Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF MARITIME ARBITRATORS
Summaries of some of the papers presented
The Second International Congress of Maritime Arbitrators took place at the Apollon Palace Hotel, Kavouri, near Athens, from March 6 to March 10 inclusive. The Congress was organised by the Greek Productivity Centre, a member of the European Association of National Productivity Centres, in co-operation with the London Maritime Arbitrators’ Association, the Union of Greek Shipowners, the Greek Chamber of Shipping, the Greek National Tourist Organisation and the Piraeus Marine Club. We reproduce below summaries of some of the papers delivered at the various working sessions of the Congress.
★ ★ ★
At the first working session under the chairmanship of Mr. Cedric Barclay (U.K.), Mr. Coccalis (Greece) delivered a paper on “Maritime Arbitration as seen by the Disputant.” In his address, the author made some criticism of maritime arbitration as presently conducted. In particular, he levied criticism at the fact that there are a fairly large number of arbitration centres in the world (e.g. London, New York, Peking, Moscow, Hamburg) where the arbitration tribunals apply domestic law. Mr. Coccalis made a strong plea for a common source of law backed up by an International Maritime Arbitrators Centre, such being instigated by the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (IMCO). IMCO should have a standing International Maritime Arbitrators’ Commission, with the following functions (inter alia):—
- 1. To co-ordinate the activities of local arbitrators’ associations.
- 2. To establish a body of binding precedent which might be followed by local maritime arbitrators.
- 3. To issue certificates that maritime arbitration awards have been properly made and that they are final awards, such being used as powerful weapons as regards the enforcement in local Courts.
A response to this paper was made by Mr. Van Gelder, of the United States, in which the following points were made:—
- 1. While it might be idealistic and desirable to seek an International Maritime Arbitration Centre, such would not work in practice and would possibly create more problems than it solved.
- 2. In creating binding precedent, in the case of an International Maritime Arbitration Centre, such would be created and written by bureaucrats who perhaps were not the best persons to do this.
- 3. In order to make an international centre work it would have to be accepted by all (the majority would not be enough) and this is virtually impossible to achieve.
- 4. The nations and peoples regard their own laws with considerable pride, and no one system presently can satisfy all, therefore it is better, for the present at least, to leave arbitration procedures with different approaches in various parts of the world.
- 5. A continued exchange of views and study of every other system with a view to a better understanding of the differences.
61