XALQARO XUSUSIY HUQUQDA ERK MUXTORIYATI (PARTY AUTONOMY) PRINSIPIGA TASHQI TA’SIRLAR. FORS-MAJOR HOLATLARINING HUQUQIY TAHLILI HAMDA ERK MUXTORIYATI PRINSIPIGA TASHQI TA’SIRI
Keywords:
nizolar uchun qo‘llaniladigan huquq, o‘z-o‘zi uchun yetarli arbitraj bitimi, arbitraj tarkibli shartnomalar, tashqi ta’sirlar, cheklovchi omillar, yopiq aylana, taraflar avtonomligi, fors-major, transmilliy qonunlar, savdo –sotiq odatlari (lex mercatoria).Abstract
Ushbu maqolada xalqaro xususiy huquq ishtirokchilari tomonidan erk muxtoriyati asosida tuziladigan arbitraj kelishuv bitimlarining ahamiyati, arbitraj kelishuvlarining tuzilishi o‘rganib chiqilgan. Shuningdek arbitraj kelishuv bitimlari uni tuzuvchilar tomonidan ular amal qiladigan, ya’ni ular o‘rtasida nizo yuzaga kelganida qo‘llaniladigan huquq ham ko‘rsatilganida, bunday shartnomalar o‘z uchun o‘zi yetarli bo‘lgan arbitraj bitimi (self-sufficient arbitration agreements) deb hisoblanishi muhokama qilingan. Bunday arbitraj bitimlari o‘z ichida taraflar o‘rtasida munosabatlarning yuritilishiga oid hattoki nizolarning hal etilishiga oid ham har qanday qoidalarni o‘z ichiga oladi.
Maqolada erk muxtoriyati prinsipi taraflarning erkiga imkoniyat berganligiga qaramasdan, prinsipning cheklanishi mumkinligi aytib o‘tilib bunday cheklovlar maqolada prinsipga tashqi ta’sirlar deb nomlanadi. Ushbu tashqi ta’sirlarga olib keluvchi holatlar ham, tashqi ta’sirlarning turlari ham qonunchilik manbaalari asosida tahlil qilinadi.
Arbitraj kelishuv bitimlarini tuzuvchilar ko‘p holatlarda fors-major holatlarini o‘z mamlakatlari qonunlari yoki o‘zlari tanish bo‘lgan mamlakat qonunlari asosida hisobga olishlari, ammo har bir mamlakat qonunchiligi tomonidan fors-major holatlari turlicha baholanishi hamda uning oqibatlari arbitraj kelishuvi bitimi tuzuvchilarga ta’sir ko‘rsatishi mamlakatlar qonunchiligi, xalqaro hujjatlar shuningdek transmilliy qonunchilik asosida o‘rganib chiqiladi.
References
Mills A. Party Autonomy in Private International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp.580.
Bermann P. Global legal pluralism: a jurisprudence of law beyond borders, Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp.340.
Basedow J. The Hague Principles on Choice of Law: their addressees and impact, Uniform Law Review, 2017, pp.304.
Saumier G. Designating the UNIDROIT Principles in International Dispute Resolution, Uniform Law Review, 2012, pp.203.
Saumier G. The Hague Principles and the Choice of Non-State “Rules of Law” to govern an International Commercial Contract, Brookly Journal of International Commercial 1, 2014, no 40, pp.125.
Hook M. The choice of law agreements as a reason for exercising jurisdiction, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2017, pp.315.
Strong S. I. What Constitues an “Agreement in Writing” in International Commercial Contracts: Party Autonomy, International Jursidition, and the Emerging third way, Columbial Journal of Transnational Law 2006, no.44, pp. 517-520.
Blessing M. Mandatory rules of law versus Party Autonomy in International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, 1997, no 14, pp. 35-36.
Symenoids S. The Hague Principles on Choice of Law for International Contracts: Some Preliminary Comments, American Journal Comparative Law, 2013, no.10, pp.23-25
Hanotiau B. The law applicable to arbitrability, Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 2016, no 9, pp.40-42.
Teitz L. E. The Hague Choice of Court Convention: Validating Party Autonomy and Providing an Alternative to Arbitration, 2013, no 53, pp.130-132.
Hartley Choice of court agreements and the New Brussels I Regulation, Law Quarterly Review, 2013, no. 20, pp.45-48.
Vogenaur S. Regulatory Competition through, European review of Private Law, 2010, no 31, pp. 120-123.
Johns F. Performing Party Autonomy, American Journal of Comparative Law, 2012. No.71, pp. 78-80.
Voser N. Mandatory Rules of Applicable in International Commercial Arbitration, American Review of International Arbitration, 2015, no 11, pp. 63-65.
Wright M. J. Enforcing forum-selection clauses: An examination of the examination of the current of Federal Forum – Selection Clause Jurisprudence and a Proposal for Judicial Reform, Loyola of Los Anegeles Law Review, 2013, no 24, pp.72 -75.
Garnett R. Coexisting and conflicting jurisdiction and arbitration clauses, Journal of Private International Law, 2013, no 9, p. 361-362.
Zhang M. Party Autonomy and Beyond: An international perspective of contractual choice of law, Emory International Law Review 2013, no. 9, pp. 67-69.
Brussels I Regulation with Amendments. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal -content /EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32012R1215.
Pavlovic. M. Contracting out of access to justice: enforcement of forum-selection clauses in consumer contracts, McGill Law Journal, 2016, no 12, pp. 62-65.
Reese. W.L.M. Power of parties to choose law governing their contract, Proceedings of the society of International Law at its Annual Meeting, 1960, no 54;
Sasson. S. Substantive Law in Investment Treaty Arbitration: the unsettled relationship between international and municipal law, 2010, no 15, pp. 123-125;
Shore. L. The United States’s Perspective “Arbitrability” : International and Comparative Perspectives, Kluwer Law International, 2009, no 22, pp. 395-397;
Triebel V. The choice of Law in Commercial Relations: A german perspective, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1998, no 2, pp. 309-312.
Viescher F. General Course on Private International Law, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2017, no 2, pp. 3019-322.
Tu. G. The Hague Choice of Court Convention: A Chinese Perspective, Journal of International Arbitration, no 5, pp. 123-125.
