Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The Challenge of Arbitral Awards: Arbitrators' application of the "wrong" substantive law - a ground for challenge!
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Law, Department of Law.
2014 (English)Independent thesis Advanced level (professional degree), 20 credits / 30 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

This thesis examines whether arbitrators’ application of the wrong substantive law is a ground for challenge of arbitral awards. The topic is divided into the theoretical question of whether to refer the arbitrators’ application of the wrong substantive law to excess of mandate or procedural irregularity, and the practical question of how national courts handle the demarcation problems that occur in review of awards.

The scope of the thesis is limited to challenges on the grounds excess of mandate and procedural irregularity under section 34 of the Swedish Arbitration Act (SAA).[1] The SAA has thereby served as a basis for the study, but the legislative history, case law and doctrine have also been important.

The thesis finds that arbitrators’ application of the wrong substantive law could in theory constitute both excess of mandate and procedural irregularity. However, there are several demarcation problems that occur in practice because it is difficult to distinguish between substantive and procedural errors. Therefore, it seems like only a deliberate disregard of the parties’ choice of law could lead to awards being set aside.

Throughout the thesis, the interests of party autonomy and finality of awards are weighed against one another with the conclusion that theory seems to emphasize party autonomy whereas practice seems to emphasize finality of awards. The thesis provides an alternative school of thought of how national courts’ could handle demarcation problems to allow for a wider scope of review on the provision procedural irregularity. This would permit review of also substantive matters to ensure that no significant procedural error has occurred and thus, it would lead to a better balance between party autonomy and finality of awards.

[1]Lag (1999:116) om skiljeförfarande.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. , 67 p.
Keyword [en]
Arbitration
National Category
Law (excluding Law and Society)
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-216078OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-216078DiVA: diva2:688849
Educational program
Law Programme
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2014-03-05 Created: 2014-01-17 Last updated: 2014-03-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

Challenge of Arbitral Awards (Emelie Håkansson)(889 kB)4383 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 889 kBChecksum SHA-512
585882923eecdcb4d4a22c9c183606e84df39749d86182d9bf36f462913de8f81942e536280ffbf04ae1bed9329467d85384152e26f2f99e0aa6509e69d4f355
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
Department of Law
Law (excluding Law and Society)

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 4383 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 857 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf