as they see fit and reduce the instances of possible court interference in the proceedings. These developments have been accompanied, and sometimes preceded, by the evolution of legal theories aimed at explaining the specific contractual nature of international commercial arbitration and justifying its autonomous and independent status.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , May 1995 , pp. 81 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1995

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. As the present article is not limited to considering the arbitration law and practice of one particular country, the notion of international commercial arbitration will be applied in the wide sense as adopted in Art. 1 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, see UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, in II YB Com. Arb. (1986) p. 381.

2. On various theories on the legal nature of international commercial arbitration, see Mann, F.A., ‘Lex Facit Arbitrum’, in P. Sanders, ed., International Arbitration. Liber Amicorum for Martin Domke (1967) p. 157;Google ScholarCroff, C., ‘The Applicable Law in an International Commercial Arbitration: Is it Still a Conflict of Laws Problem?’, in 16 Int. Lawyer (1982) no. 1, pp. 613–645;Google ScholarLew, J., Applicable Law in International Commercial Arbitration (1978) pp. 51–61;Google ScholarMoura Vicente, D., Da arbitragem commercial international: direito aplicavel ao mérito da causa (1990) pp. 23–69;Google ScholarRedfern, A. and Hunter, M., Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd edn. (1991) pp. 81–90.Google Scholar

3. See, e.g., Goldman, B.,’Règlesde conflit, règles d'application immediate et règles matérielles dans l’arbitrage commercial international’, in Travaux du Comité Français deDroil International Privé, 1966–1969 (1970) pp. 121–148;Google ScholarDerains, Y., ‘Les normes d’application immédiate dans la jurisprudence arbitrale internationale’, in Le droit des relations économiques internationales. Etudes offertes à Berthold Goldman (1982),Google Scholar ‘Librairies techniques’, pp. 29–46; Derains, Y., ‘Public Policy and the Law Applicable to the Dispute in International Arbitration’, in P. Sanders, ed., Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in Arbitration, ICCA Congress series, no. 3 (1987) pp. 227–258;Google ScholarPrioux, R., ‘Le juge et l'arbitre face aux lois étrangères d'application immédiate dans les contrats internationaux: les nouvelles possibilités offertes par la loi du 14 juillet 1987’, Revue de droit commercial Beige (1988) pp. 251–295;Google ScholarMayer, P., ‘Mandatory Rules of Law in International Arbitration’, 2Arb. Int. (1986)Google Scholar no. 4, pp. 274–293; Maniruzzaman, A.F.M., ‘International Arbitrator and Mandatory Public Law Rules in the Context of State Contracts: An Overview’, 7 J Int. Arb. (1990) no. 3, pp. 53–64;Google ScholarGrigera Naón, H.A., Choice-of-law Problems in International Commercial Arbitration (1992);Google ScholarBaniassadi, M.R., ‘Do Mandatory Rules of Public Law Limit Choice of Law in International Commercial Arbitration?’, 10 Int. Tax & Bus. Lawyer (1992) no. 1, pp. 59–84;Google ScholarWeigand, F.-B., ‘Evading EC Competition Law by Resorting to Arbitration’, 9 Arb. Int. (1993) no. 3, pp. 249–258;Google ScholarHochstrasser, D., ‘Choice of Law and “Foreign” Mandatory Rules in International Arbitration’, 11 J Int. Arb. (1994) no. 1, pp. 57–86.Google Scholar

4. The limited scope of this article does not allow an in-depth consideration of the choice of law methodology as applied in the courts and, in particular, the difference in conflicts thinking which exists between the American and the continental schools of private international law. On these issues see Grigera Naón, H.A., ‘International Contract Law, “Lois de Police” and Self-applicating Rules: An Argentine Outlook’, 19 Vorträge, Reden und Berichte aus dem Europa-Institut (1983) pp. 5–19;Google ScholarAudit, B., ‘A Continental Lawyer Looks at Contemporary American Choice-of-Law Principles’, 27 AJCL (1979) pp. 600–603;Google ScholarGuedj, T.G., ‘The Theory of the Lois de Police, A Functional Trend in Continental Private International Law — A Comparative Analysis with Modern American Theories’, 39 AJCL (1991) pp. 661–697;Google ScholarMosconi, F., ‘Exceptions to the Operation of Choice of Law Rules’, 217 Hague Recueil (1989–V) pp. 13–217.Google Scholar

5. Samuel, A., Jurisdictional Problems in International Commercial Arbitration: A Study of Belgian, Dutch, English, French, Swedish, Swiss, US and West German Law (1989) p. 233;Google ScholarLando, O., ‘The Lex Mercatoria in International Commercial Arbitration’, 34 ICLQ (1985) p. 760.Google Scholar

6. The 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Art. V(l)(c), 330 UNTS (1959) p. 38, No. 4739.

7. On the notion of the lex mercatoria, see Cremades, B.M. and Plehn, S., ‘The New Lex Mercatoria and the Harmonization of the Laws of International Commercial Transactions’, 2 Boston Univ. ILJ (1984) no. 3, pp. 317–348;Google ScholarGoldman, B., ‘The Applicable Law: General Principles of Law — The Lex Mercatoria’, in J.D.M. Lew, ed., Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration (1986) pp. 113–125;Google ScholarMustill, H., ‘The New Lex Mercatoria: The First Twenty-five Years’, in M. Bos and I. Brownlie, eds., Liber Amicorum for The Rt. Hon. Lord Wilberforce (1987) p. 149;Google ScholarCarbonneau, Th.E., ed., Lex Mercatoria and Arbitration: A Discussion of the New Law Merchant (1990);Google ScholarDe Ly, F., International Business Law and Lex Mercatoria (1992).Google Scholar

