UDC 341.942:341.24	DOI: https://doi.org/10.31617/zt.knute.2021(117)06
JEL Classification K33
POGORETSKA Khrystyna     E-mail: Ця електронна адреса захищена від спам-ботів. вам потрібно увімкнути JavaScript, щоб побачити її.    ORCID: 0000-0003-2688-7239	Master of Laws, Associate at AEQUO Law Firm   32/2, Moskovska Str., Senator Business Сenter, 15th floor, Kyiv, 01010, Ukraine

 CONTRADICTIONS IN INTERPRETATION
OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS 

This article explores a divergence of approaches applicable to interpretation of arbitration agreement due to the very nature of international commercial arbitration as transnational and multicultural forum. The author also considers globalization of international commerce as a key factor in promoting predictability and certainty of contractual interpretation and thereby promoting uniformity in its approaches. The interaction between the diversity of legal cultures, on the one hand, and demand for uniformity, on the other hand, are at stake in this discussion.

Keywords: diversity, uniformity, arbitration agreement, interpretation, internationalcommercial arbitration, intention of the parties, validity, scope of arbitration agreement, national courts.

REFERENCES

1. Fouchard, Ph., Gaillard, E., & Goldman, B. (1999). On International CommercialArbitration (edited by Gaillard and Savage) [in English].
2. Born, G. (2020). International Commercial Arbitration (Third Edition). KluwerLaw International, (pp. 1504-1508) [in English].
3. Voronov, K. (2018). The Principle of «Competence-Competence» in InternationalCommercial Arbitration (PhD dissertation, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Kharkiv) [in Ukrainian].
4. Navrotska, Yu. (2018). The Role of Scope of Arbitration Clause (Arbitrability) for Commencement of Arbitration Proceedings. Entrepreneurship, Economy and Law, (Vol.12) [in Ukrainian].
5. Malsky, M. (2013). Arbitration Agreement. Theoretical and Practical Aspects. Lviv: Litopys [in Ukrainian].
6. Drahozal, Ch. (2017). Diversity and Uniformity in International Arbitration Law, Emory International Law Review, (Vol. 31, Issue 3) [in English] https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2888488.
7. Perloff, S. (1992). The Ties That Bind: The Limits of Autonomy and Uniformity in International Commercial Arbitration. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, (Vol. 13, Issue 2) citing Gaudet, M. (1988). Overcoming Regional Differences, Journal of International Arbitration, (Vol. 5) [in English].
8. Vlasov, Yu. (2001). The Problems of Interpretation of Legal Rules: a monograph. V.M. Koretsky Institute of State and Law of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
9. Skakun, O. (2010). Theory of the Law and State (Second Edition), Alerta Publishing, Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
10. Rabinovych, P. (2007). The Foundation of the General Theory of Law and State (Nineth Edition), Krai Publishing, Lviv [in Ukrainian].
11. Lieber, F. (1839). Legal, and Political Hermeneutics at. 11, 44 found at Shiller, A. (1941). Roman Interpretatio and Anglo-American Interpetation and Construction». Virginia Law Review, (Vol. 27), 6 [in English] https://doi.org/10.2307/1067747.
12. Perillo, J. (2000). The Origins of the Objective Theory of Contract Formation and Interpretation, Fordham Law Review, (Vol. 69, Issue 2) [in English] https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.262445.
13. Shiller, A. (1941). Roman Interpretatio and Anglo-American Interpetation and Construction». Virginia Law Review (Vol. 27), 6 [in English] https://doi.org/10.2307/1067747.
14. Ramsey, W., & Minogue, A. (2007)]. The Construction Law Handbook. Thomas Telford Publishing, London [in English].
15. Yildirim, A. (2019). Interpretation of Contracts in Comparative and Uniform Law. Wolters Kluwer Publishing [in English].
16. German Company v South Korean Company (2020). Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://jusmundi.com/fr/document/decision/en-german-company-v-south-korean-company-judgment-of-the-swiss-federal-supreme-court- monday-6th-january-2020 [in English].
17. Tenachem, LLC, & Proper, LLC (2018). The Grand Chamber of the SupremeCourt, Ukraine (case No. 906/493/16). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/ Review/78977571 [in Ukrainian].
18. Expobank CZ, & Vilnogirske Sklo LLC (2018). Supreme Court, Ukraine (case No. 904/4384/17). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/73702604 [in Ukrainian].
19. Velgevos Enterprises Ltd v KMT, Integrated Trade Network LLC (2019). Supreme Court, Ukraine (case No. 916/2591/16). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/84284486 [in Ukrainian].
20. UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (2016 Edition) statingas pathologicaltwo main situations: (i) when the arbitration agreement is unclear and does not provide sufficient indication to allow the arbitration to proceed, and (ii) when the arbitration agreement designates an inexistent arbitral institution (para. 113). Retrieved from https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/2016_guide_on_the_convention.pdf [in English].
21. Morten, F. (2020). Interpretation of Pathological Arbitration Agreements: Non-existing and Inaccessible Elements. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, (Vol. 20, Issue 3) [in English].
22. Sito, D. (2014). «Integral» Decisionmaking: Judicial Interpretation of Predispute Arbitration Agreements Naming the National Arbitration Forum The University of Chicago Law Review, (Vol. 81, Issue 4) [in English].
23. GGNSC Tylertown, LLC v Dillon, 87 S3d 1063, 1066, Stewart v GGNSC-Canonsburg, LP. 185 cited in Sito, D. «Integral» Decisionmaking: Judicial Interpretation of Predispute Arbitration Agreements Naming the National Arbitration Forum [2014]. The University of Chicago Law Review, (Vol. 81, Issue 4) [in English].
24. Jones & GGNSC Pierre LLC, GGNSC Montgomery (2013). WL 627114, Wright & GGNSC Holdings LLC, cited in Sito, D. «Integral» Decisionmaking: Judicial Interpretation o f P redispute Arbitration Agreements Naming the National Arbitration Forum (2014). The University of Chicago Law Review, (Vol. 81, Issue 4) [in English].
25. Garnett, R. (2013). «Coexisting and Conflicting Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses». Journal of Private International Law, (Vol.9), 3 [in English] https://doi.org/10.5235/17441048.9.3.361.
26. Hill, J. (2014). «Determining the seat of an international arbitration: party». International & Comparative Law Quarterly, (Vol. 63, Issue 3) [in English] https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589314000293.
27. Fiona Trust & Privalov (2007). House of Lords. Retrieved from https://www.trans- lex.org/312142/_/fiona-trust-holding-corp-v-privalov-%5B2007%5D-ukhl-40/[in English].
28. Tseng, J. (2020). Fiona Trust in Context: Interpreting Arbitration Clauses Following Rinehart v Hancock. Arbitration International, (Vol. 36, Issue 1). Oxford University Press [in English] https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiaa004.
29. Rinehart v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (2019). High Court of Australia. Retrieved from https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2019/HCA/13 [in English].
30. Transzaliznychservice LLC v CFM, Ivolha-2 LLC [2020]. The Grand Chamberof the Supreme Court, Ukraine (case No. 910/11287/16). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/89519042 [in Ukrainian].
31. Evciler Kimya Madencilik Ve Deg Met. San. Tic. A.S v. Dragprom LLC (2020). Supreme Court, Ukraine (case No. 910/13366/18). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/92841757 [in Ukrainian].
32. Czechoslovak Export Ltd v Konotop Aircraft Repair Plant «Aviakon» SE (2020). Supreme Court, Ukraine (сase No. 920/241/19). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/88050865 [in Ukrainian].
33. NJSC Chornomornaftogaz v. PE Shatalov E., Dealex Chartering ApS [2020]. Supreme Court, Ukraine (сase No. 911/1803/19). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/92673992 [inUkrainian].
34. Krause, Ch. Existence and Validity of an Arbitration Agreement: The French Supreme Court Confirms that the Validity of an Arbitration Agreement Depends Primarily on the Common Intent of the Parties. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. Retrieved from http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2010/01/27/ existence-and-validity-of-an-arbitration-agreement-the-french-supreme-court-confirms-that-the-validity-of-an-arbitration-agreement-depends-primarily-on-the-common-intent-of-the-parties/ [in English].
35. Insigma Technology Co Ltd v Alstom Technology Ltd (2008). High Court of the Republic of Singapore. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/docs/default-source/module-document/judgement/2008-sghc-134.pdf [in English].
36. Daesung Industrial Gases Co. Ltd. and Daesung (Guangzhou) Gases Co Ltd v Praxair (China) Investment Co. Ltd [2015]. High Court of the Republic of Singapore. Retrieved from https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/zh-daesung-industrial-gases-co-ltd-and-daesung-guangzhou-gases-co-ltd-v-praxair-china-investment-co-ltd-decision-of-the-shanghai-no-1-intermediate-peoples-court-monday-3rd-august-2020 [in English].
37. Bärtsch, Ph., & Petti, A. (2013). International Arbitration in Switzerland: A Handbook for Practitioners (Second Edition) [in English].
38. Koziubra, M. (2015). General Theory of Law, Kyiv, Vaite Publishing, at 248 [in Ukrainian].