Onder 4.6. Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie van Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten en van Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba 15 november 2016

128. In this regard, the Arbitral Tribunal observes that the principle of convenience and efficiency cannot properly be invoked, as a paramount legal reason, to justify an excess of jurisdiction, such as that perpetrated by the LA Tribunal. Itis, of course, an attractive pragmatic argument always to invoke ‘convenience’, ‘efficiency’ or even, as a last resort, a discretionary form of ‘common sense’; and that argument would be readily acceptable to economists. However, arbitrators applying contractual provisions, applicable laws and rules of law are not economists; and the law of arbitration, at least in Switzerland, is not based on ad hoc pragmatic compromises but on firm and settled legal principles operating under the rule of law. The latter approach respects party autonomy, the parties' consent and the New York Convention; it makes for procedural certainty and legal predictability; and it more readily satisfies the legitimate expectations of users of Swiss arbitration. The former approach may seek to render summary justice in one particular case, but sow the seeds of legal chaos for others to come. Moreover, the long and troubled history of the Parties' dispute in this particular case, spread over several legal systems over so many years with such significant expenses and delays, is proof enough of the extreme dangers of invoking 'efficiency' and 'convenience' as a sufficient reason to disregard basic legal principles. Not infrequently, as here, an apparent short cut takes the longest road.

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/a1fc1e9d6fa0d16354ed916f131d717a3c85767a1ab93965c29c2cff4367be36 | shasum -a 256