Search result: 5 articles

x
Article

Access_open Requirements upon Agreements in Favour of the NCC and the German Chambers – Clashing with the Brussels Ibis Regulation?

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 1 2019
Keywords international commercial courts, the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC), Chambers for International Commercial Disputes (Kammern für internationale Handelssachen), Brussels Ibis Regulation, choice of court agreements, formal requirements
Authors Georgia Antonopoulou
AbstractAuthor's information

    In recent years, the Netherlands and Germany have added themselves to the ever-growing number of countries opting for the creation of an international commercial court. The Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC) and the German Chambers for International Commercial Disputes (Kammern für internationale Handelssachen, KfiH) will conduct proceedings entirely in English and follow their own, diverging rules of civil procedure. Aspiring to become the future venues of choice in international commercial disputes, the NCC law and the legislative proposal for the establishment of the KfiH allow parties to agree on their jurisdiction and entail detailed provisions regulating such agreements. In particular, the NCC requires the parties’ express and in writing agreement to litigate before it. In a similar vein, the KfiH legislative proposal requires in some instances an express and in writing agreement. Although such strict formal requirements are justified by the need to safeguard the procedural rights of weaker parties such as small enterprises and protect them from the peculiarities of the NCC and the KfiH, this article questions their compliance with the requirements upon choice of court agreements under Article 25 (1) Brussels Ibis Regulation. By qualifying agreements in favour of the NCC and the KfiH first as functional jurisdiction agreements and then as procedural or court language agreements this article concludes that the formal requirements set by the NCC law and the KfiH proposal undermine the effectiveness of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, complicate the establishment of these courts’ jurisdiction and may thus threaten their attractiveness as future litigation destinations.


Georgia Antonopoulou
PhD candidate at Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam.
Article

Access_open De dialectiek bij Paul Scholten: haar aard, oorsprong en bronnen

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2019
Keywords Paul Scholten, dialectiek, existentialisme, Artificiële Intelligentie, ethische theologie
Authors Wim Borst
AbstractAuthor's information

    Een bekend kenmerk van Scholtens beschouwingswijze was zijn dialectiek.
    Langemeijer heeft de aard ervan scherp geduid, maar erkend in het duister te tasten over haar oorsprong en bronnen. Hegel en Barth komen niet in aanmerking. Ik wijs op de betekenis die de theoloog P.D. Chantepie de la Saussaye (1848-1920) gehad kan hebben voor de ontwikkeling van Scholtens denken, zowel inhoudelijk als qua dialectiek. Sommige contemporaine auteurs lijken Scholten schatplichtig te achten aan Kierkegaard; ik acht dat te speculatief. Moderne digitale technologie opent potentieel grote mogelijkheden voor de toepassing van computers en artificiële intelligentie (AI) in de rechtspleging. Scholtens dialectiek stelt ons voor fundamentele rechtsfilosofische vragen ten aanzien van de mogelijkheid en wenselijkheid van ‘rechtspraak door computers’.


Wim Borst
Wim Borst is beleidsadviseur op het Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid.

Bas van Zelst
Editorial

From the Editor

Journal Corporate Mediation Journal, Issue 1 2018
Authors Martin Brink

Martin Brink
Article

European Perspectives on Enforcement of Med-Arb Clauses and Med-Arb Awards

Journal Corporate Mediation Journal, Issue 1 2018
Keywords Mediation, Arbitration, Hybrid Dispute Resolution, Due process, Europe
Authors Prof. Dr. Bas van Zelst
AbstractAuthor's information

    In Europe, mediation has historically taken a facilitative approach. It is therefore no surprise that Med-Arb – a hybrid dispute resolution mechanism combining elements of mediation and arbitration – is not high on the agenda of European politicians, academics and practitioners.
    As a result of this (apparent) lack of interest in Med-Arb, it remains unclear to what extent contractual clauses referring parties to Med-Arb (“Med-Arb Clauses”) and arbitral awards resulting from a Med-Arb procedure (“Med-Arb Awards”) are compliant with European standards on due process of law.
    It is this void this article seeks to fill. It will discuss the American experiences with Med-Arb and the pros and cons of Med-Arb forwarded in that context (Section 2). Against this background, the feasibility of Med-Arb from the perspective of European standards on due process of law is assessed. It is concluded that from a European perspective, no overriding concerns of law exist that should call a halt to Med-Arb. Parties must, however, discount certain specific EU standards when agreeing on and conducting a Med-Arb procedure.


Prof. Dr. Bas van Zelst
Bas van Zelst is professor of Dispute Resolution & Arbitration at Maastricht University. He practices law at Van Doorne N.V. in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Showing all 5 results
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.