Cretox State wrote:Comfed wrote:“With all due respect, ambassador, your nation has authored many fine proposals to come before this assembly, but this proposal is not one of them. Arbitration is a way to make backroom deals at the expense of people. Strongly opposed.”
"We wholeheartedly agree with your judgement that arbitration can be easily exploited in situations where the parties agreeing to it are in unequal positions of power. However, this proposal aims specifically to facilitate international commercial agreements, i.e., situations where the involved parties are entering into a mutually beneficial contract that is incredibly unlikely to be coerced. When disputes arise from international commercial agreements, arbitration is a highly desirable way of resolving said disputes. Let's say one of my nation's companies breaches a contract with one of yours. Do you truly believe that my nation's court system would be completely impartial in the matter? It would be far better to settle things in a neutral forum by experienced professionals in tune with international commercial culture, no? International arbitration allows for a high degree of neutrality in the dispute resolution process and in the seat where the arbitration is occurring. In today's global business environment, we would certainly value the highest degree of neutrality attainable in international disputes over any possible inconveniences of travel.
A further benefit of international commercial arbitration is the confidentiality of proceedings. While this may be an issue in situations where the balance of power is unequal, it is a huge advantage in commercial agreements. Would you seriously support distracting trials by media in cases where publicity is wholly unnecessary?
Arbitration is not a black and white issue, Ambassador. Few things ever are."
Cretox State wrote:Panterland wrote:Yes yes yes! Panterland also submitted a vote against the proposal because a liberated economy comes at the expense of people's rights.
...you people do understand that entering into arbitration is ultimately voluntary, right? And that a socialist country can simply choose to not enter into these agreements? And that the scope of this proposal is limited to arbitration of commercial disputes?
“Eluney fully agrees with the arguments of the author of this proposal and will vote
in favor of it.
Encouraging arbitration agreements in the framework of international trade is essential to grant companies (private and public) greater legal security when deciding where to invest and, as a consequence, generate employment and economic development.
Likewise, we welcome the reasons why a State may refuse to enforce an arbitration award in Clause 4, so we understand that this proposal ensures a healthy balance between the protection and incentive to international trade and the efforts to avoid the abusive practices of some arbitration courts.
All of the above, always bearing in mind that the signing of an arbitration agreement is completely voluntary”.
Mr. Carlos Alejandro Herrera.
Permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of Eluney to the World Assembly.
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 9:22 am