Understanding Vital Facets of International Arbitration: Insights from a New Thesis
J.D Jeremy Zell sheds light on a critical concept in international arbitration - "excess of mandate" or "excess of authority". This dissertation explores the application of this term in US federal law and Swedish law to understand the differences and similarities between the two legal systems.
Today, many international companies and organizations continue to choose to resolve their disputes through arbitration rather than through traditional court proceedings. Arbitration essentially operates as a single instance where the parties pre-emptively waive the right to appeal arbitration awards on the merits of the dispute. However, this does not mean that the parties give up their right to a fair trial. The possibility of challenging an arbitration award exists to ensure a correct and legally secure procedure.
One of the grounds for challenging arbitral awards is something called "excess of mandate" or "excess of authority". This can happen when arbitrators make decisions based on legal facts that have not been raised by either party, for example. Despite statistics showing few successful challenges based on this ground, its use in challenges has become more frequent.
Jeremy Zell, J.D., in his thesis titled "Excess of Mandate in International Commercial Arbitration Law: A Comparison of the US Federal Arbitration Act and the Swedish Arbitration Act", explores this key concept in international arbitration as a ground for setting aside an award in international arbitration law. Specifically, it compares the application of this concept in US law by American courts with its application in Swedish law by Swedish courts.
Conclusion: No Universal Definition
Jeremy Zell's thesis is significant for several reasons. By examining the similarities between US federal law and Swedish law regarding the setting aside of arbitral awards due to excess of authority, the thesis highlights important differences and similarities between different legal systems. This provides insight into how the concept of "excess of mandate" is interpreted and applied in different jurisdictions.
The study concludes that while "excess of mandate" is treated as a widespread international term in international arbitration, its application significantly varies across legal systems. This variation is due, in part, to the different purposes of legislators in introducing the concept into national law and the diverse practices and traditions within each jurisdiction. Therefore, the thesis questions the idea of a universal definition of the term.
By showcasing the diverse interpretations and applications of "excess of mandate" between different legal systems, Zell’s thesis aids in promoting a deeper understanding of the complex aspects of international arbitration. It emphasizes the importance of considering legislative purposes and the different traditions of legal systems when analyzing legal concepts, valuable insights for courts, arbitrators, academics, and practitioners.
Read "Excess of Mandate in International Commercial Arbitration Law: A Comparison of the US Federal Arbitration Act and the Swedish Arbitration Act"
Jeremy Zell's profile page
About the Public defence
Opponent was Professor Catherine Rogers, Bocconi University.
The examining committee consisted of Professor Lars Heuman, Stockholm
University, Professor Stacie Strong Emory University, and Professor Peter
Westberg, Lund University.
Supervisors was Professor Patricia Shaughnessy, Stockholm University, and Patrik Schöldström, Judge of Appeal at Svea Hovrätt.
Text: Natalie Oliwsson
Last updated: January 10, 2024
Source: Department of Law