Inter-National Disputes and Arbitration
Since the 1980s, a radical development has taken place in international dispute settlement. The number of international courts, tribunals and other international dispute resolution mechanisms has increased dramatically. The number of international disputes resolved by such means has risen in even greater proportions. These disputes more and more frequently raise issues that combine private and public Law of Nations, effectively bringing back to light the deep-seated interactions that have always existed between these two traditional fields of educational study. The regulatory impact of certain branches of international dispute settlement – like international arbitration – further create the necessity to require a step back and believe where we are going.
Taking further an example of the Mitsubishi Motors Corp v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Case, it says- A dispute arose between Mitsubishi, a Japanese corporation, and Soler Chrysler, a Puerto Rican company, concerning a distribution contract. Mitsubishi brought suit in a United States federal district court to compel arbitration in Japan, relying on the distribution contract. Soler Chrysler resisted arbitration on the grounds that (i) its counterclaims were based on a Sherman Antitrust Act violation, and (ii) the claims could not be disposed of in arbitration. The District Court ruled that the antitrust claims were arbitrable, and the Circuit Court reversed. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s decision and compelled arbitration. The question presented to the Supreme Court was whether claims arising out of the Sherman Antitrust Act were arbitrable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA) or the NYC. The Court found that they were. In doing so, the Court reasoned that “concerns for international comity, respect for the capacities of foreign and transnational tribunals, and sensitivity to the need of the international commercial system for predictability in the resolution of disputes” required that the Court compel arbitration. The Court further based its decision on the fact that the Arbitral Tribunal was competent to hear, and had agreed to consider, the antitrust claims. Finally, the Court held that national courts of the United States would have the opportunity at the enforcement stage, pursuant to Article V(2)(b) NYC, to ensure that the legitimate interest in the antitrust issues had been addressed .
Now looking at this situation also, one must keep in mind that when even such big names of the automobile industry opt for arbitration as their dispute settlement technique, it is noteworthy to view the benefits of arbitration as dispute resolution method in the modern era, where courts are overburdened with piles of cases and the lengthy processes involved in each case. PrivateCourt is one stop solution to such disputes and their amiable settlement. We have specialists from each field of commercial disputes to provide you with the best of possible solutions without much hassle at minimal costs. Visit: https://www.pvtcourt.com/ to know more about us and about our work or simply click on the link below to furnish with your basic details so that our panel of experts can reach out to you. www.pvtcourt.com/contact-us
We can help you with your dispute, just give us a call +91 9699900111 or fill the form the form mentioned on the link below so that our team of experts can reach out to you: