Here's something that I found in the LSE employee newsletter, of all places. Given the often legalistic culture of Western economies, it is no surprise that they prefer the settlement of economic disputes in formal fora. The WTO's dispute settlement mechanism exemplifies that for trade. Meanwhile, the likes of the International Court for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Court of Arbitration do the same for disputes involving foreign investors and governments. Think of Hugo Chavez's latest fulminations against international energy companies.Whatever you think of derivatives or financial instruments that derive their underlying value from that of another instrument, there is no denying their proliferation. Trade volumes have simply exploded, with notional amounts of existing contracts now amounting to the hundreds of trillions of dollars. Some even implicate them in both the US subprime crisis and the European debt crisis. Warren Buffett famously called them "financial weapons of financial destruction"--before taking out some derivatives of his own and losing money on them in the process. Ah well, I guess that it underscores their ubiquity.
But, along with their ubiquity comes the realization that these are not often technically straightforward contracts to interpret--especially the more esoteric derivatives. Hence, the lack of many nation's courts of the necessary technical understanding means that there is much scope for interpretation, especially when things go awry. From the press blurb:
A tribunal devoted to settling the world's most complex and contentious financial cases opened for business today in The Hague. Comprised of a group of judges and other international legal and market experts with more than 2,000 years of relevant collective experience, the P.R.I.M.E. Finance Disputes Centre will take on cases which are too specialised for many national or local courts.Our Professor Golden [great name, that, for what he does] explains the rationale for P.R.I.M.E. in terms of there being a need to reconcile often conflicting opinions passed down in national bodies:
It also aims to create an internationally-agreed body of law in areas where different countries often hand down conflicting rulings. It was the brainchild of Professor Jeffrey Golden of LSE's Law Department and he is chairman of its management board. The tribunal expects to handle multi-billion-dollar cases in fields such as derivatives and structured financial transactions. Its role is all the more urgent, argue its founders, because of the uncertainty created by world financial crisis.
P.R.I.M.E. Finance (the Panel of Recognised International Market Experts in Finance) is backed by the Dutch government and will hear cases at the Peace Palace in The Hague, where it will be formally opened by Jan Kees De Jager, Finance Minister of the Netherlands. Its advisory board is chaired by Lord Woolf, former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.
Professor Golden said: "This project emerged against a backdrop of financial market crisis and legal uncertainty. The amounts at stake are staggering, the legal and contractual issues are complicated and the volume of complex cases is increasing.P.R.I.M.E. sounds too close to S.U.B.P.R.I.M.E. to my tastes. All this finance makes me want to cry U.N.C.L.E., but there is definitely a niche market to be found here. Even a necessary one insofar as there has been no great climbdown in the use of these instruments.
"To date, national courts and ad hoc arbitration have been unable to produce a settled and authoritative body of law. Decisions are unpredictable, too decentralised, often taken too slowly and not always enforceable in other jurisdictions. The global marketplace needs a more innovative method of settling disputes and we believe this tribunal is the answer."
Lastly, do note that P.R.I.M.E. is not a free-floating body but one which aims to institute the arbitration rules set forth by the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