8. See, e.g., ICC Award 1455/1967, in 3 YB Com. Arb. (1978) pp. 215–216; ICC Award 1803/1972, in 5 YB Com. Arb. (1980) pp. 177–185; ICC Award 1250/1964, in 5 YB Com. Arb. (1980) pp. 168–170; ICC Award 5460/1987, in 13 YB Com. Arb. (1988) pp. 104–110; ICC Award 2114/1972, in 5 YB Com. Arb. (1980) p. 189. This approach was traditionally followed by the arbitral tribunals attached to the Chambers of Commerce and Industry of the former CMEA countries, see, e.g., FTAC Award of 6 October, 1977, in 5 YB Com. Arb. (1980) pp. 209–212; FTAC Award of 22 May 1975, Case No. 95/1973, FTAC Award of 7 October 1976, Case No. 136/1975, FTAC Award of 6 October 1977, Case No. 22/1977, all in Kabatov, V.A., ed., Arbitrazhnaya Praktika, Chast VIII, Praktika VTAC 1975–1978 (1983) pp. 74,Google Scholar 77, 81; MAC Award No. 9/1983 of 22–23 February 1984, Reefer Express Lines Ltd. v. Interagra, in Makovsky, A.L. and Lebedev, S.N., eds., The USSR Chamber of Commerce and Industry. From the Practice of the Maritime Arbitration Commission, 1984–1986 (1990) pp. 67–74;Google Scholar Award SG 12/74, Case No. 12, 1974, Arbitration Court attached to the Chamber of Foreign Trade, Berlin, GDR, in 1 YB Com. Arb. (1976) p. 127; Award of 5 February 1979, Case No. 122/1977, Court of Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Sofia, in 12 YB Com. Arb. (1987) pp. 82–83.

9. See, e.g., ICC Award 3130/1980, in Jarvin, S. and Derains, Y., Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1974–1985 (1990) pp. 417–422;Google Scholar ICC Award 2637/1975, in 2 YB Com. Arb. (1977) pp. 153–155.

10. See, e.g., ICC Award 953/1956, in 3 YB Com. Arb. (1978) pp. 214–215; ICC Award 2680, in Jarvin and Derains, op. cit. n. 9, p. 334; ICC Award 1990/1972, in 3 YB Com. Arb. (1978) pp. 217–218; ICC Award 2930/1982, in 9 YB Com. Arb. (1984) pp. 105–108; ICC Award 6281/1989, 26 August 1989, in 15 YB Com. Arb. (1990) p. 96; ICC Award 3235, in 108 Clunet (1981) p. 925; ICC Awards 4996/1985 and 5118/1986, in Jarvin, S., Derains, Y. and Arnaldez, J.-J., Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1986–1990 (1994) pp. 292–295Google Scholar and 318–320. See also Derains, Y., ‘L’application cumulative par l'arbitre des systemes de conflit de lois intèressees au litige’, Rev. Arb. (1972) p. 121;Google ScholarStein, S.J., ‘The Drafting of Effective Choice-of-law Clauses’, 8 J Int. Arb. (1991) no. 3, p. 73;Google ScholarLando, O., ‘Conflict-of-Law Rules for Arbitrators’, in Festschrift für Konrad Zweigert (1981) pp. 164–165.Google Scholar

11. See, e.g., ICC Award 1422/1966, in 101 Clunet (1974) p. 884; ICC Award 4996/1985, in Jarvin et al., op. cit. n. 10, pp. 292–295; ICC Award 6527/1991, in 18 YB Com. Arb. (1993) p. 44.

12. See, e.g., ICC Award 4402/1983, in 9 YB Com. Arb. (1984) p. 140; ICC Award 4650/1985, in 12 YB Com. Arb. (1987) p. 112; ICC Award 4381/1986, in Jarvin et al., op. cit. n. 10, pp. 263–267. See also Sanders, P., “The Introduction of UNCITRAL's Model Law on International Arbitration into German Legislation’, Jahrbuch für die Praxis der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (1990) pp. 123–124.Google Scholar

13. See, e.g., ICC Award 2886, in 105 Clunet (1978) p. 996; ICC Award 2272/1975, in 2 YB Com. Arb. (1977) pp. 151–152; ICC Award 4330/1983, unpublished; Award of the Arbitral Tribunal at the Economic Chamber of Yugoslavia T–52/66–23, April 20,1967, ascited in Varady, T., ‘Foreign Law before Domestic Authorities’, in Festschrift für Imre Zajtay (1982) p. 501.Google Scholar As to the same method being used by the courts, see d’Oliveira, H.U. Jessurun, De antikiesregel: Eenpaar aspecten van de behandeling van buitenlands recht in het burgerlijk proces (1971);Google ScholarOliveira, H.U. Jessurun, ‘Foreign Law and International Legal Cooperation’, Hague-Zagreb Essays 2. Product Liability, Road Transport, Foreign Law (1978) p. 216.Google Scholar

14. Some countries continue to adhere to the traditional approach, according to which the arbitrator has to apply the conflict rule of the lex loci arbitri. See, e.g., ‘National Reports. Sweden’, Int. Handbook Com. Arb. (1989) sup. 10, p. 15.

15. See the UN’s Register of Texts of Conventions and Other Instruments Concerning Internationnal Trade Law, Vol. II (1973).Google Scholar

16. See 11 YB Com. Arb. (1986) p. 387.

17. See 2 YB Com. Arb. (1977) p. 161.

18. See UN Doc. E/ECE/625/Rev. 1.

19. See 13 YB Com. Arb. (1988) p. 186.

20. See 18 YB Com. Arb. (1993) p. 214.

21. See 7 YB Com. Arb. (1982) p. 280.

22. See 12 YB Com. Arb. (1987) p. 380.

23. See 13 YB Com. Arb. (1988) p. 224.

24. See 17 YB Com. Arb. (1992) p. 320.

25. Lando, O., ‘The Law Applicable to the Merits of the Dispute’, in J.D.M. Lew, ed., Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration (1986) p. 102.Google Scholar

26. Derains, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 233.

27. Danilowicz, V., ‘The Choice of Applicable Law in International Arbitration’, 9 Hastings Int. & Comp. LR (1986) p. 283.Google Scholar See also Derains, Y. and Lalive, P., ‘Possible Conflict of Laws Rules and the Rules Applicable to the Substance of the Dispute’, in P. Sanders, ed., UNCFTRAL's Project for a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, ICCA’s Congress Series No. 2 (1984) p. 189,Google Scholar where the author, upon an analysis of various methods used by arbitrators for determining the applicable law in the absence of the parties' choice, concluded that the common denominator underlying these methods is the selection of the law that ‘best corresponds to the legitimate expectations of the parties’.

28. The limited scope of this article does not allow us to consider other areas, such as the law applicable to arbitral procedure and the arbitrability of the subject matter, where mandatory rules may equally affect the arbitral proceedings.

