Xalqaro Xususiy Huquqda Erk Muxtoriyati (Party Autonomy) Prinsipining Konseptual Rivojlanishi
Abstract views: 129
/ 
PDF downloads: 56
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.35Keywords:
Huquqlar kafolati, arbitraj, arbitraj kelishuv bitimi, nizolarni muqobil hal etish mexanizmlari, ishtirokchilar, islohotlarAbstract
Mazkur maqola xalqaro xususiy huquqda erk muxtoriyati prinsipi muhim prinsiplardan ekanligi, prinsipdan taraflar o‘zlarining fuqarolik, oilaviy, biznes va boshqa huquqiy munosabatlarda foydalanishi mumkinligi, taraflar uchun shartnomalar tuzishda o‘z xohishlari asosida harakatlanishlariga hamda taraflarning xohishlari huquqiy munosabatlarda birlamchi ahamiyat kasb etishiga imkon berishi kabi masalalarni ko‘rib chiqishga qaratilgan. Prinsip xalqaro xususiy huquq ishtirokchilari uchun nizolarni hal etishda sud hokimiyati vakolatidan voz kechib nizolarni muqobil hal etish mexanizmlari asosida hal etish imkoniyatini ham ta’minlab beradi. Bu esa prinsipning rivojlanishidagi revolyutsion qadamlaridan biri bo‘lib hisoblanadi. Shuning uchun ham prinsip xalqaro xususiy huquqda shartnomalashuvchi taraflar huquqlari hamda erkinliklarining kafolati garovi deb ham yuritiladi. Prinsip bugungi kunda eng keng tarqalgan prinsip bo‘lib hisoblanishi prinsipni hamisha shunday bo‘lganligidan dalolat bermaydi. Shuningdek, ushbu maqolada prinsipning vujudga kelishi va rivojlanishiga oid konsepsion qarashlarini o‘rganib bu fikrlar prinsipga qanday ta’sir o‘tkazganligini muhokama qilingan.
References
Mills A. Party Autonomy in Private International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp.580.
Bermann P. Global legal pluralism: a jurisprudence of law beyond borders, Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp.340.
Basedow J. The Hague Principles on Choice of Law: their addressees and impact, Uniform Law Review, 2017, pp.304.
Bantekas I. The Foundations of Arbitrability in International Commercial Arbitration, Yearbook of Private International Law, 2003, pp.203.
Beaumont P. Hague choice of court agreements: background, negotiations, analysis and current status, Journal of Private International Law, 2009, pp.125.
Hook M. The choice of law agreements as a reason for exercising jurisdiction, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2017, pp.315.
Bermann P. “International standards” as a choice of law option in International Commercial Arbitration, American Review of international Arbitration, 2016, no.27, pp. 217-220.
Blessing M. Mandatory rules of law versus Party Autonomy in International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, 1997, no 14, pp. 35-36.
Bonomi A. Overriding mandatory provisions in the Rome I Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contracts, American Review of international Arbitration, 2017, no.10, pp.23-25.
Hanotiau B. The law applicable to arbitrability, Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 2016, no 9, pp.40-42.
Harris J. Contractual freedom in the conflict of laws, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2003, no 12, pp.130-132.
Voser N. Mandatory Rules of law applicable in International Commercial Arbitration, American Review of International Arbitration, 1997, no 11, pp.319-321.
Tu G. Contractual Conflicts in the People’s Republic of China, Journal of Private International Law, 2011, no 27, pp. 653-657.
Tu G. The Hague Choice of Court Convention: a Chinese Perspective, American Journal of Comparative Law, 2007, no 55, pp. 347-349.
Wilderspin M. The Rome I Regulation: Communitarization and Modernisation of Rome Convention, ERA Forum, no 9, pp. 259-261.
Wolff M. Private International Law, Clarendon Press, 2nd edition, 1950, pp. 456.
Teitz L. E. The Hague Choice of Court Convention: validating Party Autonomy and providing an alternative to Arbitration, American Journal of Comparative Law, no 53, pp.543-545.
Schneewind J.B. The invention Autonomy: A history of Modern moral philosophy, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 460.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Gulsanam Khatamjonova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
