Studien zum vergleichenden und internationalen Recht / Comparative and International Law Studies – serie

Immer häufiger tragen die Parteien zivilrechtlicher Streitigkeiten ihre Auseinandersetzung parallel vor Gerichten verschiedener Staaten aus. Solche multi-fora disputes stehen im Widerspruch zu grundlegenden Zielen des Internationalen Zivilprozeßrechts. Die Arbeit analysiert die unterschiedlichen Lösungsansätze, die nationale Rechtsordnungen und internationale Übereinkommen bislang zur Bewältigung positiver Kompetenzkonflikte entwickelt haben. Dabei wird der Versuch unternommen, eine konsensfähige Regelung für das von der Haager Konferenz für Internationales Privatrecht derzeit diskutierte weltweite Anerkennungsübereinkommen zu entwerfen.

This study presents a comprehensive examination of party autonomy as provided for in the European Rome I Regulation and the Rome II Regulation. It follows an integrated method of analysis, whereby the principle of party autonomy as provided for in the Regulations is first compared with the pre-regulation position in Germany and England. This provides the basis for the subsequent critical reflection on the position of party autonomy in the Anglo-common law jurisdictions of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Singapore. The study proposes that these European developments make an important contribution to the call for reform of the common law position concerning party autonomy in contractual, and more significantly, in non-contractual obligations.

This study aims to examine the substantive applicable law in different arbitral tribunals, especially the ICSID and the Iran-US Claims Tribunal. Additionally it examines the role of international law and whether it has supremacy over national laws. To that end, this publication is mainly based on case studies, the most cited ICSID and Iran-US Claims Tribunal cases. Furthermore, it addresses scientific works on this topic with regard to various arbitration rules and in particular to the applicable law.