In Memoriam. Сборник воспоминаний, статей, иных материалов
Шрифт:
M.B.: May I ask about China? Did you recommend Sweden as a place for arbitration to China as well? After you had decided upon Stockholm?
S.L.: I don’t remember exactly what negotiations we had with the Chinese colleagues at that time. Maybe it was important that we made such an agreement with American Arbitration Association, yes, but we published many information about that agreement with Americans and it was influential for other countries at that time. I was an arbitrator in China, in Beijing, and it was interesting, it was a dispute between a Greek company and a Chinese company and the Greek company appointed me as arbitrator in that case. And I did not know that Greek company, never met them before, and during coffee break, I asked the lawyers from the Greek company, why they decided to choose me as arbitrator in that case, to which I had no relationship, and so on. And the answer was very interesting. They told me, I’m on the list of arbitrators in Chinese arbitration court, and a Greek lawyer told me “You know why? We looked through the list of arbitrators, and you were the only one from the country where the religion is good for us.” All of a sudden, of course, yeah, that was the reason why they used me. Not because I am an expert, no, that was of second importance. The first importance was orthodox religion, that was the most important for them.
M.B.: From your perspective, what were the most important elements of the optional clause agreement? What were the most important elements and what role has it played for international trade?
S.L.: There is a possibility to choose arbitrators in that case, to have arbitration in a certain place. That is an important element of each arbitration agreement. And so, the difficulty, when we consider that clause, the possibility was that if there was a contract between Soviet and American parties, what our company propose with regard to arbitration: “Let’s go to Moscow. Let’s have arbitration in Moscow.” And what American party says: “No, let’s have arbitration in New York, according to the rules of American Arbitration Association.” “Okay,” they say, “Let’s go to London.” “Oh, no, no, no, London and American law and practice are almost the same,” say our companies. “Let’s go to Bulgaria. Oh, you don’t like Bulgaria, let’s go to Hungarian Arbitration.” “Oh, no, let’s go to Vienna Arbitration,” and so on. What to do? It was a very difficult situation. And now there is a clause which is recommended by the Russian Chamber of Commerce on the one side, and the American Arbitration Association in the other side, and approved by the Swedish Arbitration Institute. So it is a good clause. So it is very good for you, for the parties. Put that into the contract. And it is very good, it is not something that the clause is very important by itself, it is just the possibility for the parties to resolve dispute, which is so obvious and very difficult to overcome. “Why,” Soviet company says, “Why we should go to New York?”. And the Americans say: “Why we should go to Moscow? No.” And how to overcome it. And it is a good instrument. So that was the most important reason why that clause was important. But otherwise it is done very well, and it is acceptable for both parties.
S.L.: I remember another arbitrator with whom we had arbitration for, I believe, 3 days. He came to our place of arbitration, said “Hello, hello, good morning, good morning,” and closed his eyes. And during the lunch time, he opened his eyes and we had lunch together. Then we resumed arbitration, he closed his eyes till the evening. And in the evening, he said “Thank you, thank you, thank you.” I cannot immediately recall his name. It was long ago. <…>
M.B.: We were talking about Gunnar Lagergren, Mr. Gunnar Lagergren. Can you recall any memories of him? Would you be willing to share them with us?
S.L.: Well, it was long ago that we had arbitration with him, but he was the presiding arbitrator. He was very, very quiet and we had some discussion, me and American co-arbitrator, and he was listening, listening, listening to us, and it was actually the arbitration according to the optional clause. American arbitrator, me, and he as presiding arbitrator in Stockholm, in his office. I remember his office. And he was hearing us, he was hearing us, and finally he did not propose any award when we finished the proceedings. And he said “I’ll send you my proposals how this dispute should be resolved.” Of course, we were not particularly satisfied, because I wanted to come to Moscow, and to say: “We have won the case.” And I believe the same situation was with my American co-partner in that case, but we accepted that. And then he sent his proposal, his draft award, a very brief how it should be resolved. And he said there, how he would motivate all the propositions and so on and so forth. And for me, that award was satisfactory. I was not sure about my American co-arbitrator partner in that case, but I wrote that I accepted. So, I believe that American arbitrator decided to agree, subject of certain exceptions. But finally, it was a very good award. As I can recall so many years later. But sometimes it happens, that of course Russian regulations sometimes are very strong, and to disregard them would not be an appropriate approach, and if they are disregarded, then it creates certain difficulties.
