| Budget Amount *help |
¥3,000,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,000,000)
Fiscal Year 1998: ¥700,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000)
Fiscal Year 1997: ¥2,300,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,300,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
It is the purpose of this study to analyze diverse institutions adjacent to the arbitration so as to delimit the role of arbitral tribunals in the decision-making process. Theoretically, the expertise, only for factual questions and based on exclusively technical knowledge, is clearly distinguished from the arbitration, but, pratically, the two domains are so often confused. In these days, moreover, the expertise so called "expert independant", definitely separate from the court or arbitration proceeding, is sometimes available in the international contract practice.
The aim of our first study consists in comparing the various european systems, e.g., "expertise irrevocable" in France, "expertise amiable" in Belgium, "Scheidsgutachten" in Germany and Switzerland, "arbitrato irrituale o arbitraggio" in Italy, which resemble each other, but somewhat different. Thus, according to the judicial precedent in each continental States, we classify these many systems under six topics and find a key to the criterion which divides expertise from arbitration, that is to say, whatever characterization may be given a means of resolving disputes with final and binding force on the parties must be considered as arbitration.
The second result of study teachs us that the mediaiton, conciliation and transaction, all these non-judicial mechanisms make their defects up mutually, so that we can equate them with "judgement by State court", providing res iudicata.
In conclusion, it is to the "juridictionalisation" of arbitration which the private judicial law should attain in the coming Century.
|