29. Francescakis, P., ‘Quelques précisions sur les “lois d'application immédiate” et leurs rapports avec les règies de conflits de lois’, 55 RCDIP (1966) p. 1;Google Scholar and by the same author La théorie du renvoi et les conflits de systèmes en droit international privé (1958).

30. However, it should be remembered that the founding father of multilateralism in private international law, Friedrich Karl von Savigny, had already acknowledged the existence of ‘statutes of a strictly positive, mandatory nature’ that could exceptionally apply irrespective of the multilateral scheme. Savigny, F.K. von, System des heutigen Römischen Rechts (1849) Vol. VIII,Google Scholar as summarized in Juenger, F.K., ‘American and European Conflicts Law’, 30 AJCL (1982) p. 123.Google Scholar

31. Brocher, C., Nouveau traité de droit international privé, Vol. I (1876) p. 149,Google Scholar as summarized by Parra-Aranguren, G., ‘General Course on Private International Law’, 210 Hague Recueil (1988–III) p. 90.Google Scholar

32. Pillet, A., ‘De l’ordre public en droit international privé’, Annales de I’enseignement supérieur de Grenoble, Vol. II (1880);Google ScholarValéry, J., Manuel de droit international privé (1914) No. 418, p. 566,Google Scholar as summarized by Parra-Aranguren, loc. cit. n. 31, pp. 124–125.

33. Juenger, F.K., ‘General Course on Private lnternational Law’, 193 Hague Recueil(1985–IV) p. 201;Google ScholarAudit, B., ‘A Continental Lawyer Looks at Contemporary Choice-of-Law Principles’, 27 AJCL (1979) p. 602.Google Scholar

34. Grigera Naön, loc. cit. n. 4, p. 17.

35. Vischer, F., ‘The Antagonism between Legal Security and the Search for Justice in the Field of Contracts’, in 142 Hague Recueil (1974–II) p. 19;Google Scholar Juenger, loc. cit. n. 33, p. 201.

36. Parra-Aranguren, loc. cit. n. 31, p. 129.

37. Juenger, F.K., ‘Conflict of Laws: A Critique of Interest Analysis’, 32 AJCL (1984) p. 42.Google Scholar

38. Francescakis, P., Conflits de Lois, Répertoire I (1969) p. 480,Google Scholar n. 137.

39. Pierre Mayer noted that ‘les lois de police posent en premier lieu le problème de leur identification, d'autant que dans la grande majorité des cas le législateur qui les a édictées ne s ‘est pas prononcé sur leur nature… II est certain que les limites exactes de la categorie des lois de police ne sont pas aisées à définir’, see Mayer, P., Droit international privé, 4th edn. (1991) pp. 87–88.Google Scholar

40. See, e.g., Art. 3(1) of the French Civil Code; the French text of the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations of June 19, 1980, Art. 7, OJ No. L 266/1 (1980), hereinafter the 1980 Rome Convention.

41. See, e.g., Francescakis, loc. cit. n. 29, p. 1; Derains, loc. cit. n. 3, pp. 29–46.

42. See, e.g., Mayer, op. cit. n. 39, p. 78; Sperdutti, G., ‘Les lois d'application nécessaire en tant que lois d'ordre public’, 66 RCDIP (1977) p. 257.Google Scholar

43. Lando, loc. cit. n. 10, p. 170; and by the same author, ‘The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations’, 24 CMLR (1987) pp. 174, 180.

44. See, e.g., Grigera Naón, loc. cit. n. 4, pp. 7, 16, 17.

45. See, e.g., Eek, H., The Swedish Conflict of Laws (1965) p. 224.Google Scholar

46. See, e.g., de Boer, Th., Beyond Lex Loci Delicti (1987) p. 74;Google Scholar and by the same author, “The EEC Contracts Convention and the Dutch Courts. A Methodological Perspective’, 54 RabelsZ (1990) p. 38.

47. See, e.g., Mosconi, loc. cit. n. 4, p. 140; Eek, H., ‘Peremptory Norms and Private International Law’, Hague Recueil (1973–II) p. 9.Google Scholar

48. See, e.g., van Hecke, G., ‘International Contracts and Domestic Legislative Policies’, in Festschrift für F. A. Mann (1977) p. 188.Google Scholar

49. See, e.g., the English text of the 1980 Rome Convention, Arts. 3(3), 5(2), 6(1), 7; De Ly, op. cit. n. 7, pp. 45, 63, 91–92, 130; Mayer, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 274; Grigera Naon, op. cit. n. 3, pp. 65, 94; Schultsz, J., ‘Dutch Antecedents and Parallels to Article 7 of the EEC Contracts Convention of 1980’, 47 RabelsZ (1983) p. 265;Google Scholar Derains and Lalive, loc. cit. n. 27, p. 169.

50. See, e.g., Bevia, J., ‘Algunos consideraciones sobre el arbitro y el orden publico en el arbitraje privado internacional’, 6 Revista de la Corte Española de Arbitraje (1990);Google ScholarGrigera Naón, H.A., ‘Public Policy and International Commercial Arbitration: The Argentine Perspective’, 3 J Int. Arb. (1986) no. 2, p. 7;Google ScholarKokkini-Iatridou, D., ‘Contracts for the Transfer of Technology’, 6 Hague-Zagreb Essays on the Law of International Trade (1987) p. 288.Google Scholar

51. North, P.M., ‘Reform, but not Revolution. General Course on Private International Law’, 220 Hague Recueil (1990–I) p. 164;Google ScholarCheshire and North's Private International Law, 12th edn. (1992) p. 497.

52. Guedj, loc. cit. n. 4, pp. 664–665; Parra-Aranguren, loc. cit. n. 31, p. 129; Juenger, loc. cit. n. 33, p. 201; Audit, loc. cit. n. 33, p. 602, n. 58.

53. See Grigera Naón, loc. cit. n. 4, p. 17: ‘A “loi de police” becomes applicable to international cases on account of the interests and policies it seeks to advance and not because it expressly indicates its unilateral application; a “self-applicating rule”, on the contrary, already contemplates in its text its projection to the international sphere’. See also H.A. Grigera Naón, ‘Public Policy and International Commercial Arbitration: An Argentine View’, in Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in Arbitration, p. 332.

54. Guedj, loc. cit. n. 4, p. 664.

55. See, e.g., Lunz, L.A., Kurs Mezhdunarodnogo Chastnogo Prava (1973) part 1, p. 329;Google ScholarPhilip, A., ‘Recent Provisions on Mandatory Laws in Private International Law’, in Festschrift K. Lipstein (1980) p. 242;Google Scholar Eek, loc. cit. n. 47, pp. 14, 52–53.

