One unique feature with the International law is that unlike the other types of laws, it has no governing body or defined area. Instead, the international law brings together many and diverse customs, rules, and laws which deal with, impact, and govern the legal interactions and agreements between different businesses, organizations, nations, and their government. Apart from bringing together these different bodies, the international law also ensures that the responsibilities and rights of these bodies are considered in the interactions (Omalu, 1999)
The great body making up the international law is made up of a piecemeal combination of international accords, treaties, agreements, customs, memoranda, tribunals, protocols, charters like the United Nations Charter, World Court’s or International Court of Justice’s legal precedents and more. The international Law can be said to be largely a voluntary endeavor since it does not have a unique governing or enforcing body. Instead, the power of enforcement can come into existence when parties agree to stick to and follow the agreement made (Klager, 2011)
Because of the various applicable histories and diverse legal systems of different countries, the laws that address the international law encompass both the civil law and the common law. Common law in this case constitutes the case law. On the other hand, the civil law includes the statutes the governing body create. The application of both of these laws encompasses all the aspects of the national law to bring in the remedies, procedure, and substantive law. Under the international law, there are three major legal principles. Though these principles are not much needed, they are based principally on respect and courtesy. Among these principles are (Klager, 2011).
Principle of Comity – this principle requires that in a situation where two countries or nations are sharing the same public policy ideas, one of the nations has the obligation of submitting to the judicial decrees and laws of the other.
Act of State Doctrine – this principle acknowledges that in its own territory, a nation is sovereign. Therefore, the nation’s official domestic actions are immune to questioning by another country’s judicial bodies. Therefore, this principle prevents or stops courts from making decisions on the cases that will interfere with the foreign policy of the country(Omalu, 1999).
Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity - this principle deals with the actions, which have been brought to the judicial system of one nation in opposition to another foreign nation. consequently, this principle prevents or stops the sovereign state from going for trials in the court without consenting. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976. covers this principle in United States (Omalu, 1999).
According to the International Law, a nation can be determined as a sovereign state if it is running its government, with its own population and its own territory. There are both the international agreements and the national law, which regulate or govern international business transactions. These international business transactions include the trade, dumping, tariffs, exports/imports, contracts, offshore banking, and investments.
Although the international law has no definite governing or enforcing body, which can oversee its activities, one of the most influential and widely recognized international organizations is the United Nations. The judicial counterpart of the United Nations is the International Court of Justice.
In addition, the international law can be further divided into the private and the public. Public international law deals with the customs, laws, and rules that monitor and govern the dealings and the conduct between the citizens and their nations. Consequently, the organization that is dealing with the public international law is United Nations. On the other hand, the private international law, also called the conflict of laws deals with disputes that are existing between the private citizens coming from different nations (Omalu, 1999).
In the US, the laws governing arbitration include the contract laws stating that the agreement between two parties to hand over their conflicts for arbitration is an obligatory contract. The decisions from the arbitration process are obligatory and final. Labor law also governs arbitration in the US where it is used to solve conflicts on wages, employee compensation, and other rights. In such cases, the arbitrators act as negotiators while the conflicting parties must have knowledgeable representation. There also exists a law that brokerage firms should arbitrate with their customers to avoid the occurrence of disputes. The validity of the arbitration is however decided by the court (LII, 2012).
In Russia, arbitration is governed by arbitration act that has several provisions. Under the provisions, no court is allowed to infer in the process of arbitration except under some conditions. It is a requisite for arbitrators to reveal all information that may lead to them being doubted. Existence of such doubts gives the court the ability to challenge them. Under the provisions, it is also important that all the parties provide specific issues on the process of arbitration to avoid deviations (Yuryev & Kantyrev, 2010). All the arbitrating parties deserve the opportunity to present their cases equally without any bias.
The dispute should be handled in the United States because the laws there are specific in most areas and the outcomes are likely to be fair and justifiable. The provisions under which the arbitration process operates in Russia may call for some considerations that may make the process unfair and unjust because it may lead to the emergence of some complexities (Miccioli, 2004). In addition, the arbitrating parties in the United States law also have the chance to have a knowledgeable representation that would make the process efficient if undertaken in the US.
The advantages that the Monarch Associates have in the arbitration process are that it is able to make choices on selecting the country where the arbitration should be done and the procedures to be undertaken. Without this, they would be subject to the discrimination of the original agreement. The disadvantage is that the courts may fail to consider its choice of having the arbitration process conducted in the US because when signing the contract they agreed that arbitration process should be done in Russia (Miccioli, 2004). Giving the Monarch Associates the right to have the procedure carried out in the US will be a failure to enforce the contractual rights of Vladir Unlimited. In addition, if the process is carried out in Russia, the Monarch Associates may be subjected to unfair judgments that violate the US laws because judicial acts are non-potable and non-similar across various localities.
If Monarch Associates were to enter into future joint ventures with Russian businesses, it would be advisable that they understand the terms and conditions of the contract to make them familiar with the contract to avoid the notion of law that stands on the ground that failure to know is a violation of law. In addition, they should negotiate on where to undertake arbitration procedure in case of any dispute before signing the contract as this would give them the chance to avoid the contract should they find it inconsiderable (Miccioli, 2004). In formation of future contracts with foreign companies, Monarch associates should put in mind that signing a contract implies that they must adhere to the conditions and that trying to change any condition makes the contract voidable (Miccioli, 2004).
References
Klager, R., 2011, 'Fair and Equitable Treatment' in International Investment Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
LII. (2012). 9 usc chapter 1 - general provisions. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9/chapter-1
Miccioli, G. (2004). International commercial arbitration. Retrieved from http://www.asil.org/erg/?page=arb
Omalu, M., 1999, NAFTA and the Energy Charter Treaty: compliance with, implementation, and effectiveness of international investment agreements, Kluwer Law International, London.
Yuryev, S., & Kantyrev, K. (2010). Arbitration in russia. CMS Giude to Arbitration, 1, 671-684. Retrieved from http://eguides.cmslegal.com/pdf/arbitration_volume_I/CMS GtA_Vol I_RUSSIA.pdf