Producción y oferta de los productos agrícolas

This study provided a comparative analysis of incorporation of charterparty arbitration clauses into B/Ls by reference under English and Norwegian laws. As highlighted above, incorpora-tion by reference raises quesincorpora-tions of the formal and substantive validity of an arbitraincorpora-tion agreement so incorporated. While arbitration clause incorporated by reference received statu-tory recognition as to the formal validity under both legal systems, its binding force vis-à-vis third parties remains subject of interpretation.

Under English law, general rule is that only specific reference in the B/L can bring a char-terparty arbitration clause into the B/L. Nevertheless, general reference to a charchar-terparty arbi-tration clause may successfully incorporate such clause only when it is worded so to make sense in the context of the B/L.

Under Norwegian law, a charterparty arbitration clause is not binding on a third party holder of the B/L unless expressly provided otherwise in the B/L. In absence of such express provi-sion, charterparty arbitration clause cannot be validly incorporated into the B/L, except when the holder was otherwise aware of existence of such clause in the charterparty. Amendments to the NMC are expected to change this attitude towards more liberal approach (Alternative A), or set even stricter requirements (Alternative B).

In principle, these two legal systems approach the issue of incorporation differently. While Norwegian law is more concerned with establishing actual or constructive notice of such clause by the holder, English law focuses on its formulation. English judge will examine whether the reference clause on the one hand, and the arbitration clause, on the other hand, are worded so as to warrant incorporation.

As the application of different laws may result in different outcomes, legal certainty requires that the law governing the validity of incorporation is determined. Arbitral tribunal is expected to apply the conflict of law rule provided in Art.V(1)(a) of the NY Convention to determine the proper governing law. Nevertheless, given the pro-arbitration approach, arbitral tribunals will normally assess the validity of incorporation against the law under which the agreement will be sustained.

English courts are settled on the issue that the formation of the disputed part of the contract is governed by the law, which would be the proper law of the contract if that part were validly concluded.³²⁹ Preference will thus be given to the choice of law made by the parties, even if such choice is evidenced in the clause sought incorporated. In absence of choice by the parties, the courts will apply the law having the closest connection to the subject matter. This will most likely be lex loci arbitri.

Norwegian legislation is reluctant to lay down the conflict of law rule of general applicability but rather takes a case-oriented approach.³³⁰ With respect to the substantive validity of an arbi-tration clause, Norwegian court will apply the law chosen by the parties. In absence of such choice, flexible individualizing method will be resorted to find the law warranting the most natural and fair result.

Considering English and Norwegian solutions, there might be a justification for advocating that incorporation clauses should be strictly construed.³³¹ In practice, it is often the case that the holder of the B/L never sees the charterparty.³³² From the viewpoint of the marketability and transferability of negotiable instruments, the incorporation of charterparty terms can only

329 The Parouth, 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 351 (C.A. 1982); The Atlantic Emperor, 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 548 (C.A. 1989).

330 Cordero Moss, “The Norwegian Approach to Private International Law - Illustrated by a Recent Supreme Court Decision on the Direct Action Against the Insurer” in T.M.C. Asser Instituut, Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law, p.67.

331 Falkanger, “The Incorporation of Charterparty Terms into the Bill of Lading,” p.83.

332 Jurisdiction and Forum Selection in International Maritime Law, p.31.

be effective against subsequent holders if these parties are given a chance to ascertain their rights and obligations under the contract of carriage.³³³

However, “the art and science of arbitration is a living and changing thing.”³³⁴ Given the rap-id development of international commercial arbitration in the recent decades³³⁵ and the tradi-tional role of arbitration in maritime dispute resolution, arbitration agreements are no more exceptions in this industry.³³⁶ Therefore, policy rationale behind requiring specific reference to the arbitration provision seems overrated.³³⁷ Arbitration clauses have become widely used terms in international contracts which commercial parties can be expected to be aware of.³³⁸ According to the general principle of contract law, a party must have sufficient information to be able to ascertain the consequences of its actions.³³⁹ This does not however relieve a holder from the obligation to take necessary precautions, just as any other commercial party would take, and to inform itself of the clauses it may be signing onto.³⁴⁰ This can be easily attained by CIF or CFR buyer through respective arrangements in the contract of sale with the seller, the charterer.³⁴¹

The rules on incorporation must not be used mechanically but rather the act of acceptance of the terms of dispute settlement by the holder must be established in each case.³⁴² As it was

333 Wilson, Carriage of Goods by Sea, pp.250–251; Jurisdiction and Forum Selection in International Maritime Law, pp.28–29.

334 F. D Rose, International commercial and maritime arbitration (London; Agincourt, Ont.: Sweet & Maxwell;

Carswell Co. [distributor for Canada and U.S.A.], 1988), p.2.

335 Fouchard, Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration, p.1.

336 Sparka, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses in Maritime Transport Documents, p.121; Tweeddale and Tweeddale, “Incorporation of Arbitration Clauses Revisited,” p.660.

337 Hosking, “The Third Party Non-signatory’s Ability to Compel International Commercial Arbitration: Doing Justice Without Destroying Consent,” p.540.

338 Sparka, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses in Maritime Transport Documents, p.118.

339 Ibid., p.186.

340 Ibid.

341 ICC guide to incoterms 2010: understanding and practical use (Paris: ICC Publishing S.A, 2011), pp.28–29.

342 Sparka, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses in Maritime Transport Documents, p.121.

properly ascertained by Justice Gross in The Siboti: ”In every case, the Court is seeking to ascertain the intention of the parties and, when construing the language, it is necessary to have regard to the individual context and commercial background.”³⁴³

Therefore, the court, seized with the matter of validity of incorporation, must primarily focus on actual or constructive knowledge of the holder and his act of acceptance. The ultimate aim is to establish the knowledge of the clause the holder had or should have had when accepting the B/L. The relevant factors in this assessment would be the experience of the parties, their knowledge of the trade, negotiation history, and prior communication between the parties.

Holder’s knowledge or lack of knowledge ought not to be judged solely by looking at the wording of the reference clause in the B/L or arbitration clause in the charterparty. This is the only fair solution to secure holder’s procedural right to court adjudication and preserve con-sensual nature of arbitration.

343 The Siboti, 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 364 (Q.B.D. 2003), para. 36.

TABLE OF REFERENCES

Books & Articles

Ambrose, Clare, and Karen Maxwell. London maritime arbitration. London; New York: LLP, 2002.

Bagot, Michael H., and Dana A. Henderson. “Not Party, Not Bound? Not Necessarily: Bind-ing Third Parties to Maritime Arbitration.” Tulane Maritime Law Journal 26 (2002 2001); 413–461.

Berg, A. J. van den. The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958: Towards a Uniform Judi-cial Interpretation. Deventer; Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation, 1981.

Blackaby, Nigel. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration. 5th ed. Oxon; New York:

Oxford University Press, 2009.

Born, Gary. International Arbitration: Law and Practice. Kluwer Law International, 2012.

“Charterparty Arbitration Clause not Incorporated into Bill of Lading.” Journal of Business Law (May 1989); 249–252.

Chessin, Lisa Beth. “The Applicability of an Arbitration Clause Contained in a Bill of Lading to Third Parties: Steel Warehouse Co. v. Abalone Shipping Ltd.” Tulane Maritime Law Journal 23 (1998-1999); 575.

“Collection of documents in maritime law.” Sjørettsfondet, 2012.

Cooke, J. H. S, and Michael Wilford. Voyage charters. London; New York: Lloyd’s of Lon-don Press, 1993.

Cordero Moss, Giuditta. Lectures on International Commercial Law. No.162. Publications Series of the Institute of Private Law, University of Oslo, 2003.

———. “Recent Private International Law Codifications National Report for Norway.” In Private International Law. Washington, 2010.

———. “The Norwegian Approach to Private International Law - Illustrated by a Recent Su-preme Court Decision on the Direct Action Against the Insurer” (2004); 55–68.

Cordero-Moss, Giuditta. International Commercial Arbitration: Party Autonomy and Manda-tory Rules. Oslo: Tano Aschehoug, 1999.

Dicey, Albert Venn, Lawrence Collins, and Briggs. Dicey, Morris and Collins on the conflict of laws. Vol. 1. 15th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell/Thomson Reuters, 2012.

Falkanger, Thor. Scandinavian Maritime Law: The Norwegian Perspective. 3d ed. Oslo, Nor-way: Universitetsforlaget, 2011.

———. “The Incorporation of Charterparty Terms into the Bill of Lading.” Skrifter Utgivna Av Sjörättsföreningen i Göteborg no. 3 (1967-1968); 55–87.

Fouchard, Philippe. Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration.

The Hague; Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999.

Girvin, Stephen. Carriage of Goods by Sea. 2nd ed. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Goldby, Miriam. “Incorporation of Charterparty Arbitration Clauses into Bills of Lading: Re-cent Developments.” Denning Law Journal 19 (2007); 171–180.

Harris, Bruce, Rowan Planterose, Jonathan Tecks, Great Britain, and Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. The Arbitration Act 1996: a commentary. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2000.