56. Lando, loc. cit. n. 5, p. 763; and by the same author, ‘The Law Applicable to the Merits of the Dispute’, in ŠarČević, P., ed., Essays on International Commercial Arbitration (1989) p. 155.Google Scholar

57. See supra n. 49.

58. D. Jackson, ‘Mandatory Rules and Rules of “Ordre Public”‘, and Philip, A., ‘Mandatory Rules, Public Law (Political Rules) and Choice of Law in the EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations’, both in P. North, ed., Contract Conflicts, The EEC Convention on the Law Appicable to Contractual Obligations. A Comparative Study (1982) pp. 65Google Scholar and 82, respectively; Plender, R, The European Contracts Convention. The Rome Convention on the Choice of Law for Contracts (1991) p. 154.Google Scholar

59. Vischer, loc. cit. n. 35, p. 22.

60. See, e.g., Philip on the practice of courts in Scandinavia, loc. cit. n. 58, pp. 84–86.

61. See Restatement Second, Conflict of Laws (1971) Vol. I, section 187.Google Scholar

62. See Kalensky, P., ‘Jus Cogens and the Law of International Trade’, in Essays on the Law of International Trade, Hague-Zagreb Colloquium (1976) p. 62;Google ScholarMann, F.A., ‘The Proper Law in the Conflict of Laws’, 36 ICLQ (1987) p. 446.Google Scholar

63. Lando, loc. cit. n. 43, p. 214.

64. Among numerous doctrinal works concerning the applicability of the mandatory rules of third States the reader is referred to De Boer, loc. cit. n. 46, pp. 38–58; De Boer, op. cit. n. 46, pp. 74–91; Schultsz, loc. cit. n. 49, pp. 265–283; F.A. Mann, ‘Contracts: Effect of Mandatory Rules’, in Lipstein, K., ed., Harmonization ofPrivate International Law by the EEC(1978) pp. 36–37;Google Scholar Van Hecke, loc. cit. n. 48, pp. 183–192; Philip, loc. cit. n. 58, pp. 82–105; Jackson, loc. cit. n. 58, pp. 64–75; Fawcett, J.J., ‘Evasion of Law and Mandatory Rules in Private International Law’, 49 Cambridge LJ (1990) part 1, pp. 55–62.Google Scholar

65. See the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Traffic Accidents of May 4, 1971, Art. 7; the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Products Liability of October 2, 1973, Art. 9; the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Agency of March 14, 1978, Art. 16; the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on Their Recognition of July 1, 1985, Art. 16; the Benelux Uniform Law on Private International Law of July 3, 1969, Art. 13(2).

66. See the new Swiss Private International Law Act of December 18, 1987, Art. 19.

67. The term ‘public policy’ as used in this study corresponds to the French notion of ‘ordre public’ which is broader in meaning than the common law ‘public policy’, see Nadelmann, K.H. and von Mehren, A.T., ‘Equivalences in Treaties in the Conflicts Field’, 15 AJCL (1967) p. 200;Google ScholarDiamond, A., ‘Harmonization ofPrivate International Law Relatingto Contractual Obligations’, 199 Hague Recueil (1986–IV) p. 292;Google ScholarCarter, P.B., ‘The Role of Public Policy in English Private International Law’, 42 ICLQ (1993) part 1, p. 3.Google Scholar

68. Grigera Naón, loc. cit. n. 4, pp. 6–7.

69. Eek, loc. cit. n. 47, p. 14.

70. See, e.g., Mosconi, loc. cit. n. 4, p. 127; van Rooij, R. and Polak, M.V., Private International Law in the Netherlands (1987) p. 237.Google Scholar

71. Lew, op. cit. n. 2, p. 532.

72. Mosconi, loc. cit. n. 4, p. 61. This approach has been confirmed, inter alia, by: Guiliano and Lagarde, in the Report on the 1980 Rome Convention, OJ No. C282/38; Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws, 11th edn. (1987) Vol. 1, p. 94; Van Rooij and Polak, op. cit. n. 70, p. 238; Lunz, L.A., Mezhdunarodnoye Chastnoye Pravo (1984) p. 72.Google Scholar

73. See, e.g., Art. 158 of the Fundamentals of Civil Legislation of the USSR and the Union Republics; Mayer, op. cit. n. 39, p. 137; Lew, op. cit. n. 2, p. 532; Eek, loc. cit. n. 47, p. 22.

74. Dickson, B., ‘The Reform of Private International Law in the Federal Republic of Germany’, 34 ICLQ (1985) p. 242.Google Scholar

75. See Art. 22 of the Portuguese Civil Code; see also Mosconi, loc. cit. n. 4, p. 109.

76. Some legal systems, however, still do not support this distinction, e.g., Brazil and the countries of the Arab Middle East. See in this respect I. Strenger, ‘The Application by the Arbitrator of Public Policy Rules to the Substance of the Dispute’, in Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in Arbitration, pp. 354–355; S. Saleh, ‘The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the States of the Arab Middle East’, in Lew, J., ed., Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration (1986) pp. 340–341.Google Scholar

77. Batiffol, H. and Lagarde, P., Droit international privé, 7th edn., book I (1981) p. 423.Google Scholar

78. See M. Domke, ‘Towards an “International” Public Policy in Commercial Arbitration’, in Böckstiegel, K.H. and Glossner, O., eds., Festschrift für Arthur Bülow (1981) pp. 49–58,Google Scholar where after an analysis of the judicial practice of several countries the author concluded that where the courts were faced with foreign arbitration agreements and awards in recognition or enforcement proceedings, they either followed the restricted international public policy concept or, where this concept was not accepted in a particular country, simply refrained from applying their national public policy concepts to such cases.