M.B.: What was Mr. Lagergren’s style as an arbitrator?
S.L.: His style, I believe it was traditional style, it was a possibility to give opportunity to each party to speak as long as they want. Not to interrupt, not to say “Oh, let us stop, you have talked about that.” No. “Okay, let them go, let them go, let them go, let them go.” So it was just a very liberal approach. But I believe that is the situation with all Swedish chairmen, presiding arbitrators whom I’ve met, that it’s just very liberal approach. Each party is given opportunity to speak as long as they wish.
M.B.: Do you have any other memories to share with us about Mr. Lagergren? An episode you recall? With your cooperation with Gunnar.
S.L.: Well, you asked me to recall that? I hope my recollection is correct. We had a meeting with American colleagues in New York. I believe that is correct. There are so many conferences, meetings and so on in various parts of the world, sometimes there is a mixture, but I believe that is correct. We had a meeting in New York. And it was till late evening we finished. And he said “Let us go to my ship, which is in New York port.” His own ship? And we went there. There were 3 Soviet participants of that conference, and from Sweden there were also 3, and 2 Americans, who decided to accompany us to that visit. And we came to the ship. The ship arrived to New York, and it was discharged already. And there was only the master of the ship who met us in the ship. Said, “Hello, hello, hello, hello.” And the ship was empty. And he showed us, I don’t know why it was so, he wanted us to show that ship, I don’t know what was actually the reason. And then it was not the end. And after that, he said “Let us go to my law firm. Not my, but with which I cooperate here in New York.” We went there. It was late evening. Maybe ten hours. And we came to that building. I cannot remember what was the name of that company which had that building. And there were many people moving there, in this law firm. And I asked him: “They are working so late? They are not slaves here, no?” He said: “No, they are working. You believe that it is a Russian village in the Russian sense? That I have arranged for them to work so long? No, they are working because they had to work.” “Okay.” That was an episode. I believe I’m right recalling these episodes. But it was so long ago. And then, sometimes later, we had an arbitration meeting with him. And he had an assistant, a young man, whom I met later.
M.B.: Thank you so much. I would like to move on from the details to the bigger picture. Do you think that trade in between the Soviet and the Western countries had an influence on the development of Perestroika and Glasnost in the Soviet Union? Was there a relationship, you think? Did trade play any role in that development in the Soviet Union?
S.L.: Well, Perestroika is a special period in our history. And to say that it was connected with international trade, yes. It is true. Because there was actually the decision to limit the principle of state monopoly of foreign trade, and to give to parties to more actively participate in international trade. That was very important, of course. But, in my view, now it is a history, but in my view, more important was political aspects which influenced that development in Russian political situation. But of course, in my view, all aspects are important when we talk about historical developments here, and cultural aspect was also very, very important in that respect.
M.B.: Trade and arbitration, I imagine, must have been difficult during the Cold War?
S.L.: Yeah. And I said that this decision with Americans to have arbitration in Stockholm was a very important aspect in this way. Yeah. To say: “Well, let’s have arbitration in New York.” “No, no, let’s go to Moscow” or otherwise. That was very important to find something as development in commercial relationships between Soviets and Americans at that time. It was very, very important, indeed.
M.B.: Because even during the Cold War, trade relationships still flourished in between Russia and the West.
S.L.: Yeah. Because it is a necessary aspect for development of each country. And this new system of economic sanctions against Russia is something terrible, I say, unjustified and legally incorrect, because such things may be adopted by the Security Council of United Nations. That is what is called sanctions. Otherwise, what is these sanctions adopted by European countries and United States are contrary to the principle of normal international trade, and in my view that is inappropriate way. And it is bad for both sides. Of course, for Russia, and for other countries. And I hope this situation will be overcome.
M.B.: Is it fair to say that without arbitration there can be no trade, and without trade there can be no friendly development?
S.L.: Well, that is too strong. Foreign trade can develop without arbitration, and before arbitration appeared there was foreign trade in old time between countries. Without foreign trade, arbitration would not mean anything if it is arbitration for commercial disputes, of course, that is true, but I would not put that so strong. I agree that arbitration is important for foreign trade. That would be in my view the most appropriate appreciation of the role of this institute.