The “concentration of public elements” theory and the arbitrability of disputes in Russia

Аннотация

This article is devoted to the analysis of the theory of concentration of public elements. The author explains the causes of this theory and its influence on the arbitrability of disputes in Russia. The causes of this jurisdictional theory are illustrated in the development of substantive law. The work emphasizes that the two sectors of civil turnover regulation, which have developed in Russia, largely affect the formation of dispute resolution mechanisms. This also applies to the issue of determining the range of disputes that the arbitral tribunal is entitled to accept for its consideration. The author stresses that there are no norms in the legislation on which the theory of concentration of public elements is based. It is generated exclusively by judicial decisions, which are not always consistent. This is evidenced by the fact that, despite the precedent nature of one of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the arbitrability of procurement disputes for the needs of certain types of legal entities, lower cassation courts refuse to recognize the arbitrability of this category of disputes. At the same time, they refer to the violation of public order when considering procurement disputes by arbitration courts. This is seen as some manipulation in which a conservative approach to the activities of arbitration courts is provided by the arbitrary involvement of various doctrines that have no basis in the law. The author predicts the negative consequences of the development of this doctrine, which will take place in the form of limiting the arbitrability of disputes considered by commercial arbitrations and in relation to other categories of cases in which a public element will be manifested to a greater or lesser extent.

 

Скачивания

Данные скачивания пока недоступны.
 

Литература

References

Braun, Bruce R. 1989. “The Arbitration of Federal Domestic Antitrust Claims: How Safe is the American Safety Doctrine?” Pepperdine Law Review 16 (5): S201–S236.

Fuglsang, Eric J. 1997. “The Arbitrability of Domestic Antitrust Disputes: Where Does the Law Stand?” DePaul Law Review 46 (3): 779–822.

Ioffe, Olimpiad S. 2000. “Legal regulation of economic activity in the USSR”. Ioffe, Olimpiad S. Izbrannye trudy po grazhdanskomu pravu: Iz istorii tsivilisticheskoi mysli. Grazhdanskoe pravootnoshenie. Kritika teorii “khoziaistvennogo prava”, 700–745. Moscow, Statut Publ. (In Russian)

Ivanov, Anton A. 2018. “Does two-sector return?” Zakon. Accessed November 12, 2020. https://zakon.ru/blog/2018/01/25/dvuhsektornoe_pravo_vozvraschaetsya#.Wmr4guuPDLQ.facebook. (In Russian)

Kalinin, Mikhail S. 2018. “Arbitrability of disputes in the light of the Russian concept of concentration of socially significant public elements”. Novye gorizonty mezhdunarodnogo arbitrazha, iss. 4, eds Anton V. Asoskov, Alexandr I. Muranov, Roman M. Khodykin, 58–85. Moscow, Nauka prava Publ. (In Russian)

Karabelnikov, Boris. R. 2018a. “Arbitrability again or the same old tune in a new setting”. Zakon 10: 148–158.(In Russian)

Karabelnikov, Boris. R. 2018b. “The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation puts an end to the dispute over the arbitrability of disputes under Russian law”. Mudryi Iurist. Accessed November 12, 2020. https://wiselawyer.ru/poleznoe/52700-konstitucionnyj-rossijskoj-federacii-stavit-tochku-spore-arbitrabilnosti.(In Russian)

Lee, Mark R. 1987. “Antitrust and Commercial Arbitration: An Economic Analysis”. St. John’s Law Review 62 (1): 1–44.

Lenin, Vladimir I. 1967. “About the Tasks of the People’s Commissariat of Justice against the Background of the NEP [New Economic Policy]”. Lenin, Vladimir I. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 44, 396–400. Moscow, Politicheskaia literatura Publ. (In Russian)

Malitskaya, Alina I., Evgeny O. Ushkalov, Yan S. Klimenkov. 2018. “Analytical note on monitoring law enforcement on the issue of the arbitrability of disputes arising out of contracts concluded in accordance with Federal Law of 18 July 2011 No. 223-FZ ‘On Procurement of Goods, Works, Service by Certain Types of Legal Entities’”. Treteiskii sud 3/4 (115/116): 64–71. (In Russian)

Muranov, Aleksandr I. 2018. “Public and private in arbitration. Analysis of the request of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation about nonarbitratbility of disputes in connection with the procurement by certain types of legal entities”. Vestnik mezhdunarodnogo kommercheskogo arbitrazha 1 (16): 134–214. (In Russian)

Skvortsov, Oleg Yu., Leonid G. Kropotov. 2018. “Arbitration Changes in Russia: Revolution or Evolution?” Journal of International Arbitration 35 (2): 253–266.

Stuchka, Petr I. 1964. Selected works on Marxist-Leninist theory of law. Riga, Latviiskoe gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo Publ. (In Russian)

Usoskin, Sergey V. 2018. “Arbitrability of disputes arising out of contracts concluded within the framework of special procurement procedures (Law No. 223): a step forward and a jump back”. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii 12: 22–27. (In Russian)

Опубликован
2021-04-08
Как цитировать
Skvortsov, O. Y. (2021). The “concentration of public elements” theory and the arbitrability of disputes in Russia. Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Право, 12(1), 112-122. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2021.107
Раздел
Публичное и частное право: прикладные исследования