Hosking, James M. “The Third Party Non-signatory’s Ability to Compel International Com-mercial Arbitration: Doing Justice Without Destroying Consent.” Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 4 (2004-2003); 469–588.

ICC guide to incoterms 2010: understanding and practical use. Paris: ICC Publishing S.A, 2011.

International Commercial Arbitration: Different Forms and Their Features. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

International Council for Commercial Arbitration, and Permanent Court of Arbitration. IC-CA’s guide to the interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention: a handbook for judges. The Hague: International Council for Commercial Arbitration, 2011.

Jurisdiction and Forum Selection in International Maritime Law: Essays in Honor of Robert Force. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2005.

Kolrud, Helge Jakob. Lov om voldgift: kommentarutgave. Oslo: Univ.-Forl., 2007.

Lanfang, Fei. “A Review of Judicial Attitudes Towards the Incorporation of Arbitration Clauses into Bills of Lading in China.” The Journal of International Maritime Law 15, no. 1 (February 2009); pp.99–103.

Lew, Julian D. M. “Albert Jan Van Den Berg (ed), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards: 40 Years of Application of the New York Convention.”

Kluwer Law International 1999 9. ICCA Congress Series (1998); 114-145.

“Lov Om Voldgift (voldgiftsloven), Utredning Fra Tvistemålsutvalget Oppnevnt Ved Kgl.

Res. 9. April 1999; Avgitt Til Justis- Og Politidepartementet 20. Desember 2001.”

Norges offentlige utredninger, 2000.

Maritime Law. 2nd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2011.

McKendrick, Ewan. Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 2nd ed. Oxford [England];

New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

McMahon, John P. “The Hague Rules and Incorporation of Charter Party Arbitration Clauses into Bills of Lading.” Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 2, no. 1 (1971-1970).

Merkin, Robert M, and Louis Flannery. Arbitration Act 1996. 4th ed. London: Informa, 2008.

Moses, Margaret L. The principles and practice of international commercial arbitration.

Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Peel, Edwin, and G. H Treitel. Treitel on the law of contract. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2007.

Permanent Court of Arbitration, and International Council for Commercial Arbitration. Inter-national Handbook on Commercial Arbitration. Supplement 74, June 2013. The Hague; Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1984.

Posner, Richard A., and Aspen Publishers. Economic Analysis of Law. 8th ed. Aspen Case-book Series. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2011.

Rose, F. D. International commercial and maritime arbitration. London; Agincourt, Ont.:

Sweet & Maxwell; Carswell Co. [distributor for Canada and U.S.A.], 1988.

Scrutton, Thomas Edward. Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading. 22nd ed. London:

Sweet & Maxwell Thomson Reuters, 2011.

Siig, Kristina Maria. “Arbitration agreements in a transport law perspective.” DJØF Pub., 2003.

———. “Forum and Choice of Law in the Liner and Tramp Trades.” SIMPLY Scandinavian Institute Yearbook of Maritime Law 1997 no. 240 (1998); 32–58.

———. “Norwegian Law on the Formal Validity of Arbitration Agreements.” Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law Yearbook 2002 no. MarIus nr. 295 (2002); 1–41.

Sparka, Felix. Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses in Maritime Transport Documents: a Comparative Analysis. Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs 19. Heidelberg; London:

Springer, 2010.

T.M.C. Asser Instituut. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law:

Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh. The Hague: New York: T.M.C. Asser Press; Dis-tributed by Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Tetley, William. “A Summary of General Criticisms of the UNCITRAL Convention (The Rot-terdam Rules),” December 20, 2008. Available at: http://www.mcgill.ca/maritimelaw/.

Todd, Paul. “Incorporation of Arbitration Clauses into Bills of Lading.” Journal of Business Law (July 1997); 331–349.

Tørum, Amund Bjøranger, Lars Trygve Jenssen, and Kvale Advokatfirma DA. “Incorporation of Arbitration Clauses: Norwegian Law Perspective.” PLC Multi-jurisdictional Guide to Arbitration (March 1, 2010). Available at: http://uk.practicallaw.com/4-502-1302#a521049.

Treitel, G. H. Carver on Bills of Lading. 2nd ed. British Shipping Laws. London: Sweet &

Maxwell, 2005.

———. Carver on Bills of Lading. 3rd ed. British Shipping Laws. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2011.

Tweeddale, Andrew. Arbitration of Commercial Disputes: International and English Law and Practice. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Tweeddale, Keren, and Andrew Tweeddale. “Incorporation of Arbitration Clauses Revisited.”

