sam
Company “Samurai” based in Nipponland and company “Warrior” based in Freiland made an agreement on trade transactions with an arbitral clause. Prior to the agreement companies went through lengthy negotiations, most of the negotiations were done in English orally in various places or in written form electronically (but some still in other languages) on the globe and the final agreement was struck in England. The contract was made in two languages, English and Japanese with a clause that both texts are identical and authentic. The chosen apllicable law for the contract was Japanese.
Later a dispute arised and “Samurai” decided to file a suit to an arbitration court. In the course of the proceedings a question arised as to the meaning of one of the clauses in the contract, it happened that the meaning was different in English and Japanese. “Warrior” insisted that the clause is to be understood as it is written in English, because most of the negotiations were done in English. As to that matter, the applicable law should also be English, because it was obviously the real will of the parties, as English text is easier to understand using English law. The provision on Japanese law was an error in judgement and is no to be used actually. On the other hand, “Samurai” insisted that it’s impossible to use English text because the applicable law chosen was Japanese, so they should use Japanese text instead.
One of the arbitrators mentioned that the applicable law and the language of the contract are two separate matters, so the right decision would be to go with the English text and Japanese applicable law.
Other arbitrator said that this discrepancies in the text are impossible to solve so it should be concluded that no law was chosen at all and the court should choose an applicable law using rules of conflict. As to the text, the tribunal should go with an English text, because the negotiations were done mostly in English, translation to any other language if necessary or translation of an applicable law to English shall be provided by the parties.
The third arbitrator said that what matters most is the language of the proceedings, so the chosen text should be the same as the language of the proceedings. As to the applicable law, there’s no question that Japanese law should be applied.
Is there a correlation between an applicable law and an applicable language of the contract and language of the proceedings? What’s that correlation, if any? Who is right and why? What’s your opinion on the matter?
In my opinion we should start solving this task with consideration of more fundamental question. The question of the relation between the contract and the arbitral clause.
In the world it is recognized that an arbitral agreement is independent of the contract. For example acts of UNCITRAL are based on this thesis. This provision matters in the light of the third arbitrator`s position, which is represented in the task.
As the contract and the arbitral agreement doesn`t depend on each other and as they exist in parallel, their legal nature may also be different. Contract, of course, regulates substantive legal relations and in that sense has a civil nature. However things are not so clearly with the arbitral agreement. There are different points of view on the nature of the arbitral agreement among lawyers; however, it appears that such an agreement is more aimed at regulation of procedural aspects. So it has not a civil but procedural nature.
Thus, guided by this logic, we can conclude that the language of the dispute resolution procedures set by the parties in the arbitral agreement is not in contact with the language of the contract. As we know arbitral agreement regulates exclusively procedure for resolution of disputes, in other words the procedural aspects. For example, it follows from Article 22 of the Federal Law "On International Commercial Arbitration":
1. The parties are free to agree on the language or the languages to be used in the arbitral proceedings. In the absence of such an agreement, the arbitration tribunal shall determine the language or languages to be used in the proceedings. Such an agreement or determination, unless anything otherwise stated in it, refer to any written statement of a party, any hearing and any award, ruling or other communication by the arbitration tribunal.
2. The arbitration tribunal may order that any documentary evidence accompanied by a translation into the language or languages agreed upon by the parties or determined by the arbitration tribunal.
Here it is worth saying that the Federal Law does not introduce anything new in comparison with Article 17 of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules which establish the same rules as well as the UNCITRAL Model Law "On International Commercial Arbitration" (1985).
Returning to the position of the third arbitrator: “what matters most is the language of the proceedings, so the chosen text should be the same as the language of the proceedings” – this statement is incorrect because the language of the proceedings exists separately from the contract, apart from the obligations of the parties and the applicable law.
With regard to the positions of the two other arbitrators: the first is possible to agree in the part of that the applicable law and the language of the contract are two separate matters. However, his version of formed legal conflict`s solution doesn`t seem correct.
In this sense, the greatest sympathy calls the position of the second arbitrator: this discrepancies in the text are impossible to solve so it should be concluded that no law was chosen at all and the court should choose an applicable law using rules of conflict. As to the text, the tribunal should go with an English text, because the negotiations were done mostly in English, translation to any other language if necessary or translation of an applicable law to English shall be provided by the parties.