79. Baade, H., ‘Operation of Foreign Public Law’, in International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Vol. III (1990) p. 20.Google Scholar

80. Schmitthoff, C.M., Select Essays on International Trade Law, Chia-Jui Cheng, ed. (1988) p. 593.Google Scholar William Park has rightly noted that ‘the adjectives “domestic” and “international” apply not to the source of the policy but rather to their field of application’, Park, W.W., ‘Private Adjudicators and the Public Interest: The Expanding Scope of International Arbitration’, 12 Brooklyn JIL (1986) no. 3, p. 647.Google Scholar

81. See, e.g., J.P. Verheul, ‘Private International Law’, in Fokkema, D.C. et al. , eds., Introduction to Dutch Law for Foreign Lawyers (1978) p. 279.Google Scholar

82. See Goldman, B., ‘Les conflits de lois dans Parbitrage international de droit privé’, 109 Hague Recueil (1963–II) p. 347;Google Scholar P. Lalive, ‘Transnational (or Truly International) Public Policy and International Arbitration’, in Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in Arbitration, p. 257; Dolinger, J., ‘World Public Policy; Real International Public Policy in the Conflict of Laws’, 17 Texas ILJ (1982) no. 2, pp. 167–193;Google Scholar L. Matray, ‘Arbitrage et ordre public international’, in Schultsz, J. and van den Berg, A.J., eds., The Art of Arbitration (1982) p. 241.Google Scholar

83. Berger, K.P., ‘The Modern Trend Towards Exclusion of Recourse Against Transnational Arbitral Awards: A European Perspective’, 12 Fordham ILJ (1989) no. 4, p. 642.Google Scholar

84. Lew, op. cit. n. 2, p. 535.

85. See Dolinger, loc. cit. n. 82, pp. 186–191.

86. Baade, loc. cit. n. 79, p. 20.

87. Thus, Dolinger argued that a distinction should be made between those public policy principles which are common to all national legal systems and those principles which constitute the world public policy, the former not necessarily pertaining to the real ordre public of the international community. This latter is not a ‘common public policy”, but the public policy which establishes ‘universal principles, in various fields of international law and relations, to serve the higher interests of the world community, the common interests of mankind, above and sometimes even contrary to the interests of individual nations’. See Dolinger, loc. cit. n. 82, pp. 171–172.

88. See the judgments and arbitral awards referred to by Lalive, loc. cit. n. 82, pp. 274–308.

89. An often cited example of the operation of transnational public policy and its relevance in the area of international arbitration is ICC Case No. 1110/1963, Doc. No. 410/1056, partly published in Lew, op. cit. n. 2, pp. 554–555. The importance of the doctrine for international commercial arbitration has been acknowledged in the UNIDROIT Resolution on Arbitration and Foreign Enterprises, adopted in 1989 at the Institute's session at Santiago de Compostela. The pertinent provisions read as follows:

‘Article 1.

Arbitrators derive their authority and legitimacy from the parties’ agreement providing for arbitration. The arbitrator should neither exceed his authority nor do less than is required to exercise that authority completely. He should respect, however, the peremptory norms of truly international public policy.

Article 2.

A truly international public policy exists when the emergent international order served by arbitration has reached a consensus on a given economic, political, or social issue.

Article 5.

…Subject only to the requirements of international public policy as defined in Article 2, the parties have full autonomy to shape the procedural and substantive rules and principles that will govern the arbitration.’

See 63 Ann IDI (1989) pp. 203–204.

90. According to Lew, the effect of transnational public policy, when applied by international and non-national courts or arbitral tribunals, is not to‘ replace or displace the law deemed applicable’, but ‘rather…to directly influence the arbitrators’ award within the confines of the “public policy appropriate to international relations”’, Lew, op. cit. n. 2, p. 539.

91. Thus, M. Forde, commenting on the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris in Club Mediterranée v. Caisse des Ongés Spectacles observed that ‘the term laws d 'application immédiate used by the Cour is merely a special name for ordre public functioning in this assertive sense’, see Forde, M., ‘The “Ordre Public” Exception and Adjudicative Jurisdiction Conventions’, 29 ICLQ (1980) p. 260.Google Scholar An assimilation of ‘rules of public order in a positive sense’ with lois d'application immédiate has also been made by Kokkini-Iatridou, loc. cit. n. 50, p. 288; and Lalive, loc. cit. n. 82, pp. 263–264. See also M. Rubino-Sammartano who, supporting the distinction between the positive and negative functions of ordre public, considers public policy as including both normes d'application nécessaire and the principles of public policy, in InternationalArbitration Law(1990) p. 299. For a general analysis of the distinction between positive and negative public policy, see Parra-Aranguren, loc. cit. n. 31, p. 87.

92. Art. 125(2) of the Fundamentals of Civil Procedure 1961.

93. See K.L. Razumov, ‘Public Policy as a Condition for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgements and Arbitral Awards in the USSR’, Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in Arbitration, p. 351; Lunz, op. cit. n. 55, p. 251. Contra Sadikov, who submitted that such an interpretation of the rules on the form of foreign trade transactions would lead to an unjustifiedly wide understanding of public policy, Sadikov, O.N., ‘Imperativnye normy v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave’, Moscow JIL (1992) no. 2, p. 75.Google Scholar

94. Art. 129 and Art. 15 of the 1968 Merchant Shipping Code of the USSR.

95. Grigera Naón, loc. cit. n. 53, p. 332, fn. 8.

96. Grigera Naón, loc. cit. n. 50, p. 10.

97. See, e.g., M. Blessing, ‘Regulations in Arbitration Rules on Choice of Law’, in ICCAXIIth International Arbitration Congress, Vienna, 3–6 November 1994, Working Group II, ‘The Law Applicable in International Arbitration’, Congress Papers, p. 175, who observed that ‘a mandatory (public) rule of law does not as such or necessarily form part of public policy (as the more restrictive notion)’.

