Académique

LALIVE est reconnue pour sa contribution au rayonnement académique en matière juridique. Des publications régulières et significatives dans des revues juridiques y contribuent largement, ainsi que, depuis 2007, la mise en place d’une « LALIVE Lecture » annuelle, organisée conjointement avec l’Institut universitaires de hautes études internationales et du développement (HEID). Plusieurs associés et avocats dispensent également des cours dans des universités suisses ou étrangères et ont notoirement contribué à l’élaboration de la doctrine ou de la législation, notamment en matière d’arbitrage.

Chaque année, l’Institut des hautes études internationales et du développement (HEID) et LALIVE organisent et accueillent conjointement la LALIVE Lecture à HEID. La première a eu lieu en 2007.

L’objet de cette série de « lectures », d’une fréquence annuelle, est de créer un forum de réflexion sur l’interface entre droit international public et privé. Elle a été baptisée ainsi en l’honneur de Me Jean-Flavien Lalive et du Prof. Pierre Lalive, deux éminents juristes genevois fondateurs de l’étude éponyme, qui ont consacré leurs carrières universitaires et professionnelles à l’interaction entre ces deux matières.

The 12th annual LALIVE Lecture was held on 5 July 2018 at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland. Prof. Emmanuel Gaillard delivered a thought-provoking address on “The Myth of Harmony in International Arbitration”.

The lecture was introduced by Prof. Vincent Chetail, International Law Professor at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, and Michael E. Schneider, one of LALIVE’s founding partners, who recalled the origins of the LALIVE Lecture named after the late Jean-Flavien and Pierre Lalive. Schneider went on to highlight the importance of Gaillard’s contribution to the field not only through co-authoring the UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide on the New York Convention and collaborating with UNCITRAL to create a website currently numbering more than 2,500 decisions on the New York Convention but also through some of his most widely influential works, notably the go-to treatise Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration he co-authored, the landmark work on the legal theory of international arbitration, Aspects philosophiques du droit de l’arbitrage international, and his teaching at a number of law schools, including Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, University of Geneva, Sciences Po and many others.

Gaillard opened the lecture by his souvenir of the late Prof. Pierre Lalive, referring to him as “the most courageous arbitrator [he] ever met”. “He would have liked this lecture’s topic”, Gaillard said before addressing the Confucian concept of “harmony”. As a general rule, harmony is seen by lawyers as a positive value. When confronted with situations which do not fall squarely within a structured order, “lawyers freak out (US style), or start to feel ill at ease (British style)” said Gaillard with irony. Such a reaction is however unreasonable as a little bit of chaos is necessary to the evolution of the field. The naïve vision of a perfect judge, applying an immutable and permanent law, is an illusion, unless we are all replaced by artificial intelligence – which is a “scary prospect”, Gaillard noted. For instance, the lack of consistency in the case law of Investor-Sate Dispute Settlement (“ISDS”) is presented by certain NGOs as evidence of a broken system. This is, however, a manipulation of the notion of harmony. As put by the late Prof. David Caron, answering criticisms of ISDS on their face value is not the solution. ISDS detractors are manipulating the consistency concept to challenge globalization as a whole, not only ISDS. An honest observer of investment arbitration case law taken in its dynamic globality – as opposed to looking at it through snapshots at a given point in time – can only acknowledge its extraordinary level of consistency considering that it was elaborated in a decentralized manner. As in the Darwinian theory of natural selection, the best decisions become “jurisprudence constante”, whereas the worst ones are remembered as isolated mishaps.

Along this evolution, we witness concrete examples of the diversification of sources and players influencing the case law, in particular the ever-increasing contribution of private players in the law-making process. NGOs have gained a great deal of power, as illustrated by the 2014 Mauritius Convention on Transparency. The decision of the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) in the Slovak Republic v Achmea BV case rendered on 6 March 2018 is another example of this phenomenon. “It is hardly credible that such decision has not been influenced by NGOs having vehemently criticized the investor-State dispute settlement system in place for the last decade. The Court would have found other ways to deal with the issue if it had not been for their lobbying”, Gaillard said. Whilst the ECJ relied in good part on the protection of a harmonious application of EU law to justify its radical decision, one can wonder whether harmony and consistency of EU law were truly the primary concerns of the ECJ. Indeed, the decision is understood not to extend to commercial arbitration, although commercial arbitrators routinely interpret and apply EU law.

Such as the Achmea decision, the excessive importance given to the fate of the award at the seat of arbitration sheds light on the use of the myth of harmony to promote inharmonious results. All courts are not absolutely neutral when deciding on recourse against awards in disfavor of their nationals, especially State-owned entities. Nevertheless, a large proportion of lawyers argue in the name of harmony that if an award has been set aside at the seat, it cannot be enforced elsewhere. However, these same lawyers see no issue in refusing to enforce an award the challenge of which was unsuccessful at the seat. Following this logic, the international reach of a judgment on a recourse against an award differs depending on the outcome of such recourse. If the courts of the seat set it aside, it has a worldwide impact. Conversely, if an award remains intact, the judgment bears little value on the international plane and the award will be scrutinized again at the place or places of enforcement. This is a striking example of a situation in which harmony or order are placed above justice “in defavorem arbitrandum”, Gaillard concluded. Another example of unsatisfactory consequences is the situation in which courts of a given jurisdiction undo their own enforcement decision many years afterwards because the award is finally set aside by the courts of the seat. This was the situation in the decision rendered by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals on 20 July 2017 in the Thai-Lao Lignite v. Lao case.

The Dallah v Pakistan saga illustrates again this mystification of the value of harmony. If one were to follow the English courts’ reasoning, it would amount to reinstating the double exequatur requirement that has been repealed by the 1958 New York Convention. In Gaillard’s view, such backward thinking, 60 years after the New York Convention, cannot be right: the assessment of the scope and validity of an arbitration agreement must be made by the judge in each country in which enforcement is sought. For English courts, a more honest approach would have been not to pretend to apply French law – indeed to butcher it – but to acknowledge that, contrary to French courts, they are more reluctant to widen the scope of the arbitration agreement to encompass non-signatories even in circumstances in which such signatories have negotiated and performed the contract.

The movement refocusing the attention on state court decisions ancillary to the award away from the award itself has recently generated even worse consequences. Some enforcement courts have now focused on recognition or enforcement proceedings in other countries to give effect to those decisions. Gaillard referred as an example to the Belmont Partners v. Mina Mar Group case where the U.S. District Court for the WD of Virginia, on 1st October 2010, ruled that claim preclusion prevented it from deciding whether to modify or vacate an award rendered in Virginia since the Ontario Superior Court had confirmed the award. Gaillard qualified this trend as “extremely troubling”, noting that the English Court of Appeal has followed a similar logic, for instance, in the Yukos v. Rosneft matter. In Gaillard’s view, such type of reasoning creates a race to the most favorable or the least arbitration-friendly court depending on which side one is, with the hope of subsequently exporting the court decision in other countries.