Arbitration 76, no. 4. Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (November 2010); 656–660.

Wagener, Michael. “Legal Certainty and the Incorporation of Charterparty Arbitration Clauses in Bills of Lading.” Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce 40, no. 1 (January 2009).

Wetterstein, Peter. Sjörättsliga skrifter III. Turku: Univ., 2000.

Wilson, John Furness. Carriage of Goods by Sea. 7th ed. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2010.

Winship, Peter. “Arbitration of Maritime Disputes under the Rotterdam Rules.” Kluwer

Arbi-tration Blog, June 18, 2012. Available at:

http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2012/06/18/arbitration-of-maritime-disputes-under-the-rotterdam-rules/#fn-5222-1.

Zekos, Georgios I. “Comparative Analysis of the Contractual Role of Bills of Lading Under Greek, United States and English Law.” Managerial Law 24, no. 1 (2000); 1–30.

———. International Commercial and Marine Arbitration. Routledge-Cavendish Research in International Commercial Law. London; New York: Routledge-Cavendish, 2008.

Zuberbühler, Tobias. “Non-Signatories and the Consensus to Arbitrate.” ASA Bulletin 26, no.

1 (2008); 18 – 34.

Treaties & Legal Acts

Arbitration Act of England, 1996; Cited as: Arbitration Act 1996.

Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-cial Matters, 1968; Cited as: Brussels Convention.

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1992; Cited as: COGSA 1992.

International Convention for the unification of certain rules of law relating to bills of lading signed at Brussels on 25 August 1924, as amended by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 February 1968 and by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 21 December 1979;

Cited as: HVR.

New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958;

Cited as: NY Convention.

Norwegian Arbitration Act, May 14, 2004 No.25; Authorized translation published in Kolrud, Helge Jakob. Lov om voldgift: kommentarutgave. Oslo: Univ.-Forl., 2007; Cited as:

Arbitration Act 2004.

Norwegian Maritime Code, June 24, 1994 No.39, with later amendments up to an including Act of March 26, 2010 No.10; unofficial student edition published in Marius No.393, Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law, Oslo, 2010; Cited as: NMC.

UNCITRAL model law on international commercial arbitration, 1985 in United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, and United Nations. UNCITRAL model law on international commercial arbitration 1985: with amendments as adopted in 2006.

Vienna [Austria]: United Nations, 2008; Cited as: UNCITRAL Model Law.

United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, 2008 in United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea. Vienna: United Nations, 2009; Cited as: Rotterdam Rules.

United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978; Cited as: Hamburg Rules.

Case Law English Cases

Atlas Levante Linie AG v. Gesellschaft Fuer Getriedehandel AB, 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports 150 (Q.B.D. 1966); Cited as: The Phonizien.

Aughton Ltd (formerly Aughton Group Ltd) v. MF Kent Services Ltd, 57 B.L.R. 1 (C.A. 1991);

Cited as: The Aughton.

C v. D, EWHC 1541 (Q.B.D. 2007).

Cehave NV v. Bremer Handelgesselschaft mbh, QB 44 (C.A. 1976); Cited as: The Hansa Nord.

Compania Naviera Micro S.A. v. Shipley International Inc., 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 351 (C.A. 1982);

Cited as: The Parouth.

Daval Aciers D’Usinor et de Sacilor v. Armare SRL, 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 (C.A. 1996); Cited as:

The Nerano.

Excess Insurance Co Ltd v. Mander, 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 119 (Q.B.D. 1997).

Federal Bulk Carriers Inc v. C. Itoh Ltd, 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 103 (C.A. 1989); Cited as: The Fed-eral Bulker.

Hamilton & Co. v. Mackie & Sons, 5 T.L.R. 677 (C.A. 1889); Cited as: Hamilton v. Mackie.

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., 2 QB 29 (C.A. 1962).

Marc Rich & Co.A.G. v. Societa Italiana Impianti P.A., 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 548 (C.A. 1989); Cited as: The Atlantic Emperor.

Maredelanto Compania Naviera S.A. v. Bergbau-Handel G.m.b.H., 1 QB 164 (C.A. 1970);

Cited as: The Mihalis Angelos.

Miramar Maritime Corp v. Holborn Oil Trading, 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 129 (HL 1984); Cited as: The Miramar.

National Navigation Co. v. Endesa Generacion SA, EWHC 196 (EWHC (Commercial Court) 2009); Cited as: The Wadi Sudr.

Naviera Amazonica Peruana S.A. v. Compania International de Seguros del Peru, 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 116 (C.A. 1988).