98. See, e.g., Sauveplanne, J.G., ‘New Trends in the Doctrine of Private International Law and Their Impact on Court Practice’, 175 Hague Recueil (1982–II) pp. 35–36,Google Scholar who stated: ‘now we have discovered a concept [of lois a'application immédiate]that seems better to explain the phenomenon than the controversial one previously used [the concept of positive ordre public] would it not be preferable to strike out the latter from our vocabulary, instead of creating new confusion by trying to elaborate new distinctions?’ See also Vitta, E., ‘Cours général de droit international privé’, 162 Hague Recueil (1979–I) pp. 121–122.Google Scholar According to Vischer, although ‘the ordre public as an instrument to safeguard substantive values and even interests of the lex fori is certainly at the source of the doctrine of “lois d'application immédiate”… the ordre public clause has undergone a significant change’, its effect being nowadays primarily negative. Vischer, F., ‘General Course on Private International Law’, 232 Hague Recueil (1992–I) p. 165.Google Scholar

99. Mayer, loc. cit. n. 3, pp. 274–275.

100. This approach is supported by, among others, Vischer, loc. cit. n. 98, p. 102; Z. Matić, ‘The Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Contracts for the International Sale of Goods —Rules on the Applicable Law’, in Śarčević, P., ed., International Contracts and Conflict of Laws. A Collection of Essays (1990) p. 60;Google Scholar Mosconi, loc. cit. n. 4, p. 124. This conclusion may also be inferred from the fact that the provisions of the 1980 Rome Convention on the public policy mechanism and lois d'application immédiate are to be found in two different articles, Art. 16 and Art. 7, respectively. But see Sperduti, G., ‘Normediapplicazionenecessariaeordinepublico’, Riv. Dir. Int. Priv. Proc. (1976) no. 3, p. 490,Google Scholar who stated ‘c'è, in particolare, un autentico bisogno di mantenere aucorate le norme di applicazione necessaria alia nozione di “ordine publico”, poiché é proprio con richiamo a tale nozione che si spiega la particolare efficacia conferita alle norme stesse’.

101. Loussouarn, Y. and Bourel, P., Droit international privé (1978) pp. 154–155;Google Scholar Mosconi, loc. cit. n. 4,. p. 128. The stated general rule does not apply as far as the applicability of foreign mandatory rules is concerned. Another exception from this rule has been noted by Grigera Naón, who referred to Art. 14(4) of the Argentine Civil Code, providing that priority be given to the application of Argentine law if more favourable to the validity of an international contract than the conflicting foreign law. This provision presupposes the overriding application of the Argentine law only after prior determination of the law applicable to the contract. See Grigera Naón, loc. cit. n. 50, p. 13.

102. See, e.g.,Guedj, loc. cit. n.4, p.667, fn. 27: ‘The ordre public exception expresses some hostility to the application of foreign law. The application by the forum of its loi de police only expresses indifference as to foreign law. To that extent, the forum is in a more neutral position than when its ordre public is invoked’.

103. According to Vischer, the notions of public policy and mandatory rules express the different concern of the forum State. The ‘ordre public’ mechanism ensures the protection of basic moral values and principles of justice while lois d ‘application immédiate are rules that ‘guarantee the functioning of the State's administration and of State related activities’, such as the State's supervision of certain private activities in the field of insurance and banking, the safeguarding of the economic order and social welfare, etc. See Vischer, loc. cit. n. 98, p. 102.

104. As has been noted by Jackson, ‘the mandatory rule is part of the selection process while “ordre public” is a process of rejection’, see Jackson, loc. cit. n. 58, p. 62. See also Plender, loc. cit. n. 58, p. 157.

105. See, e.g., R. van Rooij, ‘Conflict of Laws and Public Law’, in Gerver, P.H.M., Hondius, E.H. and Steenhoff, G.J.W., eds., Netherlands Reports to the Twelfth International Congress of Comparative Law, Sydney-Melbourne 1986 (1987) p. 180,Google Scholar who upon an analysis of Dutch case law observed that ‘where the interests of the Dutch legal or social-economic order are involved, a Dutch court will grant precedence to Dutch public law rules over foreign law, and may consider foreign public law rules inapplicable as running counter to ordre public’. See also Indonesian Corporation P. T. Escomptobank v. N.V. AssurantieMaatschappij de Nederlanden van 1845, in 13 NILR (1966) p. 58.

106. Eek, loc. cit. n. 47, p. 60.

107. Rubino-Sammartano, op. cit. n. 91, p. 301; Mayer, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 283; Perez Bevia, J., ‘Sobre la ley aplicable por el arbitro al fondo de la controvercia en derecho internacional privsado Espanol' 5 Revista de la Corte Española de Arbitraje (1988–1989) p. 221;Google Scholar Derains, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 231; Lando, loc. cit. n. 10, p. 171; Maniruzzaman, A.F.M., ‘International Commercial Arbitration: The Conflict of Laws Issues in Determining the Applicable Substantive Law in the Context of Investment Agreements’, 40 NILR (1993) p. 207.Google Scholar

108. See Derains, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 232; Maniruzzaman, A.F.M., ‘International Arbitrator and Mandatory Public Law Rules in the Context of State Contracts: An Overview’, 7 J Int. Arb. (1990) no. 3, p. 56;Google Scholar Lalive, loc. cit. n. 82, pp. 270–272.

109. Grigera Naon, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 73.

110. See supra n. 27 and accompanying text.

111. For the reasons behind the scarcity of sources regarding mandatory rules in international arbitration law, see Mayer, loc. cit. n. 3, pp. 275–276.

112. The Draft Rules have been elaborated by the Working Group of the Commission on Law and International Commercial Practices of the ICC for the purpose of providing greater uniformity in the techniques available to arbitrators for the determination of the law applicable to contracts. The relevant article of the Draft Rules reads as follows: ‘Even when the law of a certain country is not the legal system applicable to the contract, the arbitrator may nevertheless give effect to mandatory rules of the law of that country if the contract or the parties have a close contact to that country, and if and insofar as under its law those rules must be applied to the issue whatever be the legal system applicable to the contract. On considering whether to give effect to these mandatory rules regard shall, inter alia, be had to:—whether in view of the nature and purpose of the rules the interests of international trade will be promoted or impaired by their application to the issue and,—whether their application or non-application to the issue would further the enforcement of the award’, Draft Rules on the Law Applicable to International Contracts, Commission on International Arbitration, ICC Doc. No. 420/241, 1981, pp. 4–5. It is noteworthy that whilst generally following the pattern of Art. 7(1) of the 1980 Rome Convention, the present provision limits the broad ‘nature’ and ‘purpose’ criteria to those aspects relevant to promoting the interests of international trade, and the consequences of mandatory rule (non-)application have also been limited by considerations of strengthening the enforceability of the award. The work on the ICC Draft Rules was later discontinued due to some fears that codification of the choice-of-law methods in arbitration would result in restraining the freedom of arbitrators.

113. The Guide was adopted by UNCITRAL at its 20th session in August 1987 as a recommendation to assist parties in drawing up international contracts for the construction of industrial works. Concerning mandatory rules, the Guide contains the following provision, which even offers some guidance as to their identification: in addition to legal rules applicable by virtue of a choice of law by the parties, or by virtue of the rules of private international law, certain rules of an administrative or other public nature in force in the countries of the parties and in other countries (e.g., the country of a subcontractor) may affect certain aspects of the construction. These rules, which are often mandatory, are usually addressed to all persons resident in or who are citizens of the State which issued the rules, and sometimes to foreigners transacting certain business activities in the territory of the State. They may be enforced primarily by administrative officials. Their purpose is to ensure compliance with the economic, social, financial or foreign policy of the State. The parties should therefore take them into account in drafting the contract… Certain of these legal rules concern technical aspects of the works to be constructed… Other legal rules prohibit or restrict exports, imports, the transfer of technology and the payment of foreign exchange. As a result of the operation of those rules, a contract may be invalid, terminated, or legally impossible to perform’. See Legal Guide on Drawing Up International Contracts for the Construction of Industrial Works, UN Doc. A/CN.9/SER.B/2.

114. While generally acknowledging the principle of party autonomy, this Resolution makes a reservation as to ‘the question of a possible operation of public policy or mandatory legislation in this field’, see 58 Ann. IDI (1979) part 2, p. 193.

115. Baniassadi, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 61.

116. Maniruzzaman, loc. cit. n. 107, p. 207.

117. See also an observation by Paulsson that the understandable reluctance of judges to enforce awards that have been rejected in their countries of origin has dictated the practical necessity for arbitrators to be always mindful of mandatory provisions in force at the place of arbitration, J. Paulsson, ‘International Commercial Arbitration’, in Bernstein, R. and Wood, D., eds., Handbook of Arbitration Practice (1993) p. 446.Google Scholar

118. See Samuel, op. cit. n. 5, pp. 235–236.

119. According to the Belgian Law of 27 March 1985, any application for judicial review of arbitral awards rendered in Belgium is expressly excluded if no party has any connection with Belgium, see 11 YB Com. Arb. (1986) p. 369. Under Art. 192 of the Swiss Private International Law Act, the action for setting aside may be totally or partially excluded by the parties to an arbitration agreement where both parties do not have their domicile, habitual residence or business establishment in Switzerland, see 13 YB Com. Arb. (1988) p. 451. The 1979 UK Arbitration Act allows parties to international cases to exclude the right of appeal to the High Court on questions of law, provided that the parties’ contract does not belong to a ‘special category’, such as insurance and commodity contracts. According to English judicial practice, reference by the parties in their agreement to ICC Arbitration Rules, providing in Art. 24 for the finality of awards, constitutes a valid exclusion agreement. See 5 YB Com. Arb. (1980) p. 231 and Berger, loc. cit. n. 83, p. 631. Most other developed arbitration laws contain the non-excludable, but exhaustive lists of grounds for annulment, see An. 1068 of the Netherlands Arbitration Act, in 12 YB Com. Arb. (1987) p. 370; Art. 1502 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, in 7 YB Com. Arb. (1982) p. 272; Art. 1041 of the German Code of Civil Procedure, in 27 ILM (1988) 6.

120. Nordsee Deutsche Hochseefischerei v. Reederei Mond, Case 102/81, 1982 ECR 1095; Bulk Oil (Zug) v. Sun International Ltd. [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 655. For criticism see Bebr, G., ‘Arbitration Tribunals and Article 177 of the EEC Treaty’, CMLR (1985) no. 3, pp. 497–504;Google ScholarThompson, D., ‘International Chamber of Commerce: Working Party on Arbitration and Competition’, 1 J Int. Arb. (1984) no. 3, p. 275.Google Scholar

121. Weigand, F.B., ‘Evading EC Competition Law by Resorting to Arbitration?’, 9 Arb. Int. (1993) no. 3, p. 258.Google Scholar

122. Simcoma v. Chernomorskoje Morskoje Parokhodstvo, in 14 YB Com. Arb. (1989) pp. 203–206.

123. See, e.g., Baniassadi, loc. cit. n. 3, pp. 71–72; Mayer, loc. cit. n. 3, pp. 280–281; see also the comment by Jarvin and Derains on ICC Award 2811/1978, in op. cit. n. 9, p. 345.

124. Derains, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 244.

125. Ibid., p. 245.

126. See Derains, Y., ‘Les tendances de la jurisprudence arbitrale internationale’, 120 Clunet (1993) no. 4, p. 845.Google Scholar

127. Baniassadi, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 74.

128. The intention of the parties may have to be satisfied where the content of the rules they want to exclude is contrary to transnational public policy. See Hochstrasser, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 69.

129. Mayer, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 281; Derains, loc. cit. n. 3, pp. 245, 251, who argued that the power of arbitrators to go beyond the parties’ will as regards the exclusion of the mandatory rule of the governing law stems from the principle of transnational public policy in not allowing the use of international arbitration proceedings as a means by which to evade normally applicable imperative law.

130. See Jarvin and Derains, op. cit. n. 9, pp. 341–344.

131. Ibid., p. 345.

132. Ibid., p. 499.

133. See 108 Clunet (1981) p. 928.

134. See 111 Clunet (1984) p. 930.

135. ICC Award 3803/1984 (unpublished).

136. See Mayer, loc. cit. n. 3, pp. 279, 283.

137. See Mayer, P., ‘L';interference des lois de police’, in L'arbitrage commercial international. L'apport de la jurisprudence arbitrate. Séminaire des 7 et 8 awil 1986 (1986) p. 46.Google Scholar

138. For the summary of objections raised against arbitrators’ active role in applying foreign mandatory rules, see Mayer, loc. cit. n. 3, pp. 283–284.

139. Hochstrasser, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 58.

140. See the literature cited in supra n. 3 and the interesting recent review of the doctrine on the subject in Hochstrasser, loc. cit. n. 3, pp. 58–79.

141. Lando, loc. cit. n. 5, p. 767; Mayer, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 285, who in support of this reasoning referred to the well-known Mitsubishi case (472 US 614 (1985)), where the US Supreme Court expressed its confidence in arbitrators applying foreign mandatory rules.