The myth of harmony as applied to law applicable to the merits. For some, the choice of law approach ensures predictability of the outcome claim by selecting an appropriate choice of law rule. For others, including Gaillard and Pierre Lalive, harmony is best served by the application of the substantive transnational rules. These rules developed on the basis of a comparative law approach generally lead to predictable outcomes. A traditional criticism of the transnational rules method lies in the perceived difficulty of identifying the content of such rules. Today, however, it is not the scarcity of sources that may permit to identify the transnational principles but it is rather the abundance of such sources. Although the excessive amount of codification may result in conflicting rules, the transnational principles is a methodology (not a list of principles), and will thus enable arbitrators to find, at any given point in time, the most generally accepted rule to be applied in the given circumstances. Gaillard also addressed the question of lois de police or superseding mandatory rules. Recognizing Pierre Lalive’s contribution to this topic, Gaillard argued that arbitrators could displace the lex contractus when such law is contrary to generally accepted public policy principles (ordre public réellement international), but not for the mere reason that a loi de police pretends to apply to the case. This enhances predictability as the various genuinely international public policies worldwide should embody the same globally accepted values. French case law has embraced this theory, notably in the decision rendered by the Paris Court of Appeal on 16 May 2017 in the Customs and Tax Consultancy LLC v Democratic Republic of Congo case or the same court’s decision of 16 January 2018 in the MK Group v Onix case. In that latter case, the award was held to be in violation not only of a Laotian mandatory rule, but also the general consensus reflected in the 1962 UN General Assembly Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, which forms an integral part of the genuinely international public policy.

The lecture was reported on in GAR. Please see article here.

Judge Abdulqawi A. Yusuf delivered the 2017 LALIVE Lecture at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. He was introduced by LALIVE Partner Michael E. Schneider, who highlighted Judge Yusuf’s cross-cultural background in both practice and academia, at the juncture between public and private international law. Judge Yusuf thus incarnates the cross-border characteristics of the Lalive Lecture, established in 2006 in honor of Pierre and Jean-Flavien Lalive, founders of the eponymous firm.

Laureate of the Somali National University, Judge Yusuf pursued his studies at the Graduate Institute of Geneva, the University of Florence and The Hague Academy of International Law. He held various positions at intergovernmental institutions such as UNTAG, UNIDO, UNESCO and UNCTAD, before becoming first secretary, judge ad hoc and judge of the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) where he now also serves as vice-president since February 2015. Judge Yusuf, member of the Institute of International Law (IDI) and of the Société Française pour le droit international, is a founding member of the African Association of International Law and of the African Foundation for International Law. Judge Yusuf shared fond memories of his time at the Graduate Institute and of Pierre Lalive’s teachings and advice which he enjoyed on several occasions.

While the title of Judge Yusuf’s Lecture ”The Jurisdiction of States and the Right of Access to Justice” suggests a broad scope of discussion, he immediately framed his presentation along two lines of analysis: jurisdictional immunities of States on the one hand and the right to access to justice on the other. He defined the latter as the right to seek a remedy before a legally constituted tribunal which guarantees independence and impartiality in the application of the law. He observed that the rules of sovereign immunities interact with other principles of international law, such as the right to access justice, and at times come in conflict or tension with them. Throughout his Lecture, Judge Yusuf offered tools to help overcome potential conflicts, for instance through the application of the private international law mechanisms forum non conveniens and forum necessitatis.

Judge Yusuf introduced his analysis by reminding the audience that, while access to justice is often taken for granted in many jurisdictions, such access remains difficult, if not impossible, for numerous victims of the most serious crimes committed across the world. He notably referred to the thousands of victims of the state of emergency in Kenya in 1952-1959 and to the Herero wars of 1904-1908 in today’s Namibia. In response to the atrocities suffered, victims struggle to access justice, at times seeking redress before domestic courts, at other times before special tribunals and compensation commissions established following international negotiations. He emphasized that the cases brought before courts represent only a fraction of the existing cases. Many cases remain unaddressed, including because of jurisdictional limitations. He added that he was ”also thinking of the individuals’ access to justice, be it direct or indirect. I dedicate this lecture to them”.

At the heart of his reflection lied his dissenting opinion to the ICJ’s decision of 3 February 2012 in the case concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening). The Court found that Italy had breached its obligation to grant Germany immunity by allowing civil compensation claims to be brought before the Italian courts, against Germany, for violations of international humanitarian law between 1943 and 1945. Italy had argued that it was justified to deny jurisdictional immunity to Germany in the circumstances where the victims had not been able to obtain redress elsewhere. The ICJ dismissed this argument for lack of sufficient State practice which would subject a State’s entitlement to immunity to the availability of alternative avenues where victims can obtain redress.

Invoking the protection of the academic context in which the Lecture was being given, Judge Yusuf explained the reasons for his dissent. He observed that the ICJ had missed an opportunity to clarify the law in the direction in which international law was evolving by allowing ”a limited and workable exception to jurisdictional immunity in those circumstances where the victims have no other means of redress”. Rather, the Court’s approach reminds him of the doorkeeper in Franz Kafka’s Trial, who blocked access to the courtroom to the man from the countryside who had come to seek justice, and offered him a stool to sit on until sufficient State practice was established before he would let him in.

For Judge Yusuf, the ICJ’s approach in the Immunities case ignores the evolution of international law on immunities and, more generally, the gradual recognition of individuals on the international plane. Notably, over the past 50 years, there has been a growing concern that individuals should have access to effective forums, whether domestic or international, to enforce their rights. Recognizing human rights but not the right to enforce them renders them ”theoretical and illusory”. Judge Yusuf referred to various mechanisms to obtain redress, also through individual petitions, before international tribunals and commissions and stressed that the right to access to justice had, in his view, now become customary international law. At the same time, sovereign immunities belong to the cornerstone principles of public international law: all States stand on an equal foot and none can adjudicate the acts of another. The notion of State consent further remains at the heart of these principles.

While there is a priori no reason why State immunity should take precedence over any other rule of customary international law, in practice this appears to be the default position. The ICJ recognizes the possibility of exceptions supported by sufficient practice of the sovereign members of the international legal community. A better approach, Judge Yusuf argued, would be to admit that the boundaries of State immunity are unclear, that State practice in this area is equivocal and that one should therefore strike a balance between these two fundamental rights, having primary regard to the particular circumstances of the case at hand. It was the peculiarities of the situation in the Immunities case, including the grave abuses committed, that led Judge Yusuf to dissent in that case.

It is at this juncture that one could take guidance from the practice of domestic courts when deciding whether to assert jurisdiction over a case or refer it to another court (using concepts such as forum non conveniens at common law or forum necessitatis in civil jurisdictions) notably as the rules of private international law embody the fundamental right of access to justice. Determining the weight of factual circumstances in a case is an issue well tackled by domestic courts, which have adopted a contextual and holistic approach to strike a balance between competing principles, including by assessing the existence, availability and effectiveness of other for a before asserting jurisdiction over a case. The development of the doctrine of necessity as a separate head of jurisdiction further demonstrates that it is generally accepted that courts should be granted the power to assert jurisdiction to safeguard the right to access to justice. The main difference between the approaches under public and under private international law may flow from the fact that, according to the ICJ, international courts do not make law.

According to Judge Yusuf, the Court’s analysis is premised on the assumption that State immunity is the main principle, which must therefore be given priority. Any departure therefrom requires evidence of sufficient State practice, which precludes the possibility to look at, and weight, the particular facts of a case. However, the ICJ Statute does not set any rules of precedence between rules of customary international law. The greater weight accorded to State immunities is, thus, a choice made by the Court. Judge Yusuf proposes a more holistic approach, that accounts for the context of the claim, the particular situation of the claimant, the state of affairs in the concerned jurisdiction and any other relevant circumstances. Ignoring these elements could otherwise lead to a denial of justice for the aggrieved party, which is in stark contradiction with the contemporary values of the international community. Moreover, the emphasis placed on State practice (and the opinio iuris that emerges therefrom), is questionable where it presupposes that other States have faced analogous situations, that the facts were not unique. It could thus take decades more for sufficient State practice to emerge, and Kafka’s man from the countryside seeking to gain access to justice will have to wait just as long before entering the courtroom, if he ever does. Quoting Prof. Jean-Flavien Lalive, Judge Yusuf called for efforts of adaptation and harmonization in this area of international law.

How could this be done? Judge Yusuf suggested to acknowledge the inherent impossibility to reconcile at all times the principles of State immunities and individuals’ right to access to justice. By applying the philosophy of private international law without losing sight of the purposes of public international law, international courts should adopt, on a case by case basis, an analysis that reflects the evolving values of the international community. In other words, international judges should prioritize a factual analysis of the circumstances in the case at hand rather than the existence of sufficient State practice.

As part of the checks and balances to guide the analysis between the competing norms, Judge Yusuf proposed two principal factors. First, the nature of the norm in question and the gravity of the alleged breach. The necessity to allow redress for serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law may justify – on a case by case basis – setting aside rules of State immunity, if there is no other avenue to find such redress. Second, the likelihood of obtaining justice or the effectiveness of the remedy. This can prove difficult in practice, as the ICJ noted in the Immunities case, but for Judge Yusuf, such difficulty does not justify allowing denial of justice altogether if it appears that there was no other real alternative forum.

In conclusion, Judge Yusuf warned the international legal community about the risk of stagnation of human rights and their enforcement and ”the danger of a step back” in this area. Although some progress has been made, vigilance must remain. ”It would be wrong to think that the evolution of international law always marches down a progressive road to a better world. Sometimes States, in response to international pressure, attempt to renege on their international obligations. It is the duty of international lawyers to interpret the law in a way that keeps up with the values of international society”. When it comes to State jurisdictional immunities, in his opinion, a change of mindset is necessary from those used to searching for exceptions to the rules of State immunities within the realm of State practice; including at the ICJ, as no one wants it to become Kafka’s Trial doorkeeper who keeps those with hope outside of the courtroom.

The lecture gave rise to a lively discussion and interesting interventions by the prestigious audience. Upon being asked about the possible reluctance of international courts to take guidance from national courts, Judge Yusuf noted that cross-fertilization between courts is a well-established practice, notably among the international criminal courts. He also referred to the ICJ’s practice to rely on the analysis and decisions of other international courts and denied any allegation of resistance against the jurisprudence of other fora. Prof. George Abi-Saab, one of Judge Yusuf’s former professors at the Graduate Institute, pointed out that increased horizontal cooperation between States would be desirable to ensure the existence of proper fora to adjudicate certain claims of individuals against States, in line with joint commissions for compensations, such as the United Nations Compensation Commission to process claims and pay compensation for losses and damage suffered as a direct result of Iraq’s unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait in 1990-1991. He also warned against the risk of abuse before domestic courts, citing as an example the US Alien Tort Claims Act, which many people consider to have the effect of giving the last word to US courts on issues that concern the world globally: ”I am in favour of the solution”, Prof. Abi-Saab said, ”but we have to think very seriously about the safeguards”. Judge Yusuf agreed, adding that such safeguards could be embodied in the checks and balance exercise required from judges. He reiterated at this point that ”The risk of abuse exists everywhere, in many rules of international law…but one has to take the risk to put forward the checks and balance approach as an alternative to the State practice exception…I have faith in the international judges and international adjudication and I think that a judge can always come up with the best solution possible. New solutions, new approaches are also the job of a judge”.

La dixième édition annuelle de la LALIVE Lecture s’est tenue le 12 juillet 2016 à l’Institut de hautes études internationales et du développement (IHEID) à Genève, en Suisse. L’allocution de Sir Michael Wood portait sur le sujet « Choisir entre l’arbitrage et une juridiction permanente – leçons tirées de différends interétatiques ».

Sir Michael a d’abord souligné que son thème, le choix entre l’arbitrage et une juridiction permanente, pourrait correspondre à deux options distinctes : la première, le choix initial d’un État de souscrire à un système prévoyant le recours à l’arbitrage, à une juridiction permanente, ou aux deux (comme prévu dans la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer (CNUDM) ; la seconde, le choix d’une partie à un litige existant de soumettre celui-ci à l’une ou l’autre. Son intervention porte sur la seconde option.

Le principal message de Sir Michael était que, bien qu’il existe des différences pratiques entre des tribunaux arbitraux et permanents, leurs points communs sont plus nombreux, et les deux mécanismes permettent, de manière satisfaisante, le règlement des différends interétatiques. En examinant les nombreuses différences, il a démontré que certaines pouvaient être qualifiées à la fois de points forts et de points faibles, alors que certaines autres différences pouvaient s’avérer moins importantes qu’elles ne paraissent.

Sir Michael a fait remarquer qu’une grande différence réside dans le fait que les juridictions permanentes – notamment la Cour internationale de Justice (CIJ) – peuvent être considérées comme ayant un statut supérieur aux tribunaux arbitraux ad hoc. De ce fait, il est moins probable qu’un État rejette une décision de la CIJ qu’une sentence arbitrale, même si les décisions rendues par les deux instances sont juridiquement contraignantes ; le choix du for peut donc être indispensable pour le respect des décisions. La nature institutionnelle d’une juridiction permanente peut également jouer contre celle-ci, cependant : lorsqu’une partie a déjà été confrontée à une expérience négative auprès d’une institution, elle pourrait préférer avoir recours à un tribunal arbitral ad hoc, qui sera exempt de toute considération politique.

Les répercussions des différences plus concrètes ne sont pas non plus toujours très claires. Par exemple, la composition des juridictions permanentes a tendance à être beaucoup plus large que celle des tribunaux arbitraux – 15 à 17 juges composent la CIJ, 21 à 23 juges composent le Tribunal international du droit de la mer (TIDM), alors que seuls 3 à 5 arbitres composent un tribunal arbitral. La taille plus importante de la juridiction permanente peut être considérée à la fois comme un avantage et un inconvénient. D’une part, il est considéré que le fait d’avoir un trop grand nombre de juges pourrait entraîner trop de compromis et un raisonnement juridique limité dans les décisions rendues, alors qu’un tribunal arbitral de composition plus restreinte devrait être en mesure de fournir un raisonnement juridique plus rigoureux. D’autre part, un plus grand nombre de voix peut conférer plus d’autorité à une décision. Par ailleurs, des échanges constructifs entre le collège arbitral et l’avocat sont favorisés lorsque ce collège est resserré. Sir Michael a évoqué la possibilité d’avoir des chambres de composition restreinte au sein d’une juridiction permanente, se demandant si cela n’était pas la meilleure solution. Une chambre peut être la solution pour modérer la taille des juridictions permanentes et permet un degré de contrôle sur leur composition, tout en apportant la garantie procédurale d’une juridiction permanente et en engendrant moins de frais qu’une procédure arbitrale.

Sir Michael a également remis en question certaines idées reçues sur les avantages des procédures arbitrales. L’une des caractéristiques les plus notables de l’arbitrage est la faculté de nommer un arbitre plutôt que d’accepter un tribunal prédéterminé (nonobstant parfois la possibilité limitée de nommer un juge ad hoc devant les juridictions permanentes), mais Sir Michael a remis en question l’importance du choix de l’arbitre. S’il peut être facile de décider qui exclure, le choix d’une personne donnée reste souvent aléatoire, car il est généralement impossible de savoir de quelle manière un arbitre rendra une décision. De la même manière, il a ajouté que l’idée selon laquelle l’arbitrage permet aux parties de contrôler la procédure peut être illusoire ; bien que cela soit vrai au début, une fois que les procédures sont initiées, elles reposent entre les mains du tribunal arbitral, sans la garantie offerte par les règles procédurales auxquelles est soumise une juridiction permanente.

Il a ensuite abordé d’autres différences spécifiques, tout en pointant les éventuelles convergences entre les pratiques d’une juridiction permanente et celles de l’arbitrage. Par exemple, l’intervention d’un tiers est clairement admise devant la CIJ et le TIDM, alors qu’elle est généralement considérée comme impossible en arbitrage. Toutefois, Sir Michael a constaté qu’aucun principe n’interdit une telle pratique, et que les tribunaux arbitraux interétatiques pourraient l’autoriser si cela n’est pas expressément exclu. La CIJ et le TIDM disposent également de règles claires en ce qui concerne les mesures provisoires et les jugements intérimaires, alors qu’en arbitrage, ces décisions sont prises au cas par cas. En outre, le tribunal arbitral doit être constitué avant de pouvoir traiter de mesures provisoires, contrairement aux juridictions permanentes qui sont déjà en place. Cela étant, le TIDM bénéficie de dispositions sur les mesures provisoires antérieures à la constitution du tribunal arbitral, et peut ainsi apporter un soutien avant la constitution d’un tribunal arbitral CNUDM. En ce qui concerne la confidentialité, l’arbitrage semble évoluer vers une plus grande transparence, les États semblent même accueillir favorablement la publicité.

Sir Michael a mis en doute l’idée selon laquelle les juridictions permanentes contribueraient davantage au droit international que les tribunaux arbitraux, ou que les juridictions permanentes appliqueraient plus régulièrement leur propre jurisprudence. Alors qu’il peut y avoir une part de vérité dans cela, a-t-il dit, les tribunaux arbitraux ont également apporté une contribution significative au droit international, et ils font de plus en plus référence aux raisonnements des uns et des autres, reconnaissant ainsi le besoin d’harmonisation.

Après avoir analysé les différences, Sir Michael a abordé les similarités entre l’arbitrage et les juridictions permanentes dans les affaires interétatiques. Notamment, la compétence des tribunaux arbitraux et des juridictions permanentes dépend du consentement, tous deux ont généralement la faculté de déterminer leur propre compétence (compétence-compétence), les sentences arbitrales et les décisions de justice sont définitives et ont l’autorité de la chose jugée, et les sentences arbitrales ainsi que les décisions de justice reposent généralement sur le droit international. De son point de vue, ces similitudes fondamentales l’emportent sur les différences pratiques auxquelles il s’est référé.

Enfin, Sir Michael a discuté brièvement des propositions concernant l’établissement de nouvelles juridictions permanentes, telle qu’une cour internationale de l’environnement, une cour internationale des droits de l’homme et une cour internationale constitutionnelle, ainsi qu’une cour permanente des investissements, avec une juridiction d’appel. Il a souligné que de telles initiatives soulèveraient des difficultés évidentes et pourraient être perçues comme utopiques et onéreuses – mais que la Cour pénale internationale aurait pu recevoir les mêmes critiques, alors qu’elle est désormais une réalité. Un autre sujet de préoccupation concernant les juridictions permanentes spécialisées, a-t-il précisé, est que cela conduirait à une fragmentation artificielle du droit international. La conclusion finale de Sir Michael était que, malgré la disparité considérable entre les juridictions permanentes et les tribunaux arbitraux, rendant toute généralisation difficile, ces deux mécanismes de règlement des litiges jouent des rôles importants. On peut espérer que, plus les Etats disposeront de moyens pour régler les litiges sans recourir à la force, meilleures seront les chances d’avoir un monde plus stable.

Une session animée de questions-réponses a suivi, au cours de laquelle l’auditoire a interrogé Sir Michael sur la judiciarisation croissante de la société, sur les différences de représentation devant les juridictions permanentes et les tribunaux arbitraux, et si les juridictions permanentes devaient être préférées aux tribunaux arbitraux dans les différends interétatiques, au moins pour certaines problématiques. Tout en reconnaissant en toute honnêteté que, en tant que praticien, plaider devant un tribunal arbitral est une expérience assez différente de celle de plaider devant une grande juridiction internationale, Sir Michael a réaffirmé sa position sur les tribunaux arbitraux et les juridictions permanentes et le rôle important à jouer par ces juridictions dans le règlement des litiges internationaux, étant d’avis que dans l’ensemble, la progression des contentieux interétatiques est un développement positif de l’ordre juridique international.

Un résumé de la LALIVE Lecture a été publié dans GAR le 12 août 2016. Voir l’article complet ici. (PDF)

La LALIVE Lecture a été publiée dans l’ICSID Review, volume 32, N° 1. Vous pouvez voir l’article ici.

The 9th edition of the LALIVE Lecture was delivered on 15 July 2015 by Professor Sean D. Murphy, Patricia Roberts Harris Research Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School and Member of the U.N. International Law Commission, at the Graduate Institute of Development Studies in Geneva. The lecture was introduced by Marcelo Kohen, International Law Professor at the Graduate Institute and Michael E. Schneider, founding partner at LALIVE. The LALIVE Lecture, named after the late Jean-Flavien Lalive and Pierre Lalive who both taught at the Graduate Institute, aims to explore the interface of public and private international law. Professor Murphy’s lecture was dedicated to the area of the law of the sea, which he believes straddles the public and private domains today as a result of the increase of private activities undertaken at sea and the detailed rules and institutions established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which entered into force in 1994 (the “LOS Convention”). He also noted that behind the State’s interests, the rights and interests of private parties always reside.

Professor Murphy’s lecture focused on contemporary dispute settlement mechanisms relating to the law of the sea. In a lively presentation punctuated with practical examples, Professor Murphy started by reminding the audience of the scope of the LOS Convention and how it seeks to regulate all aspects of the seas; from defining the distinct sea zones over which States’ sovereignty varies, to regulating the exploitation of the deep seabed. With codification efforts that are still ongoing today, the law of the sea has become a complex framework of global, regional and bilateral agreements coupled to well-established customary rules.

Professor Murphy then presented three non-compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms encouraged under Section 1 of Part XV of the LOS Convention: negotiation, mediation and conciliation. He noted that States have historically favoured negotiation for their law of the sea disputes: there are more than sixty known negotiations (often relating to issues of delimitation), less than a dozen mediations, and no conciliations since the entry into force of the Convention. Professor Murphy suggested that the tendency to disfavour conciliation might be explained by the fact that, once States have considered placing their disputes in the hands of a third party, they are more inclined to choose a process which leads to a legally binding decision. He also explained that the predictability and flexibility of the negotiation process compared with adjudication has contributed to the popularity of negotiation, with States being able to reach creative agreements that would not have been possible had international law been strictly applied. While some negotiation processes concerning overlapping claims to maritime resources may not have resulted in the conclusion of a final agreement determining a boundary line, States have nevertheless often been able to agree on an interim basis to a fair division for the exploitation of the resources at stake.

Professor Murphy went on to present the possible venues for compulsory dispute resolution, focusing in particular on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and on dispute settlement provided under Section 2 of Part XV of the LOS Convention. Cases at the ICJ may arise under its normal bases of jurisdiction, including treaty-based jurisdiction or acceptance by States of its compulsory jurisdiction. Professor Murphy explained that the ICJ is the main international judicial body to which States turn when faced with disputes related to the law of the sea. Depending on the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction, the ICJ may have jurisdiction not only to hear disputes related to the LOS Convention, but also to rule on issues of sovereignty, such as over islands. Professor Murphy noted that the ICJ’s jurisprudence is very enriching for understanding the rules at play when deciding law of the see disputes; most notably when it comes to the delimitation of maritime zones, with the “provisional equidistance line” and “angle bisector” approaches becoming key techniques. He stressed that in contemporary jurisprudence, the specific context of each case and notably its geography remain the primary concern, while other factors such as environmental concerns are largely excluded.

The LOS Convention provides four compulsory dispute resolution mechanisms from which State parties can choose: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) based in Hamburg (Germany), the ICJ, ad hoc arbitration (under Annex VII of the Convention) and special arbitral tribunals set up for specific categories of disputes (under Annex VIII of the Convention). Professor Murphy underlined the success of Annex VII arbitrations. More than a dozen cases have been filed since 1994, ranging from the Southern Bluefin Tuna arbitration to the more recent Artic Sunrise arbitration or the Philippines-China dispute. Such arbitral tribunals are typically composed of five arbitrators, and generally provide States with greater control over the composition of the arbitral tribunal, and the venue, speed and confidentiality of the proceedings. Professor Murphy indicated that litigation before ITLOS to date has been modest and that most cases relate either to interim measures prior to arbitration or to the expedited procedure for prompt release of foreign vessels and crew seized in a State’s exclusive economic zones. He underlined that, quite remarkably, some proceedings under the LOS Convention are open to natural and juridical persons. While ITLOS proceedings are not yet popular, Professor Murphy noted that the Tribunal as a whole, and its Seabed Dispute Chamber, have rendered their first advisory opinions respectively in April 2015 and in February 2011. By rendering well-reasoned opinions, ITLOS may well be opening the path to further requests from States which will provide guidance to the States when applying the law of the sea and therefore have a positive impact on limiting possible disputes.

Professor Murphy also mentioned the LOS Convention’s Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which serves as an institutional structure to resolve potential disputes between States with regard to claims to continental shelves extending beyond two hundred nautical miles from the coast to which all States are entitled under the LOS Convention.

He concluded by explaining that the increase of human activities at sea will continue to generate disputes between States, and that new types of disputes likely will arise in the near future from the challenges States have to face, such as stresses on global fisheries, global climate change, or the issue of maritime smuggling of persons. According to him, dispute settlement under the law of the sea, if not yet a tsunami can be seen as a rising tide. Questions and remarks from the audience were mainly related to the impact of climate change on the law of the sea. Among others, Dr Veijo Heiskanen of LALIVE raised the question of the (im)mutability of the maritime zones of States which are likely to disappear as a result of the rising sea levels; while a Phd student of the Graduate Institute addressed the issue of the exploitation of the mining resources in the Antarctic. Professor Murphy agreed that both issues are among the challenges that States will have to face and reach an agreement on in the near future.

The lecture was attended by over 120 participants and was followed by a reception at Villa Barton, premised owned by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID), co-organiser of the event with LALIVE. A summary of the LALIVE Lecture was published in GAR on 23 September 2015. Please see full article here

The 8th LALIVE Lecture was held on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 and was delivered by Gary Born, Chair of the International Arbitration Practice Group at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP and one of the world’s preeminent authorities on international commercial arbitration and international litigation.

Born’s lecture began with a review of the development of international dispute settlement since 1899, focusing in particular on the ground-breaking proliferation of international courts and tribunals that has taken place over the last 40 years. He queried the common wisdom that the products of this proliferation – what he called second-generation tribunals – suffer from the same defects as first-generation international courts and tribunals.

International adjudication is sometimes spoken of as optional, unenforceable, ineffective and marginal to world affairs, said Born. But this verdict needs to be reappraised in light of the performance of second generation tribunals. Born then embarked on a provocative comparison of what he had labelled first and second-generation international tribunals.

In the former category, he focused on standing international courts such as the International Court of Justice, its predecessor the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. As examples of second-generation tribunals, Born pointed to national courts that hear litigation involving foreign states, international commercial arbitration tribunals that hear disputes involving states, investor-state arbitration tribunals, claims settlement tribunals and the World Trade Organization’s dispute resolution bodies.

Born argued that, in terms of the extent to which they are used, compliance with their decisions and the ease of enforcing their awards, first-generation tribunals compare unfavourably to second-generation tribunals.

Born attributed much of the apparent success of second-generation tribunals compared with their first-generation counterparts to the former’s nuanced blend of institutional characteristics. He suggested that second-generation tribunals’ partly depart from the court-like structure of “independent” tribunals and include some attractive aspects of “dependent” tribunals — allowing for some degree of party control in the setting up of the tribunal. This provides a model design for modern-day international dispute settlement bodies.

Born noted, however, that this new generation of international tribunals is still developing and that they require the attention, direction and parent-like care of the college of international lawyers.

The lecture was attended by over 100 participants and was followed by a reception at La Maison de la paix, the new premises of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID) in Geneva, co-organiser of the event with LALIVE. A summary of the LALIVE Lecture was published in GAR on 29 October 2014. Please see full article here

La « Lalive Lecture » 2013 s’est tenue le 5 juin 2013 et a été prononcée par M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l’Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, ancien président de la Commission du droit international des Nations Unies, président de la Société française pour le droit international et membre associé de l’Institut de droit international. Son intervention, intitulée « La jurisprudence de la Cour internationale de Justice dans les sentences CIRDI », a fait état d’une application ni systématique ni harmonisée de la jurisprudence de la CIJ par les tribunaux CIRDI, essentiellement en raison de l’absence de règle de stare decisis et du fait que chaque décision est très liée aux particularités de l’affaire concernée.
M. Pellet a indiqué que les tribunaux CIRDIA se référaient ainsi volontiers à d’autres décisions CIRDI en matière de droit des investissements, ne se tournant vers la CIJ que pour des questions de droit international général et de procédure, notamment en termes de droits des actionnaires, d’attribution, d’état de nécessité, de clause de la nation la plus favorisée, de compétence des juridictions internationales et de mesures provisoires. Il a néanmoins conclu à l’existence d’une forte porosité entre l’arbitrage CIRDI et la jurisprudence CIJ, qui confirme l’ancrage du droit international des investissements dans le droit international général ainsi que l’affirmation du CIRDI comme « nouvel ordre juridique de droit international ».
Plus de 150 personnes ont assisté à la « lecture », qui a été suivie d’une réception à l’Institut des hautes études internationales et du développement (IHEID) de Genève, co-organisateur de l’évènement avec LALIVE. Le texte de l’intervention du Pr. Pellet a été publié dans l’ICSID Review, Volume 28, No. 2 (2013), pp. 223-240.

La LALIVE Lecture 2012 a été donnée le 23 mai 2012 par le Professeur Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, professeur émérite de droit international des affaires à l’Université de Cologne, président de l’Institut allemand de l’arbitrage (DIS), ancien président de l’International Law Association (ILA) et ancien président de la London Court of International Arbitration. Lors de sa lecture ayant pour thème « Commercial and Investment Arbitration: How Different are they Today? » (« L’arbitrage commercial et l’arbitrage d’investissement : Dans quelle mesure sont-ils différents aujourd’hui ? »), le Professeur Böckstiegel a offert une vue d’ensemble des raisons fondant les distinctions les plus importantes entre l’arbitrage commercial et l’arbitrage d’investissement dans la pratique internationale contemporaine. Ces différences ont été mises en exergue à travers différents thèmes, parmi lesquels l’impact des différentes cultures juridiques, le cadre juridique applicable, le rôle du droit national, les questions de compétence, la désignation des arbitres et les conflits d’intérêts, la gestion des affaires et le caractère prévisible et la cohérence des décisions arbitrales. Plus de 150 participants ont assisté à la lecture qui a été suivie d’une réception à l’Institut de hautes études internationales et du développement (IHEID) à Genève, co-organisateur de l’événement avec LALIVE. La lecture a été publiée dans Arbitration International (Volume 28 (2012), Issue 4, p. 577-590).

Le 23 juin 2011, David D. Caron, professeur de droit à l’Université de Californie – Berkeley et Président de l’American Society of International Law, a prononcé la 5ème LALIVE Lecture sur le thème « International Courts and Tribunals: Their role amidst a world of Courts ».  Pour le professeur Caron, le débat sur la fonctionnalité des juridictions et tribunaux arbitraux internationaux se comprend mieux en distinguant leur fonction primaire de leur fonction secondaire. En effet, alors qu’il est généralement admis que la fonction primaire d’une juridiction internationale est de résoudre un différend, il n’y a pas de consensus sur la fonction secondaire, qui peut être liée à une diversité d’objectifs d’ordre public : maintenir la paix et la sécurité ; garantir l’Etat de droit ; promouvoir l’investissement étranger, etc.  L’auditoire de la LALIVE Lecture 2011 était comme d’habitude très étoffé et l’intervention du professeur Caron a été suivie d’un fructueux échange avec les participants. La Lecture du Professeur Caron a été publiée dans la ICSID Review : D. Caron « International Courts and Tribunals: Their role amidst a world of Courts » ICSID Review Vol. 26, No 2, Fall 2011, p. 1.

En 2010, la LALIVE Lecture a eu lieu le 2 juin et c’est le juge Gilbert Guillaume, ancien président de la Cour internationale de justice, qui est intervenu sur le thème du « précédent dans la justice et l’arbitrage international ». En se fondant sur sa riche expérience d’agent du Gouvernement français, de juge et président de la CIJ et d’arbitre international, le juge Guillaume a dressé un portrait du concept de précédent dans l’ensemble des systèmes de règlement des différends internationaux.  Il a établi une distinction entre, d’une part, l’utilisation par les juridictions internationales de leur propre précédent et, d’autre part,  l’utilisation – plus récente – de précédent provenant d’autres systèmes de règlement des différends internationaux, en particulier par des tribunaux CIRDI, ALENA ou CNUDI dans le domaine de l’arbitrage d’investissement.  Le débat qui a suivi la conférence a porté sur le nécessaire équilibre entre flexibilité et prévisibilité. L’intervention du juge Guillaume a été publiée : voir G. Guillaume, « Le précédent dans la justice et l’arbitrage international (LALIVE Lecture, 2 juin 2010) », J.D.I. (doctr. 8), 2010, vol. 137, No 3, p. 685-705.

La troisième LALIVE Lecture 2009 a été donnée le 27 mai 2009 par Pr. Jan Paulsson, qui co-dirige les départements d’arbitrage international et de droit international public du cabinet Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, est Président de la London Court of International Arbitration et un praticien renommé. M. Paulsson s’est exprimé sur l’application du droit national par les tribunaux arbitraux dans une conférence intitulée: «Looking rigorously at national law from the outside : How does an international tribunal distinguish droit from loi?». La lecture a été un succès et a suscité un débat intéressant. Elle a été publiée dans la ICSID Review (J. Paulsson, « Unlawful Laws and the Authority of International Tribunals », ICSID Review, vol. 23, No 2, automne 2008, p. 215).

La Lecture 2008 a été donnée le 22 mai 2008 par Pr. Pierre Mayer, professeur à l’Université Paris I (Panthéon-Sorbonne). Pr. Mayer est un praticien renommé de l’arbitrage, associé du cabinet Dechert LLP à Paris; il a développé dans sa présentation les notions de treaty claims et de contract claims, dont l’importance va croissant en matière d’arbitrage international entre Etat et investisseurs. (P. Mayer, « Contract claims et clauses juridictionnelles des traités relatifs à la protection des investissements », Journal du droit international (Clunet), 2009, p. 71-96.)

La Lecture inaugurale a été donnée par S.E. Mme Rosalyn Higgins, président de la Cour internationale de justice, sur le thème : « The International Court of Justice and Some Private International Law Thoughts ». La conférence a été suivie d’une réception ; elle a connu un très grand succès, avec plus de deux cents participants. (R. Higgins, « The International Court of Justice and Private International Law Thoughts », In: R. Higgins, Themes and Theories. Selected Essays, Speeches and Writings in International Law, vol. 2, Oxford University Press (2009) p. 1307-1319.)

Baptiste Rigaudeau Intervenant invité

2018 - current

International Law LLM, City University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong SAR)
Topic: Environmental Issues in Investment Arbitration

Daniel Lucien Bühr Chargé de cours

2018

Haute école spécialisée de Lucerne
MAS/DAS Economic Crime Investigation 15/17

Daniel Lucien Bühr Chargé de cours

2018

Université de Lucerne
CAS Bank Operations & Compliance: Swiss banks’ code of conduct (CDB 16), AML Act and Ordinances, Corruption

Daniel Lucien Bühr Chargé de cours

2018

Haute école spécialisée de Lucerne / Institut Suisse de Police
CAS Financial Investigation 09/17

Daniel Lucien Bühr Chargé de cours

2018

Université de Lucerne
CAS Financial Investigation: Conformité, Corruption et Droit Pénal des Sociétés

Leonid Shmatenko Chargé de cours invité

2018 - current

Université nationale de droit « Yaroslav Mudryi » (Kharkiv, Ukraine)
Droit international en matière d’investissement et arbitrage

Thomas Widmer Chargé du module

2017 - aujourd'hui

Université de Genève (Geneval School of Economics and Management) et Université Savoie Mont Blanc
Droit international des affaires, Propriété intellectuelle

Daniel Lucien Bühr Chargé de cours

2017

Université de Lucerne
MAS/DAS Economic Crime Investigation: Best Practice Compliance Management: ISO Standards 19600 / 37001

Daniel Lucien Bühr Chargé de cours

2017

Université du Liechtenstein
Certificat de stage compliance Officer: Corporate Compliance I et II
Compliance-culture, éthique, valeurs et intégrité et ISO Standard 19600 - Systèmes de management de la compliance

Leonid Shmatenko Chargé de cours invité

2016 - 2018

Université nationale technique d'Ukraine « Institut polytechnique Igor-Sikorski de Kiev »
Droit international en matière d’investissement et arbitrage

Teresa Giovannini Orateur

2016

Université d’Oxford, Queen’s College
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) Diploma Course in International Commercial Arbitration, 2016
Journée 4, Workshop II et Journée 5, “Procedure for the Arbitration”

Bernd Ehle Chargé de cours

2016

Université de Münster, Faculté de Droit
International Commercial Arbitration

Nicolas Ollivier Coach – examinateur

2016

Université de Fribourg
Séminaire en droit bancaire et financier

Laura Halonen Chargée de cours : Introduction and Procedure

2016

UNITAR E-learning Course
Introduction to Investment Arbitration. A joint LALIVE/UNITAR e-learning initiative
See the Course outline. More information at UNITAR's website.

Werner Jahnel Intervenant

2015

Danube Université Krems
Résolution des Litiges – La Loi d'Arbitrage autrichienne

Teresa Giovannini Orateur

2015

Université d’Oxford, Institut de Droit Européen et Comparé, BCL/MJur International Commercial Arbitration
Distinguished Guest Seminar Series
“Ex officio Powers of tribunals to investigate the facts and the law: when do arbitrators cross the line?” Et “The Arbitrator’s Initiative: Facilitating the Settlement of the Dispute”

Nhu-Hoang Tran Thang Chargée de cours

2015

Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas, Université nationale d’Ho Chi Minh Ville, faculté de droit et d’économie (UEL), Université royale de droit et sciences économiques de Phnom Penh
Droit financier

Clàudia Baró Huelmo Intervenante

2015 - 2016

Université autonome de Barcelone
Droit international public, Droit pénal international, Droit international des droits de l'homme et Droit institutionnel international

Daniel Lucien Bühr Chargé de cours

2015

Université du Liechtenstein
Certificat de stage compliance Officer: Corporate Compliance I
ISO Standard 19600 – Systèmes de management de la compliance

Christophe Guibert de Bruet Chargé de cours : Award, Enforcement and Annulment

2014

UNITAR E-learning Course
Introduction to Investment Arbitration. A joint LALIVE/UNITAR e-learning initiative

Jaime Gallego Chargé de cours : Jurisdiction and admissibility

2014

UNITAR E-learning Course
Introduction to Investment Arbitration. A joint LALIVE/UNITAR e-learning initiative

Laura Halonen Chargée de cours : Introduction and Procedure

2014

UNITAR E-learning Course
Introduction to Investment Arbitration. A joint LALIVE/UNITAR e-learning initiative
See the Course outline. More information at UNITAR's website.

Marc Henzelin Chargé de cours

2014

Haute Ecole de Gestion de Genève
Diplôme d'Etudes Avancées en Intelligence Economique et Veille Stratégique

Thomas Widmer Chargé du module

2014

Université de Genève, Faculté des Sciences Economiques et Sociales
Approche juridique et régulation - Business Communication, Expertises Web et Réseaux Sociaux

Jorge E. Viñuales Harold Samuel Professor of Law and Environmental Policy / Directeur, MPhil in Environmental Policy

2013

Université de Cambridge, Royaume Uni

Joachim Knoll Chargé de cours et membre du Conseil Académique

2013

Swiss Arbitration Academy
Cours post-universitaire en matière d'arbitrage (en coopération avec l'Université de Lucerne et l'Université de Neuchâtel), Genève

Werner Jahnel Intervenant

2013

Université de Vienne
Arbitrage international commercial

Marc Henzelin Orateur

2013

Académie de Droit International de La Haye
Cours de perfectionnement : Les immunités en droit international public et privé Marc Henzelin : Les immunités dans le domaine bancaire et financier)

Laura Halonen Chargée de cours : Introduction and Procedure

2012

UNITAR E-learning Course
Introduction to Investment Arbitration. A joint LALIVE/UNITAR e-learning initiative
See the Course outline. More information at UNITAR's website.

Bernd Ehle Chargé de cours

2012

Université de Fribourg, Faculté de Droit, Master of Laws (LL.M.) in Cross-Cultural Business Practice
International Construction Contracts (including dispute resolution)

Noradèle Radjai Chargée de cours : Award, enforcement and challenge

2011

UNITAR E-learning Course
Introduction to Investment Arbitration. A joint LALIVE/UNITAR e-learning initiative
See the Course outline. More information at UNITAR's website.

Michael E. Schneider Chargé de cours

2011

Université de Fribourg, Faculté de Droit, Master of Laws (LL.M.) in Cross-Cultural Business Practice
International Construction Contracts (including dispute resolution) / International Joint Ventures
Pour plus d'information, voir le plan de cours (International Construction Contracts) et le plan de cours (International Joint Ventures).

Laura Halonen Chargée de cours : Introduction and Procedure

2011

UNITAR E-learning Course
Introduction to Investment Arbitration. A joint LALIVE/UNITAR e-learning initiative
See the Course outline. More information at UNITAR's website.