Navigazione Alta Italia SpA v. Svenske Petroleum AB, 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 452 (Q.B.D. 1988); Cit-ed as: The Nai Matteini.

Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board the MV Delos v. Delos Shipping Ltd, 1 Lloyd’s Rep.

703 (Q.B.D. 2001); Cited as: The Delos.

Owners of the Annefield v. Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Annefield, 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 (C.A. 1971); Cited as: The Annefield.

Pacific Molasses Co. and United Molasses Trading Co. Ltd v. Entre Rios Compania Naviera S.A., 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 8 (C.A. 1976); Cited as: The San Nicholas.

Siboti K/S v. BP France SA, 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 364 (Q.B.D. 2003); Cited as: The Siboti.

Skips A/S Nordheim and others v. Syrian Petroleum Co. Ltd. and Petrofina S.A., 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 416 (Q.B.D. 1983); Cited as: The Varenna.

T. W. Thomas & Co. Ltd v. Portsea S.S. Co. Ltd, A.C. 1 (HL 1912); Cited as: The Portsmouth.

TB&S Batchelor & Co Ltd v. Owners of the SS Merak, 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 527 (C.A. 1964); Cited as: The Merak.

The Njegos, 53 LLoyd’s List Law Reports 286 (Adm.Ct. 1935).

The Rena K, 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 545 (Q.B.D. 1978).

Trygg Hansa Insurance Co Ltd v. Equitas Ltd, 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 439 (Q.B.D. 1997).

XL Insurance Ltd. v. Owens Corning, 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 500 (Q.B.D. 2000).

Norwegian Cases

Argo, ND 223 (NSC 1970).

Flekkefjord v. Caterpillar, HR 01539 (NSC 2000).

Irma-Mignon, ND 289 (NSC 1923).

Jalna, ND 366 (NCA 1957).

Leros Strength, Rt. 180 (NSC 2002).

Ostmark, ND 703 (NCA 1953).

Sitas v. Høglund, Rt. 635 (NSC 1991).

Skarvøy II, Rt. 1215 (NSC 1962).

TINE v. Løken, Rt. 1532 (NSC 1999).

Vekstmiljø AS v. Ase Gartneri AS, Rt. 675 (NSC 2004).

Østrem et al v. Byggeservice, Rt. 773 (NSC 1991).

U.S. Cases

Thomson-CSF S.A. v. American Arbitration Association, 64 F 3d 773 (2d Cir. 1995).

United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582 (US.S.Ct. 1960).

Vimar Seguros Y Reaseguros, S.A. v. MN Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528, 541 (US.S.Ct. 1995).

Other

Bomar Oil v. ETAP, Revue de L’arbitrage 291 (C.A. Versailles 1991).

Consultant (France) v. Egyptian Local Authority, Case No.6162, XVII Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 153 (ICC 1992); Cited as: Case No.6162.

London Arbitration 11/06, 2 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter 697 (2006).

Seller (Korea) v. Buyer (Jordan) Case No.6149, XX Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 41–57 (ICC 1995); Cited as: Case No.6149.

The Dolphina, 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 304 (High Court of Singapore 2011).

Other Sources

“Collection of documents in maritime law.” Sjørettsfondet, 2012.

“Implementation of the Rotterdam Rules of the Maritime Code.” NOU 2012:10, 2012; Au-thor’s translation.

“Official Records of the United Nations Conference on the Carriage of Goods by Sea.”

A/CONF.89/13. Hamburg: United Nations publication, Sales No. E.80.VIII.1, 1978.

“Press Release on the New International Rules on the Transport of Goods by Sea.” Ministry of Justice and Public Security of Norway, April 12, 2012; Author’s translation. Available at: www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/jd/press-center/pressemeldinger/2012/nye-internasjonale-regler-om-transport-a.html?id=678146.

“Status of Conventions and Model Laws.” In General Assembly, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. A/CN.9/773. Vienna, 2013.

International Institute for the Unification of Private Law. UNIDROIT principles of interna-tional commercial contracts 2010. Rome: UNIDROIT Internainterna-tional Institute for the Unification of Private Law, 2010.

Røsæg, Erik. Personal interview. October 8, 2013.

The Norwegian Maritime Law Commission. Gjennomføring Av Rotterdamreglene i Sjøloven.

Norges Offentlige Utredninger. Oslo, Norway, 2012. Author’s translation.

United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry: Department Advisory Committee on Ar-bitration Law. “1996 Report on ArAr-bitration Bill, July 1995.” ArAr-bitration International 13 (1997); 275.

In document Agricultura y desarrollo económico de Angola: análisis y soluciones de la cuestión de la tierra (página 146-152)