142. See, e.g., Fumagalli, L., ‘La legge applicabile al merito della controversia nell';arbitrato commerciale internazionale’, 21 Rivista diDiritto Internazionale Privato e Processuale (1985) pp. 491–492;Google ScholarBuchanan, M., ‘Public Policy and International Commercial Arbitration’, 26 Am. Bus. LJ (1988) no. 3, p. 518;Google Scholar Thompson, loc. cit. n. 120, p. 274; Hochstrasser, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 86; J. Lew, ‘Determination of Arbitrators’ Jurisdiction and the Public Policy Limitations on that Jurisdiction’, in Lew, J., ed., Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration (1986) p. 80; Lando, loc. cit. n. 25, p. 158.Google Scholar

143. See, e.g., Art. l(e)ofthe 1927 Geneva Convention for the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards; Art. V(2)(b) of the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards; Art. 36(l)(b)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law; Art. 1498 of the French Code of Civil Procedure; Art. 1076 of the 1986 Netherlands Arbitration Act; Art. 59 of the 1988 Spanish Arbitration Law; Art. 194 of the Swiss Federal Statute of Private International Law; Art. 26 of the 1988 ICC Rules of Arbitration.

144. Derains and Lalive, loc. cit. n. 27, p. 190.

145. Hochstrasser, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 86.

146. Derains, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 255.

147. See generally ibid., p. 254; by the same author, loc. cit. n. 45; and by the same author, ‘Determination de la lex contractus’, in L'arbitrage commercial international. L'apport de la jurisprudence arbitrate. Séminaire des 7et8 avril 1986 (1986) p. 30; Derains and Lalive, loc. cit. n. 27, pp. 190–191.

148. Grigera Naón, loc. cit. n. 3, pp. 68–69.

149. Lando, loc. cit. n. 5, p. 765. See also Mayer, loc. cit. n. 3, pp. 287–288 who considered the method embodied in Art. 7(1) to be useful also in the context of international arbitrations.

150. Art. 7(1) of the 1980 Rome Convention reads as follows: ‘1. When applying under this Convention the law of a country, effect may be given to the mandatory rules of the law of another country with which the situation has a close connection, if and in so far as, under the law of the latter country, those rules must be applied whatever the law applicable to the contract. In considering whether to give effect to these mandatory rules, regard shall be had to their nature and purpose and to the consequences of their application or non-application’, see OJ No. L 266/1.

151. See, e.g., Philip, loc. cit. n. 58, p. 103; Delaume, G.R., ‘The European Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations: Why a Convention?’, 22 Virginia JIL (1981) p. 113;Google Scholar North, loc. cit. n. 51, p. 194; van Hecke, G., ‘Jus Cogens and the Law of International Trade’, Essays on the Law of International Trade,Hague-Zagreb Colloguium (1976) p. 8.Google Scholar

152. See in this sense ICC Award 2730/1982, in 111 Clunet (1984) p. 914, where the arbitrators considered a contract aimed at evading foreign exchange controls to be contrary not only to the national laws of the connected countries, but also to any legal system, this principle forming part of the common law of contract.

153. See generally Lalive, loc. cit. n. 82, pp. 278–284, 286–309; Baniassadi, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 63, fn. 20, pp. 74, 81. See also supra n. 82 and accompanying text.

154. See 17 YB Com. Arb. (1992) pp. 212–220.

155. ICC Award 1399/1966, Doc. No 410/1395, 14 April 1966, reported in Lew, op. cit. n. 2, p. 550.

156. Referring to this award in one of his articles, Mayer upheld the decision of the arbitrators, see Mayer, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 282. Contra Grigera Naón, who observed that in this case the arbitral tribunal took the reasoning of a French municipal court, thus ignoring not only the fact that international commercial arbitration should be deemed to have its own lex fori, but also the trend towards the ex officio application of foreign lois de police in international arbitration. In the opinion of Grigera Naón, the basic principle of transnational public policy is the requirement that international arbitration should not be used as a mechanism by which to allow the parties ‘to achieve fraude à la loi étrangère’, see Grigera Naón, loc. cit. n. 3, pp. 72–73.

157. See 4 YB Com. Arb. (1979) pp. 197–199.

158. Ibid., pp. 218–219.

159. See 105 Clunet (1978) p. 977.

160. See 6 YB Com. Arb. (1981) p. 133.

161. Such an approach was taken by the arbitrators in, e.g., the award of the Arbitral Tribunal of the Royal Dutch Grain and Feed Trade Association of 13 August 1981 and in ICC Award 1512/1971. See 7 YB Com. Arb. (1982) pp. 141–144 and 1 YB Com. Arb. (1976) pp. 128–130 respectively.

162. See Clunet (1991) no. 4. p. 1050.

163. See 10 YB Com. Arb. (1985) pp. 49–52.

164. See 8 YB Com. Arb. (1983) pp. 158–161.

165. The non-application of the mandatory rule by the arbitrators led to this award being later not enforced in Austria, see 10 YB Com. Arb. (1985) p. 421. Mayer refers to this award as an example of the difficult situation where the legitimate rejection of a mandatory rule may lead to the award not being enforced in the country of origin of the rule in question. This gives rise to the very NILRdelicate issue of whether the arbitrator's concern with the award's enforceability should have precedence over other considerations leading to the rejection of the rule. See Mayer, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 289.

166. See 119 Clunet (1992) no. 4, p. 1015.

167. See 13 YB Com. Arb. (1988) pp. 110–121.

168. ICC Award 3556/1983 (unpublished).

169. See Derains and Lalive, loc. cit. n. 27, p. 184.

170. See 9 YB Com. Arb. (1984) pp. 105–108.

171. See 102 Clunet (1975) p. 923.

172. See ibid., p. 934.

173. See ibid., p. 929.

174. See Jarvin and Derains, op. cit. n. 9, p. 25.

175. See extracts in Derains, Y., ‘Le statut des usages du commerce international devant les jurisdictions internationales’, Rev. Arb. (1973) p. 122;Google Scholar see also Mayer, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 286.

176. See Jarvin and Derains, op. cit. n. 9, p. 456.

177. See, e.g., the recent observation by Böckstiegel that ‘a particular issue receiving more relevance in recent years in international arbitration cases is the question whether and to what extent mandatory extraterritorial application of national law rules has to be respected by arbitrators’, K.-H. Böckstiegel, ‘Summary of the Introductory Presentation’, ICCA Xllth International Arbitration Congress, Vienna, 3–6 November 1994, Working Group II, ‘The Law Applicable in International Arbitration’, Congress Papers, p. 7.

178. See Grigera Naon, loc. cit. n. 3, pp. 35, 37.

179. Blessing, loc. cit. n. 97, p. 208.