The Israeli-Soviet Oil Arbitration

Domke, Martin

doi:10.2307/2195751

Cited by 8 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…103 A further difficulty deterring United States participation, it has been argued, is the creation of "obligations that may be inconsistent with particular details of state law or judicial procedure," 104 or that the United States "lacks a sufficient domestic legal basis in the arbitral statutes of the various States of the Union for an advanced international convention." 105 However, Article XI of the United Nations Convention provides special conditions for federal or non-unitary states, whereby the federal authority's obligation extends in this respect only to the favorable recommendation of the articles of the convention to the "appropriate authorities of constituent states . .…”

Section: IVmentioning

confidence: 99%

The United Nations Arbitration Convention and United States Policy

Sultan

1959

Am. j. int. law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration convened from the 20th of May until the 10th of June, 1958, at the Organization’s Headquarters in New York. Early in the general debate, the United States Eepresentative, Mr. Beale, stated that his Government wasaware that it was necessary to improve both the law and the practice of arbitration if it was desired that that institution should play its part properly in the settlement of disputes arising out of international trade.

show abstract

Section: IVmentioning

confidence: 99%

The United Nations Arbitration Convention and United States Policy

Sultan

1959

Am. j. int. law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Conflict Avoidance

Eek

1965

The Swedish Conflict of Laws

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hierarchy and Judicial Institutions: Arbitration and Ideology in the Hellenistic World

Grynaviski¹,

Hsieh²

2015

Int Org

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International arbitration is a distinctive feature of both contemporary international politics and the ancient world. Explanations of arbitration in the international relations literature generally posit that states engage in arbitration to mitigate the effects of competition in an anarchical system, or that the practice of arbitration reflects democratic norms. However, an examination of arbitration during the paradigmatic case of the Hellenistic period (338–90 bce) casts doubt on the existing literature. Hierarchy rather than anarchy better characterizes the political context in which arbitration took place: the Greeks often organized themselves into alliances or leagues in which a hegemon dominated decision making, or into federal states with a common foreign policy. This hierarchical setting was a necessary condition for international arbitration where the practice of arbitration was a tool to legitimize hierarchical powers. We assemble an original data set of Hellenistic arbitrations, and use qualitative comparative analysis to show that hierarchy was almost always a necessary condition for international arbitration. Process-tracing of arbitration under three political orders—hegemonic kingdoms in the Greek world, Greek federations, and the Roman Empire—shows that arbitration as a particular means of dispute resolution was used as an ideological device to build and legitimize international order. We then analyze the contemporary record, finding a role for hierarchy in modern international arbitration.

show abstract

The Israeli-Soviet Oil Arbitration

Cited by 8 publications

References 5 publications

The United Nations Arbitration Convention and United States Policy

The United Nations Arbitration Convention and United States Policy

Conflict Avoidance

Hierarchy and Judicial Institutions: Arbitration and Ideology in the Hellenistic World

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About