미국에서의 중재인의 권한판단권한(Competence-Competence)에 관한 고찰
A Study on Competence-Competence in the United States
0
조회
0
다운로드
10
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Competence-competence refers to an arbitrator's power to determine whether he or she has jurisdiction to decide a controversy. Although the arbitrator's power to rule on one's own jurisdiction is generally recognized throughout the world. But, in the United States, neither the courts nor the legislature have recognized its significance or the reasoning behind its wide spread adaption. Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act is notorious arbitration statues for its failure to incorporate the competence-competence. In the United States, when courts rule on the issue of competence-competence, it is referred to as an issue of who decides arbitrability of the case. In the United States, the use of the competence-competence as a term of art is still limited to scholarly writings. The answer to the competence-competence inquiry is under an interpretation of section 3 of the FAA which empowers the courts to decide arbitrability issues. The Supreme Court before First Options and most commentators have interpreted sections 2 and 3 of the FAA as conferring issues of arbitrability on the federal court, including the ability to rule on the validity and scope of the arbitral agreement. Traditionally, United States courts have denied the competence-competence to arbitral tribunal. Recently, however, they have confounded rules by placing primary importance on the arbitration agreement between the parties. The Supreme Court, in a series of cases, has underscored the necessity of giving full effect to the intentions of the parties as expressed in their agreement to arbitrate. The result of the Supreme Court's emphasis on contractualism in determining the issue of arbitrability is most evident in the Court's decision in the First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan. Under First Options, courts are to decide arbitrability issues, unless there is a clear and unmistakable assignment of these issues to the tribunal itself. The Court is appraised that it has attempted to compromise between contractual freedom in the arbitral setting and the rule of law that is necessary in a society that depends on the concept of ordered liberty. In the Court's decision in Howsam, the Court have clarified the definition of arbitrability by attempting to draw a clear line between questions of arbitrability that are to be decided by courts, and those matters that bear on the decisional allocation between courts and arbitrators but are not questions of arbitrability.
Abstract
Competence-competence refers to an arbitrator's power to determine whether he or she has jurisdiction to decide a controversy. Although the arbitrator's power to rule on one's own jurisdiction is generally recognized throughout the world. But, in the United States, neither the courts nor the legislature have recognized its significance or the reasoning behind its wide spread adaption. Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act is notorious arbitration statues for its failure to incorporate the competence-competence. In the United States, when courts rule on the issue of competence-competence, it is referred to as an issue of who decides arbitrability of the case. In the United States, the use of the competence-competence as a term of art is still limited to scholarly writings. The answer to the competence-competence inquiry is under an interpretation of section 3 of the FAA which empowers the courts to decide arbitrability issues. The Supreme Court before First Options and most commentators have interpreted sections 2 and 3 of the FAA as conferring issues of arbitrability on the federal court, including the ability to rule on the validity and scope of the arbitral agreement. Traditionally, United States courts have denied the competence-competence to arbitral tribunal. Recently, however, they have confounded rules by placing primary importance on the arbitration agreement between the parties. The Supreme Court, in a series of cases, has underscored the necessity of giving full effect to the intentions of the parties as expressed in their agreement to arbitrate. The result of the Supreme Court's emphasis on contractualism in determining the issue of arbitrability is most evident in the Court's decision in the First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan. Under First Options, courts are to decide arbitrability issues, unless there is a clear and unmistakable assignment of these issues to the tribunal itself. The Court is appraised that it has attempted to compromise between contractual freedom in the arbitral setting and the rule of law that is necessary in a society that depends on the concept of ordered liberty. In the Court's decision in Howsam, the Court have clarified the definition of arbitrability by attempting to draw a clear line between questions of arbitrability that are to be decided by courts, and those matters that bear on the decisional allocation between courts and arbitrators but are not questions of arbitrability.
참고문헌 (21)
- 목영준, "상사중재법" (2011), 박영사
- 박영길, "국제상사중재에 있어서의 분리원칙과 중재인의 자기관할권 판정의 원칙", 중재연구, 13(2), pp.211~234 (2004), 한국중재학회
- 안병희, "중재인의 권한확정권한(Kompetenz-Kompetenz)에 관한 연구", 중재연구, 11(1) (2001), 한국중재학회
- 이강빈, "국제상사중재에서 중재판정부의 권한과 임시적 처분에 관한 연구", 중재연구, 18(2), pp.103~127 (2008), 한국중재학회
- Berger, Klaus Peter, "International Economic Arbitration, In International Economic Arbitration" (1993), Norton Horn & Rochard M. Buxbaum
- Carbonneau, Tom, "Cases and Materials on Commercial Arbitration 20" (1997), Adams & Reese Legal Services
- Goldman, Berthold, "The Complementary Roles of Judges and Arbitrators in Ensuring that International Commercial Arbitration is Effective" (1984), A Look at the Future
- Gross, Peter, "Competence of Competence: An English View", Arbitration International Journal, 8, pp.205~ (1992)
- MacNeil, Ian R., "Federal Arbitration Law" (1994), Little Brown
- Nelson, Guy, "The 'Clear and Unmistakable' Standard: Why Arbitrators, Not Courts Should Determine Whether a Securities Investor's Claim is Arbitrable", Vanderbilt Law Review, 54, pp.591~ (2001)
- Park, William W, "The Arbitrability Dicta in First Options v. Kaplan: What Sort of Kompetenz-Kompetenz Has Crossed the Atlantic?,"", Arbitration International Journal, 12, pp.137~ (1996)
- Rau, Alan Scott, "The Arbitrability Question Itself", American Review of International Arbitration, 10, pp.287~ (1999)
- Redfern, Alan, "The Jurisdiction of an International Commercial Arbitrator", Journal of International Arbitration, 3, pp.19~ (1986)
- Reuben, Richard C., "First Options, Consent to Arbitration, And The Demise of Separability: Restoring Access to Justice For Contracts With Arbitration Provisions", SMU Law Review, 56, pp.819~ (2003)
- Sandrock, Otto, "International Arbitration in the Federal Republic of Germany: A Hitherto Missed Opportunity", American Review of International Arbitration, 1, pp.49~ (1990)
- Sandrock, Otto, "Arbitration Between U. S. and West German Companies: An Example of Effective Dispute Resolution in International Business Transactions", University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Business Law, 9, pp.27~ (1986)
- Schafen, Ulrike A, "Die Einrede der Kompetenz-Kompetenz des Schiedsgerichtes," Festschrift für Wolfran Henkel zum 70" (1995), Geburtstag
- Schlosser, Peter, "The Competence of Arbitration and of Courts", Arbitration International Journal, 8, pp.189~ (1992)
- Schwab, Karl Heinz, "Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit" (2005), C. H. Beck
- Stein, Friedrich, "Kommentar zur Zivilprozeßordnung" (2002), Bd. 9, J. C. B. Mohr
- Wyss, Natasha, "First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan: a Perilous Approach to Kompetenz-Kompetenz", Tulane Law Review, 72, pp.351~ (1997)