Cargando…
International Commerce and Arbitration : Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Commercial Arbitration. Volume 5 /
Anti-suit injunctions are orders restraining a party from commencing or continuing proceedings before a state court and can be issued by a court or arbitral tribunal. The book examines if and when anti-suit injunctions can be ordered and contemplates their legal conformity. It deals with jurisdictio...
| Clasificación: | Libro Electrónico |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Electrónico eBook |
| Idioma: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
The Hague :
Eleven International Publishing,
2010.
|
| Colección: | International commerce and arbitration.
|
| Temas: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Texto completo |
Tabla de Contenidos:
- Cover; Table of Contents; Acknowledgments; Introduction; Chapter 1: Preliminary Considerations; 1. Jurisdictions Covered; 2. The Arbitration Agreement; 2.1. 'Localized' or Delocalized Arbitration?; 2.2. The Obligation Not to Apply to a Court or Another Tribunal; 3. Terminology: Anti-Suit Injunction; 4. Categories of 'Anti-Suit Injunctions' Covered; Chapter 2: The Development of Anti-Suit Injunctions in Litigation; 1. England; 1.1. Historical Development; 1.2. Prerequisites for the Issuance of an Anti-Suit Injunction; 1.2.1. Personal Jurisdiction; 1.2.2. Discretion; 1.2.2.1. Equitable Right.
- 1.2.2.1.1. Alternative Forum Cases1.2.2.1.2. Single Forum Cases; 1.2.2.1.3. Protective Anti-Suit Injunctions; 1.2.2.1.4. Anti-Anti-Suit Injunctions; 1.2.2.2. Legal Right; 1.2.3. Comity; 2. USA; 3. Summary; Chapter 3: Anti-Suit Injunctions Issued by State Courts in International Commercial Arbitration; 1. Prerequisites in England; 1.1. Legal Basis; 1.2. Personal Jurisdiction over Addressee of Injunction; 1.3. Breach of the Arbitration Agreement; 1.4. Discretion; 1.4.1. Vexatious or Oppressive Test?; 1.4.2. Exercise of Discretion; 1.5. Time of Application; 1.6. Comity.
- 1.7. Damages more Appropriate?2. Prerequisites in the USA; 3. Switzerland?; 3.1. Legal Basis; 3.2. Parallel Competence; 3.3. Prerequisites for Ordering the Interim Measure; 3.4. Comity or Rechtsschutzinteresse?; 3.5. Incompatibility with Swiss Legal System?; 4. Conformity of Anti-Suit Injunctions; 4.1. Compliance with the New York Convention; 4.1.1. With Respect to Art. II(3); 4.1.2. With Respect to Art. V(2)(b); 4.2. Compliance with the Principle of Competence-Competence; 4.2.1. Positive Effect of the Principle of Competence-Competence; 4.2.2. Negative Effect in General.
- 4.2.3. Negative Effect in Switzerland4.2.4. Negative Effect in Engl; 4.2.5. Negative Effect in the US; 4.2.6. Competence-Competence and Anti-Suit Injunctions; 4.3. Compliance with the Right of Access to Court; 4.4. Compliance with the Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal; 4.5. Compliance with Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 or the 1988 Lugano Convention; 4.5.1. Historical Reasons for the Exclusion of Arbitration; 4.5.2. Case Law Preceding West Tankers; 4.5.3. Debate in Legal Doctrine; 4.5.3.1. Exclusion of Arbitration; 4.5.3.2. Incompatibility Irrespective of Exclusion?
- 4.5.4. Opinion of the Advocate General4.5.5. Criticism of the Advocate General's Opinion; 4.5.6. Judgment of the European Court of Justice; 4.5.7. Criticism of the Judgment; 4.5.8. Practical Consequences; 4.5.9. Should Arbitration Be Included into the Regulation?; 4.5.9.1. Suggested Amendments; 4.5.9.2. Views Opposing Amendment; 4.5.9.3. Proposed Solution; 4.5.9.4. Outlook; 5. Domestic Enforcement; 5.1. England; 5.2. Switzerland; 6. Enforcement Abroad; 6.1. Service of Anti-Suit Injunctions Abroad; 6.2. Enforcement of Anti-Suit Injunctions Abroad; 6.3. 'Indirect Enforcement'; 6.3.1. In England.