Arbitration Agreement Croatia Slovenia

By letter of 31 July 2015, the Republic of Croatia informed the arbitral tribunal that it had decided to denounce the arbitration agreement and informed it of the reasons thereof. On July 22, the media published transcripts of conversations that appeared to show that a member of the tribunal had repeatedly discussed a lobbying strategy focused on the benefits of the dispute with the Slovenian representative. These transcripts show that information from confidential hearings of the arbitral tribunal was disclosed, that an influence plan was jointly developed to influence the remaining judges, that memoranda were added to the file after the end of the hearing, and that other abuses were committed. They also show that the rules of procedure of the tribunal established by the agreement, the optional rules of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the fundamental principles of international law and the principle of equity had been seriously violated. Firstly, the EU`s role in drawing up the arbitration agreement was essential, far beyond the simple role of providing good services, and not only explains the political link between the settlement of the common border with Slovenia and Croatia`s accession to the EU. Indeed, the European Commission and the Swedish Presidency of the Council of the EU played a very active role as mediator of the Ombudsman in the design phase of the arbitration agreement, the legal mandate for the subsequent judicial procedure of international arbitration. There is empirical evidence that the Commission drew up the arbitration agreement in close cooperation with the parties and that the final phase of preparation would hardly have been possible without the competent support of the Swedish Presidency, which signed the arbitration agreement with the parties. The recent arbitration between Croatia and Slovenia has given rise to many controversies. Nevertheless, the procedure is a welcome step in the right direction with regard to the exercise and use of arbitration procedures as an intergovernmental quasi-diplomatic dispute settlement mechanism. Such an approach to arbitration is reflected both in the parties` arbitration agreement and in the final award of the arbitral tribunal in that case. The article first explains the proper use of intergovernmental arbitration, in its original form, as a quasi-diplomatic process.

This process results in a final and binding decision that respects international law, but does not necessarily rely on it. . . .