Jaime Gallego Chargé de cours : Jurisdiction and admissibility

2011

UNITAR E-learning Course
Introduction to Investment Arbitration. A joint LALIVE/UNITAR e-learning initiative
See the Course outline. More information at UNITAR's website.

Werner Jahnel Intervenant

2010

Northwestern University, Chicago
Executive Master of Laws (EXLL.M.) program on international legal practice
Arbitrage international

Ignacio Guaia Assistant de recherche

2010

Universidad del Salvador (Buenos Aires, Argentine)
Arbitrage International (un semestre)

Jorge E. Viñuales Pictet Chair du droit international de l’environnement / Directeur, Programme on Environmental Governance / Directeur, LLM Programme in International Law

2009 - 2013

Institut de hautes études internationales et du développement, Suisse

Marc D. Veit Chargé de cours: Arbitrage international

2009 - 2012

Université de Fribourg

Simone Nadelhofer Chargée de cours

2009

Université de Lucerne
Droit pénal

Veijo Heiskanen Professeur Adjoint

2009

Université de Lausanne
Arbitrage international

Jean-Paul Vulliéty Codirecteur et membre du comité scientifique

2008

Université de Genève
Master en négoce international
Pour plus d'informations, voir le site de l'université de Genève et celui du master.

Marc Henzelin Professeur invité

2008

Université de Turin et United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI)
Master de droit en Crime et justice internationaux, Cours sur « Transnational Jurisdiction, Mutual Judicial Assistance and Police Cooperation »

Simone Nadelhofer Chargée de recherche

2007

Ludwig Maximilians-Universität, Munich
Droit pénal économique, Bourse fédérale suisse

Jean-Paul Vulliéty Professeur

2006

Université de Genève
Maîtrise en droit des affaires des universités de Genève et Lausanne
Droit international de la construction

Werner Jahnel Professeur adjoint

2006 - 2013

Faculté de droit de l'Instituto de Empresa (IE) de Madrid
LL.M de pratique juridique internationale
Arbitrage international

Jean-Paul Vulliéty Professeur ordinaire

2006

Université de Genève
Droit des contrats internationaux et droit des obligations et directeur de la chaire de droit des affaires de la Faculté des Sciences économiques de l'Université de Genève

Alexander Troller Expert-intervenant

2004

Institut pour la formation et la recherche (UNITAR) pour les aspects juridiques de la gestion de la dette publique des pays en développement, Nations Unies

Jean-Paul Vulliéty Professeur

2003

Université de Genève
Licence et maîtrise,
Droit suisse et international des obligations et des contrats

Marc Henzelin Chargé de cours

2003

Université de Neuchâtel
Droit pénal international

Marc Henzelin Chargé de cours

2003

Université de Hong-Kong
Droit des conflits armés

Domitille Baizeau Intervenante invitée

2002 - 2004

Institut du Droit Économique et Social, Université de Paris IX Dauphine, France
English Law (Masters student)

Noradèle Radjai Chargée de cours

2002

Faculté de droit de l'université de Milan, Italie
Droit des sociétés et commercial anglais (un semestre)

Veijo Heiskanen Professeur Adjoint

2002

Académie de droit international de La Haye

Jean-Paul Vulliéty Professeur invité

2001

Université catholique de Louvain (UCL)

Marc Henzelin Co-fondateur et co-directeur

2001 - 2003

Université de Genève
Centre Universitaire de Droit International Humanitaire, renommée depuis 2007 « Académie de Droits Humains » (ADH)

Marc Henzelin Chargé de cours

2001 - 2005

Université de Genève
Droit pénal international et entraide internationale en matière pénale

Marc D. Veit Chargé de cours: Droit public

2000 - 2008

Université de St. Gallen

Marc Henzelin Chercheur

2000 - 2001

Université de Genève
Chercheur en droit pénal international (bourse suisse)

Jean-Paul Vulliéty Chargé d'enseignement

2000

Faculté de droit de l'université de Neuchâtel
Droit suisse des contrats

Domitille Baizeau Chargée de travaux dirigés

1999

Faculté de droit, université de Canterbury, Nouvelle-Zélande
Droit commercial

Veijo Heiskanen Professeur Adjoint

1998

Université d'Helsinki
Droit international

Domitille Baizeau Assistante de recherche

1995

Faculté de droit, université de Canterbury, Nouvelle-Zélande
Droit international public (droit de la mer)

Marc Henzelin Assistant, puis maître-assistant

1995 - 2000

Université de Genève
Droit pénal général, droit pénal spécial, procédure pénale, droit pénal international et entraide internationale en matière pénale

Domitille Baizeau Chargée de travaux dirigés

1995

Faculté de droit, université de Canterbury, Nouvelle-Zélande
Introduction au système juridique

Jean-Paul Vulliéty Chargé d'enseignement

1989

Faculté de droit de l'université de Genève
Introduction générale au droit suisse des sociétés

Michael E. Schneider Directeur d’études

1987

Centre d'étude et de recherche de droit international et de relations internationales de l'Académie de droit international de La Haye

Michael E. Schneider Consultant

1987

Université de Genève et Institut des Hautes Etudes Internationales (HEI, Genève)

Aucun élément ne correspond à votre recherche

The Swiss Arbitration Association’s Bulletin (ASA Bulletin), founded by Professor Pierre LALIVE in 1983, is one of the leading and most read journals in international arbitration. The ASA Bulletin, which is published quarterly, features articles on topical issues in arbitration, as well as case law: significant decisions from Swiss courts, selected landmark cases from foreign jurisdictions, redacted arbitral awards and procedural decisions (all summarized in English).

The ASA Bulletin’s readers and contributors comprise an ever-increasing number of arbitration practitioners around the globe.

In keeping with its tradition and to contribute to its ongoing success, arbitration experts of the firm are actively involved in its preparation and publication, including: Matthias SCHERER as Editor in Chief and Catherine A. KUNZ as member of the Editorial Board.

Link to ASA Bulletin: http://www.arbitration-ch.org/en/publications/asa-bulletin/index.html

Les autres revues auxquelles les membres de l’Etude contribuent sont :

  • Journal des Tribunaux-Droit européen (JTDE) : le Professeur Vulliéty est le correspondant suisse JDT-DE
  • Transnational Dispute Management (TDM) : le Dr. Heiskanen est co-rédacteur TDM
  • International Construction Law Review (ICLR), Londres : Me Michael E. Schneider est le correspondant suisse
  • Revue de droit international et comparé (Bruxelles) : le Professeur Vulliéty est le correspondant suisse et membre du comité scientifique
  • New Journal of European Criminal Law (NJECL) Bruxelles : le Dr. M. Henzelin est membre du Comité consultatif (revue officielle de la European Criminal Bar Association)
  • Swiss International Arbitration Law Reports : Me Scherer est co-rédacteur Swiss I Arb LR
  • Global Investigations Review (GIR) : le Dr. M. Henzelin est membre du comité de redaction