In the last two decades Europe and other parts of the world saw the emergence of international commercial courts. Countries established them for economic reasons, but with different ideas on how they would contribute to the economy. Gulf countries and Kazakhstan wanted to offer foreign investors independent and neutral courts as part of their financial centres, Singapore and the Netherlands wished to aid their legal sectors, which are an important part of the countries’ economy, Germany, France and China wanted to provide a forum for solving regional disputes. When designing these courts, countries looked to international arbitration and the commercial chamber of London’s court, which traditionally decide most international commercial disputes. Although practically none of the special features are present in all international commercial courts, literature still recognises some as a feature of these courts. Some of the most common are, for example, the use of English in proceedings, the possibility of being represented and judged by foreigners, emphasis on party autonomy in terms of jurisdiction as well as co-creation of proceedings and generally adopting features from common law systems. Typically, the courts have a relatively narrow jurisdiction, which is often dependent on a choice of court agreement. This means that the courts have to gain a good reputation and market their services, because they can’t decide cases without the parties’ say-so. Initially the going is easier for courts that have jurisdiction even without the parties’ agreement, but even this is no guarantee that a large volume of cases will reach the court. The establishment of such courts has been accompanied by criticism, which, among other things, points out that a court can only be a public institution that provides justice as a public good, and not a justice-selling private entity.
|
