Arbitration Law in Micronesia
Arbitration in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) is not extensively codified at the federal level, leading to limited formal mechanisms for alternative dispute resolution, including arbitration.
Consequently, the enforcement and recognition of arbitration agreements and awards may vary, often relying on contractual agreements between parties and interpretations by the courts.
Key Aspects of Arbitration in FSM:
Lack of Federal Arbitration Legislation: FSM does not have comprehensive federal laws governing arbitration. This absence means there is no standardized framework for conducting arbitration proceedings or enforcing arbitration agreements and awards.
Role of Contracts: In the absence of specific legislation, the enforceability of arbitration clauses depends heavily on the contractual agreements between parties. Courts may uphold arbitration clauses embedded in contracts, treating them as separately enforceable, even if other parts of the contract are void or voidable.
Judicial Interpretation: FSM courts have addressed arbitration-related issues in various cases. For instance, in E.M. Chen & Assocs. (FSM), Inc. v. Pohnpei Port Auth., the court noted that a lawsuit constitutes a waiver of arbitration only if the party substantially invokes litigation machinery and the other party is prejudiced as a result.
International Agreements: FSM's Compact of Free Association with the United States includes provisions for arbitration to resolve disputes arising under the Compact. Should a dispute be referred to arbitration, an Arbitration Board is established to hear the dispute and render a binding decision, unless both parties agree otherwise.
Foreign Investment Considerations: The FSM Foreign Investment Act aims to encourage foreign investment in a manner that serves the nation's interests. While the Act does not explicitly address arbitration, it reflects FSM's intent to create a favorable investment climate, which may include considerations for dispute resolution mechanisms.
Implications for Parties Considering Arbitration in FSM:
Contractual Clarity: Given the lack of a comprehensive arbitration framework, parties should ensure that arbitration clauses in contracts are clear and detailed, specifying the rules, procedures, and enforcement mechanisms to be followed.
Judicial Support: While FSM courts may enforce arbitration agreements, the absence of specific legislation means that judicial support for arbitration can be unpredictable. Parties should be prepared for potential variations in court interpretations.
Alternative Forums: Considering the limited arbitration infrastructure, parties might explore alternative forums or jurisdictions with more developed arbitration frameworks for resolving disputes.
In summary, while arbitration is not extensively regulated in FSM, parties can still utilize it as a dispute resolution mechanism by carefully drafting their agreements and being mindful of the existing legal landscape.
RELATED Blog
0 comments