CYIL 2014

ZUZANA JAHODNÍKOVÁ – CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ the words of the Holiday Inns v. Morocco Tribunal: “international proceedings in principle have primacy over purely internal proceedings”. This occurred when the Tribunal rejected staying the proceedings until the Moroccan courts rendered their judgement by using the argument that such a stay in proceedings would, “endanger the rule that international proceedings prevail over internal proceedings”. 27 Although every tribunal has to adopt a vigilant advance towards each and every court intervention, international arbitration, inclusive of investment dispute litigation, has to assume that the legal nature of the proceedings habitually creates a favourable and indispensable climate for the involvement of a national court. In this fashion, for example, the public gains a valuable tool which will help to monitor the course of the arbitral proceedings and perhaps also the outcome of the proceedings. An especially noteworthy fact is that in investment arbitration provisions have to be made not only as to the margin of appreciation exercised by the courts at the seat of arbitration but also to that of the domestic courts of the state taking part in the pending arbitration. 28 There are at least two salient research areas which could be evaluated when assessing state conduct and parallel proceedings. The first area is the level of state interference in international commercial arbitration proceedings between two private parties litigating a dispute. One approach has been to persuade the tribunal, designated under the original arbitration agreement, to continue with the arbitration despite governmental intervention and deliver an award which could then be enforced in a so-called ‘friendly’ country. A number of tribunals have followed this course, sometimes relocating the arbitration hearings to a neutral jurisdiction to avoid harassment and intimidation by the State party in the seat of arbitration. 29 The second is the possibility of parallel proceedings occurring in investor state arbitrations approach to arbitration, which has not been generally accepted in common law countries although there has been some recognition in the laws of European countries. See: R. Garnett, “National Court Intervention in Arbitration as an Investment Treaty Claim”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly , Vol. 60 (April 2011), p. 486. For information on the English view on domestic intervention in international arbitration, see: N. Maitra: “ Domestic Court Intervention in International Arbitration. The English View .”, Journal of International Arbitration 23(3): 239-248, 2006. 27 Holiday Inns S.A. and others v. Morocco (ICSID Case No. ARB/72/1), Award unpublished. P. Lalive, “The First “World Bank” Arbitration ( Holiday Inns v. Morocco ) - Some Legal Problems, 51 BYIL 123 (1980), p. 160 as cited in: Ch. Schreuer, L. Malintoppi, A. Reinisch and A. Sinclair, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (A Commentary on the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States) , (Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed., 2009), pp. 364-365. 28 In terms of the law applicable at the seat of arbitration and the national court’s supervision over arbitral proceedings, the choice of seat or place of arbitrations becomes one of the most critical decisions to be made. Parties to arbitration face a variety of options in this regard and the selection process has become a thorough analysis which includes the assessment of the national arbitration law or equally the practice of courts at the seat. 29 R. Garnett, supra note 26. It needs to be noted that States are in favour mainly of retaining disputes before or under supervision of their national courts. This is evidently the case for reasons such as the prospect of court advantage, non-existence of a language barrier, knowledge of the local law and a reduction in expenses. However when looking at the possibility of excessive national court intervention, investors will try to shield themselves against the involvement of a host State’s national court. MILOŠ OLÍK

372