| Abstract | Države kao osnovni subjekti međunarodnog prava stupaju u različite vrste međunarodnih odnosa u kojima može doći do spora zbog suprotstavljenih težnji među njima. Spor može proizaći iz svakog neslaganja o nekoj točki prava ili činjenici kao i isticanjem suprotstavljenih stavova i interesa od strane dviju ili više država. Iako je arbitraža kao alternativno sredstvo rješavanja sporova moguća između bilo koja dva subjekta i u pogledu svakog spora, u međunarodnom pravu ona ipak djeluje u funkciji održavanja općeg mira pa je samim time i njen značaj naglašeniji. Na razini međunarodnog prava, arbitraža je priznata od strane većine država sudionica Prve haške mirovne konferencije iz 1899.godine kao najučinkovitije i najnepristranije sredstvo rješavanja sporova među subjektima međunarodnog prava, koji nisu okončani diplomatskim putem. Kao obvezan postupak rješavanja sporova, zagovarana je i od strane mirovnih pokreta koji su djelovali u 19.stoljeću.
Kao jedan od najprimjereniji i često primjenjivanih metoda rješavanja sporova, arbitraža rezultira donošenjem konačne odluke koja dovodi do pravosnažnog okončanja spora među državama. S obzirom da se državama ne može nametnuti obveza da na svoj spor primjene određeno sredstvo mirnog rješavanja, arbitraža se zasniva na uvjerenju stranaka da je u njihovom najboljem interesu da spor u pitanju riješe sporazumno, putem izabranog arbitražnog tijela. Kao prednosti arbitraže, u judikaturi se često ističe fleksibilnost postupka, činjenica da stranke autonomno biraju arbitre u koje imaju povjerenja i za koje smatraju da raspolažu stručnim znanjima potrebnim za donošenje konačne odluke o predmetu spora. Nadalje, sam postupak se provodi u ozračju traženja pravednog i kompromisnog rješenja budući da iz samog sporazuma među državama proizlazi i njihova spremnost da u određenoj mjeri odstupe od subjektivnih zahtjeva i iznađu rješenje koje je pravedno u pogledu obiju stranaka spora. Možemo nadodati i kako su ovakvi postupci u pravilu djelotvorniji, kraći i iziskuju manje troškova budući da dozvoljavaju određena odstupanja od formalnih procedura u odnosu na druge načine postupanja.
Iako u praksi možemo naići na niz predmeta koji su uspješno i konačno provedeni i dokončani putem arbitraže, ne možemo zanemariti slučajeve kada države nisu voljno prihvatile i izvršile tako donesenu presudu. Najistaknutiji razlog zbog kojeg bi države mogle zauzeti negativan stav prema arbitražnoj odluci su različite manjkavosti u provedenom postupku koje dovode do sumnje u nepristranost osoba koje su sudjelovale u donošenju odluke. Za razliku od sudaca pred redovnim sudovima, arbitre biraju same stranke pa ne možemo isključiti mogućnost
26
njegove naklonjenosti stranci koja ga je imenovala. U pravilu se radi o postupku koji se provodi isključivo u prvom stupnju pa je i mogućnost pobijanja arbitražnih odluka strogo ograničena.
Zaključno možemo kazati kako je na državama odluka o tome hoće li se podvrgnuti postupku rješavanja sporova kada je to potrebno i koje će sredstvo mirnog rješavanja primijeniti, a sama funkcija i smisao arbitraže će se materijalizirati tek ostvarenjem presude koja je donesena po okončanju arbitražnog postupka. Unatoč neuspjesima da se arbitraža uvede kao obvezan postupak rješavanja sporova među svim državama svijeta, u praksi se bilježi permanentan porast broja međunarodnih sporova koji se rješavaju putem arbitraže. |
| Abstract (english) | Countries, as the basic subjects of international law, enter into various types of international relations which may lead to disputes due to conflicting aspirations between them. A dispute can arise from any disagreement on some point of law or fact, as well as highlighting conflicting views and interests of sides of two or more countries. Although arbitration as an alternative means of dispute resolution is possible between any two subjects and in respect of any dispute, in international law it nevertheless acts in the function of maintaining general peace, and thus its significance is more emphasized. At the international law level, arbitration is recognized by most of the states participating in the First Hague Peace Conference from 1899 as the most effective and impartial means of resolving disputes between subjects of international law, which have not been concluded through diplomatic channels. As a mandatory resolution procedure of disputes, it was also advocated by peace movements that operated in the 19th century.
As one of the most appropriate and frequently applied methods of dispute resolution, arbitration results in the adoption of a final decision that leads to a final conclusion of the dispute between the countries. Given that countries cannot be forced to apply a certain means of peaceful resolution to their dispute, arbitration is based on the belief of the parties that it is in their best interest to resolve the dispute in question amicably, through an elected arbitration body. Jurisprudence often emphasizes the flexibility of the procedure, the fact that the parties autonomously choose arbitrators whom they trust and who they believe have the expertise necessary to make a final decision on the subject of the dispute, as advantages of arbitration. Furthermore, the procedure itself is carried out in an atmosphere of seeking a
27
fair and compromised solution, since the agreement between the countries implies their willingness to deviate to a certain extent from subjective requirements and find a solution that is fair to both parties to the dispute. We can also add that such procedures are generally more effective, shorter and require less costs since they allow certain deviations from formal procedures in relation to other ways of dealing.
Although in practice we can come across a number of cases that were successfully and finally implemented and completed through arbitration, we cannot ignore the cases when countries did not willingly accept and execute the verdict thus rendered. The most prominent reason for which countries could take a negative attitude towards the arbitration decision are various deficiencies in the conducted procedure that lead to doubts about the impartiality of the persons who participated in making the decision. Unlike judges in regular courts, arbitrators are chosen by the parties themselves, so we cannot rule out the possibility of his favoring the party that appointed him. As a rule, it is a procedure that is carried out exclusively in the first instance, so the possibility of refuting arbitration decisions is strictly limited.
To summarize, we can say that it is up to the countries to decide whether they will submit to the dispute resolution process when necessary and which means of peaceful resolution will be used, and the very function and meaning of arbitration will materialize only with the realization of the judgment that was made after the arbitration process has ended. Despite the failures to introduce arbitration as a mandatory procedure for resolving disputes among all countries of the world, in practice there is a permanent increase in the number of international disputes that are resolved through arbitration. |