This position seems to be the most reasonable due to the fact that the text of the contract was initially faulty and it gave rise to an inherent contradiction between the parties concerning to an applicable law. That`s why arbitrators must use the rules of conflicts in this situation, namely lex loci actus, particularly in this situation - lex loci contractus. As the contract was signed in England, most of the negotiations conducted in English, English law should be recognized as the applicable law, in accordance with the rule of lex loci contractus (it seems that more correct is to say the law of Great Britain). And preference should be given to the English text of the contract, as far as the parties have been harmonizing the conditions in this language. The circumstances described in the task, show that the will of the parties was formed and expressed in English, and consequently, their will was directed to using English language as fundamental in their relationships.
Решение данной задачи, на мой взгляд, стоит начать с рассмотрения более фундаментального вопроса – о соотношении контракта и арбитражной оговорки.
Во всем мире признается, что арбитражное соглашение независимо от контракта, на этом тезисе базируются и, например, акты ЮНСИТРАЛ. Данное положение имеет значение в свете позиции третьего арбитра, которая представлена в задаче.
Поскольку контракт и арбитражное соглашение независимы друг от друга и поскольку они существуют параллельно, их правовая природа тоже может не совпадать. Контракт, несомненно, регулирует материальные отношения сторон и в этом смысле имеет гражданско-правовую природу. А вот с арбитражным соглашением не все так однозначно. Среди юристов существуют различные точки зрения на природу арбитражного соглашения, однако, представляется, что такое соглашение в большей степени направлено на урегулирование процедурных моментов. А значит, оно носит процессуальный, а не гражданско-правовой характер.
Таким образом, руководствуясь данной логикой, можно сделать вывод, что язык для процедуры разрешения спора, установленный сторонами в арбитражном соглашении, не соприкасается с языком самого контракта. Ведь арбитражное соглашение регулирует исключительно процедуру разрешения возникающих споров, то есть процессуальные моменты. Это, например, следует из статьи 22 Федерального закона РФ «О международном коммерческом арбитраже»:
1. Стороны могут по своему усмотрению договориться о языке или языках, которые будут использоваться в ходе арбитражного разбирательства. В отсутствие такой договоренности третейский суд определяет язык или языки, которые должны использоваться при разбирательстве. Такого рода договоренность или определение, если в них не оговорено иное, относятся к любому письменному заявлению стороны, любому слушанию дела и любому арбитражному решению, постановлению или иному сообщению третейского суда.
2. Третейский суд может распорядиться о том, чтобы любые документальные доказательства сопровождались переводом на язык или языки, о которых договорились стороны или которые определены третейским судом.
Здесь стоит отметить, что ФЗ не вносит ничего нового по сравнению с Арбитражным регламентом ЮНСИТРАЛ, который в статье 17 устанавливает такие правила, а также Типовым законом ЮНСИТРАЛ «О международном торговом арбитраже» 1985 года.
То есть, возвращаясь к позиции третьего арбитра: “what matters most is the language of the proceedings, so the chosen text should be the same as the language of the proceedings” – данное утверждение неверно, поскольку the language of the proceedings существует отдельно от контракта, отдельно от обязательств сторон, от применимого права.
Что касается позиций двух других арбитров: с первым можно согласиться в той части, что the applicable law and the language of the contract are two separate matters. Однако его вариант решения сложившегося правового конфликта не представляется верным.
И в этом смысле наибольшую симпатию вызывает позиция второго арбитра: this discrepancies in the text are impossible to solve so it should be concluded that no law was chosen at all and the court should choose an applicable law using rules of conflict. As to the text, the tribunal should go with an English text, because the negotiations were done mostly in English, translation to any other language if necessary or translation of an applicable law to English shall be provided by the parties.
Данная позиция представляется наиболее обоснованной в связи с тем, что текст контракта изначально был порочен и из него возникли неустранимые противоречия между сторонами относительно an applicable law. А потому арбитрам в данной ситуации необходимо воспользоваться rules of conflict, а именно - lex loci actus, конкретно в данной ситуации - lex loci contractus. Поскольку контракт был заключен на территории Англии, большинство переговоров велось на английском, применимым правом, в соответствии с правилом lex loci contractus, должно быть признано английское право (представляется, что более корректным будет сказать право Великобритании). И предпочтение должно быть отдано именно английскому тексту контракта, поскольку стороны согласовывали условия именно на этом языке. Обстоятельства, описанные в задаче, свидетельствуют о том, что воля сторон формировалась и выражалась на английском языке, а следовательно, их воля была направлена на использование именно английского языка в качестве основополагающего в их взаимоотношениях.